The insurance office worker, Burgos had a good job, a good car and a boy friend…not in that category. The boy friend, driving Burgos’ Mercedes was speeding, fleeing from police when he drove into Adams. The boy friend fled the scene, Adams filed a claim against Burgos’ car insurer. Burgos used her work computer to identify who had filed the claim from the boy friend’s crash. The boy friend called the claimant, Adams and threatened there would be “issues” from a “very, very dangerous man” arising from continuing the claim. Burgos and her boy friend pled to witness intimidation and conspiracy in connection with the threat made to Adams.
Adams then brought suit against Burgos’ employer for negligent failure to protect Adam’s confidential information in the restricted computer claims information system.
companies whose employees have access to the confidential data of others have a duty to take reasonable measures to protect against the misuse of that data.
The Court compared computer access to private information, to cases where apartment keys are entrusted to employees. Employers need to check the suitability of these people given access, in light of the risks.
The employer argued that it should not be accountable to expect criminal behavior by its employees but the Appeals Court said that were plenty of facts in this case to make out a question for the jury.
The threats caused Adam emotional distress but the employer defendant argued the case should be thrown out due to lack of physical injury. There was testimony from a psychologist linking the threats to worsening of mental health conditions and the Court said this was enough for the question to reach the jury.
This site was created using WordPress and uses Google Analytics to understand how posts are being received.
• This site has Google Analytics Advertising Features implemented involving Google Analytics cookies.
• Some of the ads you receive on pages across the internet are customized based on predictions about your interests generated from your visits over time and across different web-sites. This type of ad customization — sometimes called “interest-based” or “online behavioral” advertising — is enabled through various technologies, including browser cookies as well as other non-cookie technologies.
• Sliver Lake Legal has no policy or intent to use first and third party cookies together.
• Visitors can opt-out of the Google Analytics Advertising Features, including through Ads Settings, Ad Settings for mobile apps, or any other available means (for example, the NAI’s consumer opt-out).
• Users should also visit Google Analytics’ currently available opt-outs for the web.