Insurance Groups Support Travelers In 11th Circuit Breach Row
Time 3 Minute Read

In January we wrote about Rosen Millennium Inc.’s (“Millennium”) appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, whereby Millennium took the position that a Florida federal court ignored well established Florida insurance law when it ruled that St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. had no duty to defend it against a multimillion dollar claim arising out of a 2016 cybersecurity breach.

Two insurance trade groups, the Complex Insurance Claims Litigation Association and the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, have since decided to join the party and have filed a brief of Amici Curiae in the Eleventh Circuit outlining their support of St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. The insurance trade groups urge the Eleventh Circuit to affirm the lower court’s decision that St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. has no duty to defend Millennium’s subsidiary against data breach allegations.

Specifically, the insurance trade groups ask the court to uphold findings that the “personal injury offense” provisions of Millennium’s CGL policies are limited to coverage for intentional acts taken by an insured as opposed to actions taken by third parties. In the underlying case, it is undisputed that the intentional act at issue, the release of private data, arose from the acts of third-party hackers even though the data was taken from the insured. Thus, the insurance trade groups are asking the Eleventh Circuit to affirm the lower court’s finding, which greatly limits the scope of coverage under the applicable CGL policies.

The insurance trade groups take the position that an insured’s failure to safeguard information, including the failure to prevent a third party breach of data systems for which it is responsible, cannot covered by the language of traditional CGL policies despite the broad language of the policies. The insurance trade groups go on to discuss specialty cyber polices that are available on the market in an effort to support its position that traditional CGL policies are not meant to cover claims like the one at issue, despite the fact that the policies are supposed to apply more broadly and do not state that they are restricted to non-cyber events.

The trade groups’ positions further evidence the importance for policyholders to analyze their insurance policies to fully understand the scope of coverage granted therein. As technology continues to evolve, policyholders will face additional risks that may not be adequately covered by traditional insurance policies or which may be contested by insurers under those policies. Given the spike of cyber liabilities claims in the recent years, it behooves any policyholder to reach out to experienced coverage counsel in order to ensure adequate coverage is provided under their insurance policies in order to avoid situations like the one faced by Millennium.

  • Partner

    Recognized as a leader for insurance dispute resolution by Chambers USA and recommended for his advice to policyholders by Legal 500, Walter focuses his practice on complex insurance recovery, counseling, arbitrations ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 2 Minute Read

The New York Office of the Attorney General recently reached a $500,000 settlement with a New York orthopedics practice for allegedly failing to protect patient and employee information in light of a 2023 data breach.

Time 2 Minute Read

On December 16, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission announced an enforcement action against Illusory Systems Inc., a Utah-based company doing business as Nomad, following a major data breach in which hackers stole $186 million from consumers.

Time 2 Minute Read

Nishith Desai Associates reports that on November 13, 2025, India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology enacted India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Rules, 2025, which operationalize India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023.

Time 5 Minute Read

A New Mexico Court of Appeals decision illustrates that when a policy term is undefined and ambiguous, the term must be interpreted liberally and in favor of coverage. In Kane v. Syndicate 2623-623 Lloyd’s of London, 2025 WL 1733046 (N.M. Ct. App. June 16, 2025), the court affirmed summary judgment for a policyholder and held that a cyber liability policy afforded coverage for the policyholder’s loss that resulted from a post-breach fraudulent funds transfer because the preposition “for” was broad enough to afford coverage for a third party claim resulting from a security breach.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page