LegalNewsLine Logo Wednesday, October 6 2010 Twitter Subscribe in NewsGator Online News | Contact LegalNewsline | About Us | Advertise | RSS Enter search keyword _______________________ [searchButton.gif]-Submit [clear.gif] [clear.gif] NEWSLETTER Receive our FREE weekly newsletter click here Today's Offers: LNL MOST POPULAR ARTICLES + Whitman down 5 after ex-maid controversy + Harris on top in Calif. AG survey + Second debate sees more maid talk for Whitman, Brown + N.C. AG files suit against Fla. business + Gansler wants foreclosures halted in Maryland LNL HOT TOPICS + Asbestos + Big Pharma + BP Oil Spill + Class Action + Dickie Scruggs + Financial Crisis + Global Warming + Hurricane Katrina + Lead Paint + Sub-Prime Mortgages + Tobacco + Tort Reform State Supreme Courts WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 11:34:00 AM [BGStoryDateGrey.gif] Maine SC sides with grocery store in security breach suit BY JESSICA M. KARMASEK AUGUSTA, Maine (Legal Newsline) - The Maine Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has ruled that a group of consumers do not need to be compensated for time and effort they put into cleaning up the damage caused by data thieves. In answering a pair of certified questions for a federal court, the state's high court says time and effort alone do not constitute a cognizable injury for which damages can be recovered under the state's negligence or implied contract laws. The case involves the final litigation surrounding a 2007 data breach against Hannaford Bros. Co., a 165-store grocery chain. The breach exposed more than 4 million payment cards to a cyberthief gang run by Albert Gonzalez. Between December 2007 and March 2008, the data thieves stole debit and credit card numbers, expiration dates, security codes, PINs and other information belonging to customers who had used the chain's electronic payment processing services. By late February 2008, Visa, Inc., had notified Hannaford of the breach. The chain discovered the means of the thieves' access on March 8, 2008, contained it, notified all financial institutions within two days, and publicly disclosed the breach on March 17. Due to the theft, a number of customers had experienced fraudulent and unauthorized charges on their accounts. However, most were able to resolve the charges with their banks. In fact, in October 2008, when a group of 21 plaintiffs filed their complaint in federal court, only one had outstanding fraudulent charges on her account. The other plaintiffs had already been reimbursed by their financial institutions. According to their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged breach of implied contract, breach of implied warranty, breach of a confidential relationship, failure to advise customers of the data theft, strict liability, negligence, and unfair trade practices. The plaintiffs sought damages to compensate them for their time and efforts, which they say were necessary to remedy the disruption of their financial affairs. The federal judge overseeing the civil lawsuits against the grocery chain had initially ruled that consumers suing Hannaford had to prove actual financial damages that were material before he could allow that portion of the case to continue. Attorneys for those consumers argued that the losses in time and effort were significant and that those efforts, coupled with what they contended was Hannaford's negligence in protecting that payment card data, made a civil ruling against the chain appropriate. But the federal judge turned the consumers down, ruling that the losses were "too remote, not reasonably foreseeable, and/or speculative" and that there was "no way to value and recompense time and effort." He added that such non-financial losses were merely "the ordinary frustrations and inconveniences that everyone confronts in daily life with or without fraud or negligence." Following the judge's ruling, attorneys for the consumers asked him to reconsider. The judge set aside his decision and asked the Maine Supreme Judicial Court to rule on the matter. The Court, in its opinion authored by Justice Joseph M. Jabar, unanimously sided with the grocery chain. It noted that the plaintiffs had suffered no physical harm, economic loss or identity theft. Jabar reaffirmed the federal judge's ruling, "The tort of negligence does not compensate individuals for the typical annoyances or inconveniences that are a part of everyday life." The Court said its case law does not recognize the expenditure of time and effort alone as a harm. "Unless the plaintiffs' loss of time reflects a corresponding loss of earnings or earning opportunities, it is not a cognizable injury under Maine law of negligence," it wrote. The Court made the same conclusion in regards to the alleged breach of implied contract. The federal judge had already shot down the plaintiffs' other five charges listed in their complaint. From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by e-mail at jessica@legalnewsline.com. Filed Under: State Supreme Courts COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: No comments have been posted in the last 15 days! SEND US YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE: * - Required fields Subject: * ______________________________ Message: * __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ Contact Name: * ______________________________ Contact URL: ______________________________ Contact Email: * ______________________________ This Is CAPTCHA Image Write the characters in the image above: ____________________ Submit E-mail this article to a friend | Printer friendly format MORE NEWS HEADLINES: + Idaho SC affirms arbitrator's decision - 10/6 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Repair shop not at fault for broken parking brake - 10/6 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Calif. SC backs Schwarzenegger on furlough plan - 10/5 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Wyo. SC rules man's hernia a work-related injury - 10/1 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + S.D. SupCo affirms statute of limitations ruling - 9/30 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Coal loan dispute must be arbitrated, Ky. SC says - 9/29 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Maine SC sides with grocery store in security breach suit - 9/29 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Tenn. plaintiffs can suggest amount for non-economic damages - 9/28 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Pig farmer owes $78K in overdraft fees, N.D. SC concludes - 9/28 [ReadMoreRed.gif] + Ind. SC decides casino money issue - 9/23 [ReadMoreRed.gif] IN THE SPOTLIGHT: [SZ100_mccollum.jpg] Wednesday, October 06, 2010 Keep McCollum away from WellCare settlement, lawyer says TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (Legal Newsline) - A Florida lawyer with financial ties to a federal settlement with WellCare says state Attorney General Bill McCollum is not doing enough to drive the figure up. Read more... + Asbestos defendants face two trials same day, same court in Illinois - 9/29 + Judge: West Virginian shouldn't be representing Michigan - 9/28 + AGs may be left to fight rising health care costs - 9/22 + Bitter asbestos issue leads to bitterness on Miss. SC - 9/2 + Dodd-Frank reform law invites new litigation opportunities against mortgage lenders - 8/26 BROWSE BY STATE: [....................] [GoButton.gif]-Submit BROWSE BY AG: [..........................] [GoButton.gif]-Submit BROWSE BY DATE: [.............] [GoButton.gif]-Submit LATEST LNL BLOG ENTRIES: + Yoder: W.Va. courts impact jobs + Abbott: Beware Dietary Supplement Scams and 'Miracle' Health Claims + Abbott's signs of a scam NEWS WIDGET: Attention bloggers: Add Record Headlines to your site! fast + free- click here NEWS | CONTACT LEGALNEWSLINE | ABOUT US | ADVERTISE | RSS © 2008 LegalNewsLine.com. All Rights Reserved.