Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
pisciotta v old national bancorp

pisciotta v old national bancorp

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
Published by internetcases

More info:

Published by: internetcases on Aug 24, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/23/2011

pdf

text

original

 
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________No. 06-3817L
UCIANO
P
ISCIOTTA
and D
ANIEL
M
ILLS
, on behalf of themselvesand others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
,
v
.O
LD
N
ATIONAL
B
ANCORP
,
Defendant-Appellee
.____________
Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division.No. 05 C 668—
Larry J. McKinney
,
Chief Judge.
____________
A
RGUED
M
AY
21, 2007—D
ECIDED
A
UGUST
23,
 
2007
____________Before R
IPPLE
, W
OOD
and E
VANS
,
Circuit Judges
.R
IPPLE
,
Circuit Judge
. Plaintiffs Luciano Pisciotta andDaniel Mills brought this action on behalf of a putativeclass of customers and potential customers of Old Na-tional Bancorp (“ONB”). They alleged that, through itswebsite, ONB had solicited personal information fromapplicants for banking services, but had failed to secure itadequately. As a result, a third-party computer “hacker”was able to obtain access to the confidential information of tens of thousands of ONB site users. The plaintiffs sought
 
2No. 06-3817damages for the harm that they claim to have suffered because of the security breach; specifically, they requestedcompensation for past and future credit monitoringservices that they have obtained in response to the compro-mise of their personal data through ONB’s website. ONBanswered the allegations and then moved for judgment onthe pleadings under Rule 12(c). The district court grantedONB’s motion and dismissed the case. The plaintiffs timelyappeal. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirmthe judgment of the district court.
IBACKGROUNDA. Facts
ONB operates a marketing website on which individualsseeking banking services can complete online applica-tions for accounts, loans and other ONB banking services.The applications differ depending on the service requested, but some forms require the customer or potential cus-tomer’s name, address, social security number, driver’slicense number, date of birth, mother’s maiden name andcredit card or other financial account numbers. In 2002 and2004, respectively, Mr. Pisciotta and Mr. Mills accessedthis website and entered personal information in connec-tion with their applications for ONB banking services.In 2005, NCR, a hosting facility that maintains ONB’swebsite, notified ONB of a security breach. ONB then sentwritten notice to its customers. The results of the investiga-tion that followed have been filed under seal in this court;for present purposes, it will suffice to note that the scopeand manner of access suggests that the intrusion wassophisticated, intentional and malicious.
 
No. 06-38173
B. District Court Proceedings
Mr. Pisciotta and Mr. Mills, on behalf of a putative classof other ONB website users, brought this action in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. They named ONB and NCR as defendants andasserted negligence claims against both defendants aswell as breach of implied contract claims by ONB and breach of contract by NCR. The plaintiffs alleged that:[b]y failing to adequately protect [their] personalconfidential information, [ONB and NCR] causedPlaintiffs and other similarly situated past and presentcustomers to suffer substantial potential economicdamages and emotional distress and worry that thirdparties will use [the plaintiffs’] confidential personalinformation to cause them economic harm, or sell theirconfidential information to others who will in turncause them economic harm.R.37 at 2.In pleading their damages, the plaintiffs stated that theyand others in the putative class “have incurred expensesin order to prevent their confidential personal informationfrom being used and will continue to incur expenses in thefuture.”
Id.
at 4. Significantly, the plaintiffs did not allegeany
completed
 
direct
financial loss to their accounts as aresult of the breach. Nor did they claim that they or anyother member of the putative class
already had been
thevictim of identity theft as a result of the breach. Theplaintiffs requested “[c]ompensation for all economic andemotional damages suffered as a result of the Defendants’acts which were negligent, in breach of implied contractor in breach of contract,” and “[a]ny and all other legaland/or equitable relief to which Plaintiffs . . . are entitled,

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->