11th Circuit affirms denial of title company’s cyber fraud claim
On September 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit upheld a district court’s decision to deny insurance coverage to a Florida title company under its Cyber Protection Insurance Policy after it was allegedly “fraudulently induced—by an unknown actor impersonating a mortgage lender—to wire funds to an incorrect account.” The insurance company denied coverage on the basis that the title company did not meet the policy’s requirements. The title company submitted a claim under the cybercrime endorsement of its insurance policy, which includes a deceptive transfer fraud insurance clause that grants coverage provided certain criteria are met, including that the loss resulted from intentionally misleading actions, was done by a person purporting to be an employee, customer, client or vendor, and the authenticity of the wire transfer instructions was verified according to the title company’s internal procedures. The insurance company denied coverage, claiming that: (i) the mortgage lender to whom the funds were intended was not an employee, customer, client or vendor of the title company; and (ii) that the title company failed to verify the transfer request according to its procedures. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the insurance company, agreeing that coverage did not exist under the plain language of the policy.
On appeal, the 11th Circuit determined that the mortgage lender was not listed as an entity under the plain language of the policy. It further disagreed with the title company’s position that under Florida law, insurance coverage clauses must “be construed as broadly as possible to provide the greatest amount of coverage,” and that the deceptive transfer fraud clause should also include “persons and entities involved in the real estate transaction.” The appellate court noted that “[a]s attractive as that proposition may be, it is simply not what the clause provides,” adding that because the clause “limits coverage to misleading communications ‘sent by a person purporting to be an employee, customer, client or vendor’” it must interpret these terms according to their plain meaning and may not “alter the terms bargained to by parties to a contract.”