DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Major insurer does not have to cover restaurant chain’s data breach

Posted on June 4, 2016 by Dissent

Lyle Adriano reports that some of P.F. Chang’s breach-related costs are not covered by its insurance:

A federal court ruled that Chubb Ltd. does not have to reimburse P.F. Chang’s for costs the restaurant chain charged by its credit card processor under its cyber policy.

[…]

The Federal Court ultimately concluded that on several counts that Federal Insurance is not obligated to reimburse the charges, rationalizing that Bank of America did not suffer from P.F. Chang’s data breach and therefore did not suffer a “privacy injury” the policy could cover.

“The court agrees with Federal; (Bank of America) did not sustain a privacy Injury itself, and therefore cannot maintain a valid claim for injury against Chang’s,” said the ruling.

Read more on Insurance Business America.

When I see stories like this one, I feel particularly concerned for small and medium-sized businesses who really may have no idea what their policies don’t cover and could be totally wiped out by the costs of a breach if their insurer doesn’t cover some things. If you carry cyberinsurance for breach costs, do you know if your policy would cover reimbursement to your card issuer? If you don’t know for absolute sure, this might be a good time to check.

Category: Business SectorCommentaries and Analyses

Post navigation

← NM: UNM Hospital notifying patients of data breach
NL: Confidential data stolen from police officer’s car →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Credit Control Corporation data allegedly from 9.1 million consumers listed for sale on forum
  • Copilot AI Bug Could Leak Sensitive Data via Email Prompts
  • FTC Provides Guidance on Updated Safeguards Rule
  • Sentara Health terminates remote employees after realizing they couldn’t be sure who was doing the work.
  • Hackers Break Into Car Sharing App, 8.4 Million Users Affected
  • Cyberattack pushes German napkin company into insolvency
  • WMATA Train Operators Arrested in Health Care Fraud Scheme
  • Washington Post investigating cyberattack on journalists, WSJ reports
  • Resource: State Data Breach Notification Laws – June 2025
  • WestJet investigates cyberattack disrupting internal systems

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Vermont signs Kids Code into law, faces legal challenges
  • Data Categories and Surveillance Pricing: Ferguson’s Nuanced Approach to Privacy Innovation
  • Anne Wojcicki Wins Bidding for 23andMe
  • Would you — or wouldn’t you?
  • New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
  • Synthetic Data and the Illusion of Privacy: Legal Risks of Using De-Identified AI Training Sets
  • States sue to block the sale of genetic data collected by DNA testing company 23andMe

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net

Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.