Data Breach Requires Plaintiff’s Own Information was Missued
Post number 5394
The Dismissal Based on Lips’s Failure to Plead Injury in Fact,
Posted on July 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gDQZc5vP and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
In Danielle Lips, on behaf of hersef and all others similarly situated v. ACCU Reference Medical Lab, LLC, Civil Action No. 25-13642 (SDW) (CF), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (June 24, 2026) a data-breach class action, the District of New Jersey granted Accu Reference Medical Lab, LLC’s motion to dismiss because Plaintiff Danielle Lips failed to plead Article III standing.
FACTS:
Lips alleged that ACCU, a medical testing laboratory, obtained her personally identifiable information and protected health information through diagnostic testing ordered by her former physician. She claimed the Qilin ransomware group stole ACCU’s data and posted screenshots containing some patients’ unredacted information on the dark web. Lips alleged increased risk of identity theft, future mitigation expenses, lost time, annoyance, and diminution in the value of her information.
LAW:
A plaintiff must establish Article III standing by pleading injury in fact, causation, and redressability. In data-breach cases, courts assess whether the breach was intentional, whether the data was misused, and whether the type of information accessed could create a risk of identity theft. A plaintiff seeking damages based on future risk must allege not only a substantial risk of harm but also additional, currently felt concrete harms.
DISCUSSION:
Rule 12(b)(1) permits a party to bring a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). The Rule permits a party to assert either a facial or factual challenge. A facial attack challenges subject matter jurisdiction without disputing the facts alleged in the complaint, and it requires the court to consider the allegations of the complaint as true. A factual challenge attacks the factual allegations underlying the complaint’s assertion of jurisdiction, either through the filing of an answer or otherwise presenting competing facts.
The court found the attack was allegedly intentional because a known ransomware group exfiltrated data and posted screenshots, and the information allegedly exposed — such as Social Security numbers, dates of birth, insurance information, and health information — was sensitive enough to create identity-theft risk. However, the court held that Lips did not adequately plead misuse because she did not allege that her own information was posted on the dark web, identify which of her information was leaked, or allege fraudulent charges, unauthorized accounts, increased spam, or comparable misuse.
ANALYSIS:
An injury in fact is an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical. Where the threatened injury is certainly impending or there is a substantial risk that the harm will occur, allegations of future harm will suffice.
The court’s decision turned on the gap between a generalized breach allegation and a plaintiff-specific injury. The court treated the alleged posting of some patients’ data as insufficient without facts tying the disclosure or misuse to Lips personally.
Because Lips did not plead a substantial risk of future harm plus additional concrete present harms, she lacked standing for both injunctive relief and damages.
CONCLUSION:
The court granted Accu’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The dismissal was based on Lips’s failure to plead injury in fact, and the court declined to reach Rule 12(b)(6) arguments. Because dismissals for lack of standing generally should not be with prejudice, the court allowed Lips an opportunity to amend.
ZALMA OPINION
Although the alleged ransomware attack was intentional and involved information that could create a risk of identity theft, the complaint did not allege that Lips’s own information was posted, misused, or tied to concrete present harms. Standing and an actual injury is required to sustain a law suit. There was clearly a potential of damage to Lips but it was only a potential. A potential for damage does not support litigation and the suit failed.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Qui Tam Relators are not officers of the United States
Posted on September 4, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Attempt to use Constitution to Stop a Qui Tam False Claims Act Case
Post 5486
FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions do not Violate the Appointments Clause.
In United States Of America, Clarissa Zafirov, ex rel; Dr. v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, d.b.a. Vipcare, Physician Partners, LLC, Anion Technologies, LLC, Freedom Health, Inc., Optimum Healthcare, Inc., Physician Partners Specialty Services, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 1, 2026).
The False Claims Act (“FCA”) allows the Attorney General to bring civil suits against perpetrators of fraud against the government. This case involves another portion of the FCA-the qui tam provisions-which allow people, called relators, who have knowledge about fraud against the government to pursue a case against the perpetrator of the fraud.
Dr. Clarissa Zafirov filed a qui tam action under the False Claims Act on behalf of...
Posted on September 3, 2026 by Barry Zalma
You Only Get One Chance to Sue
Post 5484
In David Cromp v. Johnny Harkrider, Monique Harkrider, and their Marital Community, dba Able Plumbing Plus, No. 61678-5-II, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2 (August 25, 2026) David Cromp hired Able Plumbing Plus in 2018 to install plumbing, including two toilets, at his residence. In 2019, both toilets allegedly leaked, causing damage. Insurance claims were submitted through Able’s contractor policy, but the insurer eventually denied the claims.
Cromp sued Able in 2022 for breach of contract based on the allegedly defective toilet installation. During that case, Cromp attempted to add claims related to Able’s conduct during the insurance claim process, including fraud, bad faith, tortious conduct, and bond-related claims, but the superior court denied leave to amend. The 2022 breach-of-contract claim was later dismissed with prejudice on summary judgment as time-barred.
On the same day the 2022 case was dismissed, Cromp filed a ...
Habeas Corpus Petition Granted
Post 5483
Posted on September 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Over Staying Visa & Charge of Insurance Fraud Still Entitled to Habeas Relief and a Bond Hearing
In Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo v. Warden, Glades County Detention Center et al., No. 2:26-cv-02322-SPC-NPM, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (August 26, 2026) Hernan Guillermo Palomino-Crespo’s Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the government’s response and Palomino-Crespo’s reply.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Palomino-Crespo is a native and citizen of Colombia who lawfully entered the United States on a B-2 non-immigrant visa on February 24, 2017. He resides in Miami, Florida with his wife and two minor children, owns and operates a residential restoration and remodeling business, and files U.S. tax returns.
On June 4, 2026, the State of Florida charged Palomino-Crespo with insurance fraud.
Palomino-Crespo claimeds he did not meet the requirements for mandatory detention under § ...
