Medidata Sols. Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

July 6, 2018, Decided

17-2492-cv

Opinion

 [*117]  SUMMARY ORDER

ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of said District Court be and it hereby is AFFIRMED.

Defendant-Appellant Federal Insurance Company appeals from an August 10, 2017 judgment entered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.) granting summary judgment to Plaintiff-Appellant Medidata Solutions Inc. in this insurance coverage dispute, and awarding Medidata $5,841,787.37 in damages and interest. We assume the parties' familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and specification of issues for review.

] "Our review of a district court's grant of summary judgment is de novo." Globecon Grp., LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 434 F.3d 165, 170 (2d Cir. 2006). ] "An insurance contract is interpreted to give effect to the intent [**2]  of the parties as expressed in the clear language of the contract." Beazley Ins. Co., Inc. v. ACE Am. Ins. Co., 880 F.3d 64, 69 (2d Cir. 2018) (brackets omitted). ] "As with any contract, unambiguous provisions of an insurance contract must  [*118]  be given their plain and ordinary meaning." White v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 9 N.Y.3d 264, 267, 878 N.E.2d 1019, 848 N.Y.S.2d 603 (Ct. App. 2007). ] Generally, under New York law, if "the terms of an insurance policy are doubtful or uncertain as to their meaning, any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the insured and against the insurer." Edwards v. Allstate Ins. Co., 16 A.D.3d 368, 792 N.Y.S.2d 504, 505 (2d Dep't 2005); see also Tonkin v. California Ins. Co. of San Francisco, 294 N.Y. 326, 328-29, 62 N.E.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1945).1

Medidata brought suit, claiming that its losses from an email "spoofing" attack2 were covered by, inter alia, a computer fraud provision in its insurance policy with Federal Insurance. The provision covered losses stemming from any "entry of Data into" or "change to Data elements or program logic of" a computer system. J. App'x at 207. Federal Insurance asserts that the spoofing attack was not covered, because the policy instead applies to only hacking-type intrusions.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

729 Fed. Appx. 117 *; 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 18376 **; 2018 WL 3339245

MEDIDATA SOLUTIONS INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

Notice: PLEASE REFER TO FEDERAL RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE RULE 32.1 GOVERNING THE CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS.

Prior History:  [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Carter, J.).

Medidata Sols., Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co., 268 F. Supp. 3d 471, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122210 (S.D.N.Y., July 21, 2017)

CORE TERMS

spoofing, computer system, losses, email, proximate cause, computer fraud, district court, direct loss, employees, high-ranking, fraudsters, argues, meaning of the policy, insurance contract, insurance policy, summary judgment, unambiguous, appearance, provisions, deceitful, dishonest, coverage, Appeals, insured, parties, terms, qua

Civil Procedure, Appeals, Summary Judgment Review, Standards of Review, Insurance Law, Claim, Contract & Practice Issues, Policy Interpretation, Plain Language, Ambiguous Terms, Unambiguous Terms, Construction Against Insurers, Business Insurance, Fidelity Insurance, Damages