Wouldn’t this be covered under a Social Engineering endorsement? Is the court saying that this type of loss would be covered under a basic Crime policy without a Social Engineering endorsement?
I think the attorney for the plaintiff explained and that court agreed that there was a link (directly and immediate) between the fraudulent attorney’s email and the fake bank instructions being enough to provide coverage under the crime policy. If there hadn’t been a second “instruction” it would not have been covered.
I read another article with an interview with the plaintiff attorney and he felt different States will have different outcomes. He says the Social Engineering Fraud Endorsement provides much less coverage and higher retention and that circumstances of the fraud will determine coverage challenges.
Wouldn’t this be covered under a Social Engineering endorsement? Is the court saying that this type of loss would be covered under a basic Crime policy without a Social Engineering endorsement?
I think the attorney for the plaintiff explained and that court agreed that there was a link (directly and immediate) between the fraudulent attorney’s email and the fake bank instructions being enough to provide coverage under the crime policy. If there hadn’t been a second “instruction” it would not have been covered.
I read another article with an interview with the plaintiff attorney and he felt different States will have different outcomes. He says the Social Engineering Fraud Endorsement provides much less coverage and higher retention and that circumstances of the fraud will determine coverage challenges.