Cert Grant in FCRA Case Could Impact Cyber Coverage

News today that the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in Spokeo v. Robins, which tests whether Congress can confer "standing" by giving consumers a private right of action under a federal law, and entitlement to statutory damages, even if the consumer cannot prove any concrete damages.  The Court will review a decision by the Ninth Circuit that said, essentially, "yes" to that question.

In Robins, the plaintiff claimed to have been harmed when Spokeo, an online directory that aggregates publicly-available personal information, published inaccurate information about him on the site.  The plaintiff contended that in doing so Spokeo violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), but he could not prove specific damages tied to the inaccurate information.  Instead, he claimed entitlement under the FCRA to "statutory damages" (typically set at $1,000 per violation).  Robins sued on behalf of a class of people -- allegedly numbering in the thousands -- who were similarly aggrieved by Spokeo's failure to report accurate information. The trial court dismissed the suit based on the constitutional requirements that a plaintiff demonstrate "standing" based on "actual or imminent harm."  The Ninth Circuit, however, reversed, reasoning that Congress could create a statutory right and in essence create standing by providing a private right of action for violation of that right.  The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether that view of Congress' power is correct.

What does this have to do with cyber-insurance?  Plenty. For one thing, the decision may undermine state laws that have fueled the market for robust first-party cyber coverage.  Many consumer advocates believe that data-breach notification laws will be ineffective at forcing businesses to "fess up" when a breach happens unless the breach law contains a private right of action with a small statutory damages component, modeled on FCRA.  Washington's data-breach law, recently amended, is just such a law.  The spread of such laws has driven the market for cyber policies that will cover not just the cost of  notifications but also for liability protection relating to breach notification.  And just as many predict that  legislation working its way through Congress allowing companies to confidentially share data on cyber breaches may eventually bring rates down, state legislation has had an impact on premiums that may be blunted by the Court's decision in Robins.

Beyond breach-notification laws, the way that the Supreme Court approaches the "actual or imminent harm" question could impact how courts handle data breach consumer lawsuits that do not rely on any federal statute but instead are based on common-law grounds, such as negligence or fiduciary duty.  Some courts have dismissed consumer lawsuits that fail to allege specific harm arising from a breach, while other courts have allowed those suits to proceed at least into the discovery phase.  The Supreme Court might take this opportunity to address "standing" more generally, leading to fewer consumer class actions, which could further result in lower premiums for cyber coverage.

Oregon Bill That Would Assist Insurers In "Lost-Policy" Battles Dies

Those of us in the coverage game who deal with "long-tail" claims -- that is, claims under older occurrence-based policies -- routinely have to deal with a common problem: the policies are gone.  Businesses destroy old records, change hands, have a flood, etc., and the old insurance policies are gone.  Professional records managers are now trained to keep insurance policies forever and many have digitized their insurance archives.  But for those without such an archive the "lost-policy" battle with the insurance company (and often multiple carriers) can turn into a real bruiser.

This year the insurance industry proposed an innocuous-seeming bill in the Oregon legislature that would have permitted insurance companies to unilaterally cease sending the full copy of a new insurance policy to the policyholder, instead giving the policyholder a link to the policy forms hosted on the carrier's website.  The bill would have only required the carrier to keep the link live for the term of the policy, and would have only required the policy to be archived for ten years.  This bill appeared to have been part of a nationwide push by industry to save money, and trees (a laudable goal), by delivering policies electronically.  The difference in the Oregon bill, however, was that it did not permit policyholders to choose not to participate in the new scheme - every other piece of legislation that I could find required the policyholder to "opt in" before the carrier was excused from doing things the "old-fashioned" way.

I penned a letter to the chair of a Senate committee hearing this bill, available here, and testified against the bill.  More detail on the problems that I saw with the bill, and in particular the further leg-up that it would give insurers in future lost-policy battles, is in the letter.  The bill stalled in committee and died with the end of the short session.

This is a good example of how even small, seemingly insignificant, and possibly well-intentioned changes to the insurance code can have unforeseen repercussions in insurance coverage disputes.  Hopefully now that the policyholder bar is a bit more organized we can engage the industry on every change, not just the big ones.

Oregon Supreme Court Will Review Landmark Case on Stipulated Judgments

The Oregon Supreme Court has accepted review in the landmark Brownstone Homes Condo Ass'n v. Brownstone Forest Heights LLC case, on the issue of stipulated judgments.  To simplify greatly, the case involves a developer (the LLC) that was sued along with one of its subcontractors, A&T Siding, by the condo association.  A&T was denied coverage by its carrier, and so entered into a stipulated covenant judgment with the association in which it assigned its coverage claim against its carrier, Capitol.  The condo association then attempted to enforce the judgment as a garnishee on Capitol.  The trial court denied recourse, holding that: 1) under the "Stubblefield" rule Capitol had no liability because the covenant did not leave any potential unsatisfied liability; and 2) ORS 31.825 (which permits assignments) did not control because that statute requires that the assignment take place after judgment was entered, and here the assignment and judgment happened at the same time.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that a garnishment proceeding by an injured claimant is subject to Stubblefield because of the Reuter decision, which limited the rights of a garnishee to those held by the primary defendant.  The court also agreed that ORS 31.825 requires a specific sequence in a stipulated judgment with assignment and that unless the proper sequence is followed, the statute has no application.  Finally, the court held that a good-faith-cooperation requirement in the agreement did not make the agreement Stubblefield-compliant with regard to the insured's continued exposure to liability.

The Oregon Supreme Court identified the following issues for appeal (I'm paraphrasing): 1) does Reuter really mean that Stubblefield applies to garnishment proceedings?; 2) does ORS 31.825 require that judgment-covenant proceed in a specific order; and 3) most tantalizingly, if the Court of Appeals were right on #1 and #2, should Stubblefield be abrogated?  The alignment of the parties and interests of the counsel pursuing the appeal are somewhat odd, so amicus participation seems likely.  This will be one to watch in the fall as briefing comes in.

Oregon Senate Committee Makes "Do Pass" Recommendation for Insurance UTPA Bill

Reports of the demise of HB 3160, which would remove the exemption of insurance from claims under Oregon's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), may have been wrong.  The Oregon Senate Consumer and Small Business Committee has made a "do pass" recommendation on the bill.  However, the measure has been referred to the Rules committee.  As the legislative session winds down, predictions had been that the opposition of small-town insurance brokers, in-state carriers like The Standard, and Associated Oregon Industries was going to again spell defeat for this common-sense measure.  Hopefully proponents will succeed in pulling out a victory in the coming days.

HB 3160 :: Oregon Legislature Bill Tracker - Your Government - The Oregonian:

'via Blog this'

Speaker of Oregon House Signs SB 814, Amending Oregon Environmental Insurance Claims Law

SB 814 :: Oregon Legislature Bill Tracker - Your Government - The Oregonian:

Now all that remains is for the Governor to sign, and the largest change in Oregon insurance law (in potential dollar value) in recent memory will kick in.  Check back for a full analysis of the potential ramifications of this new law on policyholders, particularly those involved in the Portland Harbor Superfund Site.
'via Blog this'