The moving party sought a declaration that her employer's insurer owed her a duty to defend multiple civil actions arising from unauthorized access to patient health records used to obtain narcotics.
The court held the motion was suitable for summary judgment and applied the pleadings rule and the three-step duty to defend analysis to determine the true nature of the claims.
It found the non-derivative claims were for the intentional tort of intrusion upon seclusion, that the alleged injury was the loss of control over private information, and that such injury was not caused by an occurrence under the occurrence-based policy.
In any event, the court held the intentional act and criminal act exclusions would bar coverage.
The motion was dismissed.
