Can you give feedback on my post below please, stating whether you agree or not. It has to deal with the Maritz Holdings Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London.

After carefully dissecting this case multiple times to gain a full understanding, it appears there are a lot of different laws and policies that play a factor in this dispute. To start, Maritz Holdings is a Missouri based company and was insured through Lloyds of London against security breaches from 2015 to 2017. Two separate contracts were applied to their policy though it was not clear what the differences were. Maritz Holdings became the victim of two separate security breaches, one in 2016 and one in 2017. The breaches resulted in stolen gift card information that cost about 5 million in damages to the company. These binding contracts protect Maritz Holdings from security breaches and are supposed to cover certain fees and costs associated with a response to a cyber incident. As a result, Maritz submitted a claim but was ultimately denied reimbursement from Lloyds of London.

The write-up does not specify the reasoning as to why the claim was denied. In response to this denial, Maritz filed suit against the Underwrites at Lloyd's London for vexatious refusal to pay a claim, meaning the refusal to pay was to cause annoyance or frustration to Maritz. Lloyd's then attempted to file a motion to dismiss the count but the motion was filed after they had answered the amended complaint so it was ruled untimely. Since this tactic did not work, Lloyd's then requested the court treat its motion as 'one for judgement pursuant to federal rule of civil procedure'.

The insurance contracts contained a provision called 'choice-of-law', meaning that the insurance company may choose a state jurisdiction it wants to interpret the contract and apply the laws to the case. The choice-of-law clause was coupled with the wording 'in case of any dispute arising out of this insurance', which is important to note because Maritz makes an argument to the court that the claim is arising out of improper conduct, which would fall outside of 'this insurance'. Lloyd's choice in these contracts was the state of New York. The argument then became that the claim should not be valid because it is made under Missouri law and does not state claim under the governing law of New York. Missouri recognizes the choice-of-law clause for contracting parties, only if the laws of that state do not contradict the public policy of Missouri.

Missouri has a 'strong interest in protecting its own citizens', especially if there is a concrete local interest for the entity. Maritz makes another argument that, even if the court applies the choice-of-law provision and applies New York jurisdiction, the claim would still be contrary to the fundamental public policy of Missouri. In the past, Missouri courts have typically ruled that if an insurance company refused to pay a claim without good reason, the ruling would favor the insured and they would be compensated accordingly. Although the court rejected Maritz claim due to the unambiguous wording of the clause, the Missouri public policy asserts that the vexatious refusal to pay a claim is unfair and bad faith practice by Lloyds of London. Because of this, the motion by Lloyds of London to dismiss the vexatious refusal to pay is denied by the court.

I believe this is shady business and unfair of Lloyds of London to pull against Maritz. I'd first like to know how a security breach occurred a second time one year later, I think there could be an argument that they shouldn't receive all of the recouped damages from both breaches, and maybe only half since they likely did not take the appropriate responsive actions. This does not dismiss a contractual obligation they had with their insurance company though and It seems like insurance companies try to get away with this type of behavior all the time. I have personally been in a situation where both insurance companies did not want to pay me for damages to my truck that were not my fault and this article reminds me a lot of what I went through. I am glad that the state of Missouri recognizes this and has laws in place to protect their citizens against it and I agree with the courts ruling to deny Lloyds of London's motion to dismiss the claim. I would like to know if Maritz ever did get a settlement as the article was not clear on that.