“P.F. Chang’s was significant for the fact that the court used a lot of the same principles, tools, and resources that it would use to decide a standard-lines or surplus-lines coverage case,” Jonathan L. Schwartz, a partner in Goldberg Segalla’s Global Insurance Services and Cyber Risk Practice Groups, told Law360 in an article that recaps a selection of the most significant insurance decisions of 2016 so far. “We’re likely going to see a lot of these data breach coverage disputes play out over the next few years, so an understanding of the framework courts will use to decide them benefits us all.”
Jonathan’s comments regard an Arizona federal court’s ruling earlier in the summer that the Asian food chain isn’t covered under a cyberinsurance policy for close to $2 million in fees MasterCard charged its payment processor in the wake of a large data breach.
In the end, P.F. Chang’s coverage claim was thwarted by exclusions in its cyber policy — a “familiar interpretation standard” to which the courts will likely continue to refer as disputes involving data breaches unfold in the years to come.