No "Publication" of IBM's Lost Employee Data, So No Cyberinsurance Coverage


The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that IBM was not entitled to insurance for magnetic tapes that fell off a truck since there was "no evidence that anyone ever accessed the information on the tapes or that their loss caused injury to any IBM employee." In the case of Recall Total Information Management Inc. et al. v. Federal Insurance Co. et al the court unanimously affirmed a lower court ruling that the Appellate Court:

…concluded that the loss of the computer tapes did not constitute a ''personal injury'' as defined by the policies because there had been no ''publication'' of the information stored on the tapes resulting in a violation of a person's right to privacy.

Judy Greenwald reported for that a contractor for IBM:

…lost the computer tapes when they fell from its truck onto the roadside by a highway exit ramp in New York and were retrieved by an unknown individual in February 2007, according to court documents. The 130 computer data tapes, which contained personal information on more than 500,000 current and former IBM employees, were never recovered.

Another interesting case where cyberinsurance will not apply, but had the IBM employee data been published there would have been coverage.

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.


AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top