A recent federal court decision demonstrates the potential complexity of technology professional liability (E&O) insurance coverage and claims. In this case, the court determined that no coverage was provided under the insured's GL policy nor under the insured's technology E&O policy. The case, titled Eyeblaster, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co. (Chubb) (see here), involved an internet advertising firm (Eyeblaster) that allegedly intentionally downloaded spyware to a third party's computer (Sefton's) causing damages. Excellent summaries of this case can be found...
Read...Related Headlines
- Does an application for flood insurance payments estop an insured from later claiming wind damage?posted 241 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Juror in Kodrin v. State Farm: 'we all agreed ... that the insurer didn't do right by the insureds and they were treatedposted 237 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Juror in Kodrin v. State Farm: 'we all agreed ... that the insurer didn't do right by the insureds and they were tposted 237 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Kodrin v. State Farm: wind vs. water trial underway in Louisiana federal courtposted 237 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- That hazards of insurers' taking a Katrina case to trialposted 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- The hazards of insurers' taking a Katrina case to trialposted 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
The hazards of insurers' taking a Katrina case to trial
posted 235 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Yet more anti-concurrent cause misunderstandingposted 245 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Comment on a couple Katrina casesposted 244 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Grand jury seeks hard drive, firm suspects Scruggs of violating judge's order and tipping off U.S. Attorneyposted 239 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog