State Farm Lawsuit

Case: 1:23-cv-06065 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 1 of 77 PageID #:14
Exhibit A
Hearing Date: 11/16/2023 9:30 AM FILED
Location: Court Room 2408
Case: 1:23-cv-06065 Document 12-Person
#: 1-1 Filed:Jury 7/19/2023 3:10 PM
08/24/23 Page 2 of 77 PageID #:15
Judge: Conlon, Alison C IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
COOK COUNTY, IL
2023CH06670
Calendar, 4
23605373
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet

General Chancery Section (12/01/20) CCCH 0623
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
Mary Brown, Andy Velazquez, William Midgett, Marc Shull and
Diane Coughlin, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated Plaintiffs 2023CH06670
v. Case No:
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., a p&c domestic
mutual; and Insurance Services Office, Inc., a corporation
Defendants
CHANCERY DIVISION CIVIL COVER SHEET
GENERAL CHANCERY SECTION
A Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet - General Chancery Section shall be filed with the initial complaint in all actions filed in the General
Chancery Section of Chancery Division. The information contained herein is for administrative purposes only. Please check the box in
front of the appropriate category which best characterizes your action being filed.
Only one (1) case type may be checked with this cover sheet.
0005 Administrative Review 0017 Mandamus
0001 ✔ Class Action 0018 Ne Exeat
0002 Declaratory Judgment 0019 Partition
0004 Injunction 0020 Quiet Title
0021 Quo Warranto
0007 General Chancery 0022 Redemption Rights
0010 Accounting 0023 Reformation of a Contract
0011 Arbitration 0024 Rescission of a Contract
0012 Certiorari 0025 Specific Performance
0013 Dissolution of Corporation 0026 Trust Construction
0014 Dissolution of Partnership 0050 Internet Take Down Action (Compromising Images)
0015 Equitable Lien
0016 Interpleader Other (specify) ____________________________
02329
Atty. No.: ________________ Pro Se 99500
Pro Se Only: I have read and agree to the terms of the Clerk’s
Atty Name: Daniel S. Kirschner Clerk’s Office Electronic Notice Policy and
choose to opt in to electronic notice from the
Atty. for: CORBOY & DEMETRIO, P.C. Clerk’s office for this case at this email address:
Address: 33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 2100
Email:
Chicago
City: ____________________________ State: IL
____
60602
Zip: ________
(312) 346-3191
Telephone: ________________________
Primary Email: dsk@corboydemetrio.com

Iris Y. Martinez, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
cookcountyclerkofcourt.org
Page 1 of 1
Filer Selected Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled
Courtroom Number:Case: 1:23-cv-06065
No hearing scheduled Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 3 of 77 PageID #:16
Location: No hearing scheduled
#02329 DSK/WTG/sg 2023N-1000

FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
FILED
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION 7/19/2023 3:10 PM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, COOK COUNTY, IL
2023CH06670
WILLIAM MIDGETT and DIANE Calendar, 4
COUGHLIN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
2023CH06670
No.
Plaintiffs,
v. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

INSURANCE CO., a p&c domestic mutual; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
and INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE,
INC., a corporation,
Defendants.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, WILLIAM MIDGETT, and DIANE
COUGHLIN (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
individuals, by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this Class Action Complaint against
Defendants, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. (hereinafter “State
Farm”) and INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC. (hereinafter “ISO”; collectively, with State
Farm, “Defendants”), for violations of their right to privacy under Illinois state law as follows:
NEED FOR RELIEF
1. The Illinois Constitution guarantees that the people of the State of Illinois shall have
the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable
invasions of privacy. Ill. Const. Art. I, § 6.
Page 1 of 21
2. As the Illinois Supreme Court has determined, this zone of personal privacy is
stated broadly and without limitation and includes the confidentiality of personal medical
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
information, that “is, without question, at the core of what society regards as a fundamental
component of individual privacy.”
3. The Supreme Court has also noted that “Physicians are privy to the most intimate
details of their patients’ lives, touching on diverse subjects like mental health, sexual health and
reproductive choice.”
4. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”)
articulates a standard of care that entities should follow when receiving personal medical
information.
5. The Illinois Supreme Court has determined that this standard of care applies to
insurers like State Farm when it receives personal medical information.
6. State Farm violates this standard of care when it discloses the personal medical
information it receives from claimants to ISO for collection and harvesting.
7. This standard of care also applies to ISO.
8. ISO violates this standard of care by collecting and harvesting personal medical
information from State Farm to build a massive database of individuals’ health information, and
then sharing the information with its customers, including State Farm, for profit.
9. In total, State Farm, along with other insurers, have annually provided ISO with
approximately three billion detailed premiums and loss records, and to date, ISO has a database
that contains more than 32 billion records.1
1
Verisk Grows Premium and Loss Database for Third Consecutive Year, VERISK NEWSROOM (Apr. 5,
2023), https://www.verisk.com/newsroom/verisk-grows-premium-and-loss-database-for-third-
consecutive-year/ (last accessed July 11, 2023).
Page 2 of 21
10. ISO’s collection and processing of personal information generates billions of
dollars annually, all at the expense of people whose personal medical information is being used
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
without their knowledge for financial gain.
11. The sizeable profits ISO derives from individually identifiable health information
is unsurprising given the resale value of someone’s electronic health record “could be worth
hundreds or even thousands of dollars.”2 The value is in the abundance of exploitable information
contained in an individual’s health records.
12. The present case addresses data collection practices that contravene principles of
privacy and ownership of personal information by taking advantage of unwitting people without
recompense.
13. State Farm never notified Plaintiffs or Class members that their private medical
information was submitted to ISO.
14. ISO never notified Plaintiffs or Class members that it continues to retain and profit
off their protected health information.
15. In violation of Plaintiffs’ right to privacy, Defendants have created a symbiotic
relationship where ISO runs a business processing massive amounts of premiums and loss data
provided by insurers, including State Farm, and State Farm relies on ISO’s analysis of this data to
raise premiums and deny coverage to individuals.
2
Mariya Yao, Your Electronic Medical Records Could Be Worth $1000 To Hackers, FORBES (Apr. 14,
2017, 10:05 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariyayao/2017/04/14/your-electronic-medical-records-
can-be-worth-1000-to-hackers/?sh=2c78ed0f50cf.
Page 3 of 21
PARTIES
Plaintiffs
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
16. Plaintiff Mary Brown is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois.
Plaintiff is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
17. Plaintiff Andy Velazquez is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois.
18. Plaintiff William Midgett is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois.
Plaintiff is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Calumet City, Cook County, Illinois.
19. Plaintiff Diane Coughlin is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois.
Defendants
20. Defendant State Farm is a property & casualty domestic mutual incorporated in and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business located at One
State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710. State Farm is the number one automobile insurer
in the United States.
21. Defendant ISO 3 is a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 545 Washington Blvd., Jersey
City, NJ 07310.
22. ISO is an association of insurance companies that gathers claim-related information
from insurers and then processes and analyzes that information in its database to provide
3
ISO has evolved substantially since its inception. ISO was created in 1971 when several rating bureaus
consolidated and formed a non-profit association of insurers. In 1993, ISO reorganized into a for-profit
independent corporation. In 2008, it created a new company called Verisk. ISO went public the following
year and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Verisk. As a subsidiary of a public company, ISO is no
longer controlled by insurers.
Page 4 of 21
subscribing insurers, among others, with collected statistical, actuarial, underwriting, and claims
information for use in underwriting and pricing policies.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
23. ISO is a subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, is licensed to do business in the State of
Illinois, and does business in Cook County, and nationwide.
24. ISO/Verisk and State Farm are not “affiliates” as that term is defined in 215 ILCS
5/1003(B). That is, neither entity “directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries,
controls, is controlled by or is under common control with” the other. Thus, neither ISO nor Verisk
is an “affiliate” of State Farm for purposes of 215 ILCS 5/1014(L) or any other legal or regulatory
provisions applicable in this context.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction under 735 ILCS § 2-209(b)(3) (“a corporation
organized under the laws of this State”) and § 2-209(b)(4) (a “corporation doing business within
this State”).
26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 735 ILCS § 2-209(a)(1) (“The
transaction of any business within this State”) and § 2-209(a)(2) (“The commission of a tortious
act within this State”).
27. Venue is proper pursuant to § 735 ILCS 5/2-101, because venue is proper “in the
county of residence of any defendant . . . [or] in the county in which the transaction or some part
thereof occurred out of which the cause of action arose.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
28. Without regard to certain exceptions not relevant here, protected health information
is individually identifiable health information transmitted by electronic media, maintained in
electronic media, or transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium. 45 C.F.R. § 160.103
(2018). In turn, “individually identifiable health information” is information, including
Page 5 of 21
“demographic information collected from an individual,” that (1) “[i]s created or received by a
health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse;” (2) “[r]elates to the past,
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health
care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an
individual; and” (3) “identifies the individual” or can reasonably “be used to identify the
individual.” 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.
29. Protected health information, or PHI, is a subset of individually identifiable health
information.
30. HIPAA and its implementing regulations prohibit the use or disclosure of an
individual’s protected health information, except when (1) use or disclosure of protected health
information is pursuant to a valid authorization or (2) use or disclosure of protected health
information is in the course of a judicial or administrative proceeding. Furthermore, any person
receiving protected health information from a covered entity must return or destroy the protected
health information within sixty days after the conclusion of the judicial or administrative
proceeding for which such information was requested.
31. Insurers like State Farm and entities like ISO must comply with the standard of care
articulated by HIPAA and its implementing regulations.
32. When a person involved in an automobile accident submits a claim for personal
injuries to State Farm, State Farm routinely requests and reviews medical records, which
necessarily includes protected health information, to evaluate the claim and the alleged injuries.
33. This is true whether the claimant is insured by State Farm or was injured by an
insured of State Farm.
Page 6 of 21
34. At the conclusion of the litigation or proceeding for which the protected health
information is requested, rather than returning or destroying the records containing a claimant’s
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
protected health information, State Farm retains and uses the claims data, which includes protected
health information, for developing rates and underwriting.
35. The provision of protected health information for purposes of adjudicating or
settling a claim does not transfer ownership of the protected health information, nor does it allow
State Farm to sell or transfer that protected health information to third parties for purposes
unrelated to the litigation or proceeding.
36. This is where ISO comes in. Insurers, like State Farm, routinely submit reports to
ISO containing individual claimants’ protected health information. ISO compiles the personal
information contained in the reports and maintains it in a database that it analyzes.
37. ISO analyzes its database of claimants’ protected health information and other
confidential information to create products and services which it subsequently sells back to its
subscribers, including participating insurers, third-party claim administrators, and self-insureds.4
38. These products and services have nothing to do with evaluating, litigating, or
settling the claim of the person whose protected health information is sold and used. Rather, ISO
helps subscribers use this data to assess the profitability of each type of insurance. Specifically,
the information helps underwriters decide if they should sell a person an auto policy and at what
premium.
39. For example, when adjusting insurance claims, State Farm relies on ISO reports,
which include protected health information only sometimes associated with the claimant. Indeed,
ISO reports have protected health information from third parties who have no connection to the
4
Affidavit of Carlos Martins Para. 2, 5, Shull v. Ellis, No. 15 L 9759.
Page 7 of 21
claimant other than a similar name, date of birth, or address. State Farm then judges the claimant
who has the fortunate or unfortunate luck of having intimate details in common with this random
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
third party.
40. Under this scheme, if an insured’s medical records are provided to State Farm, the
insured’s protected health information could be disclosed to ISO, who offers it for sale to other
insurance companies, third-party administrators, and self-insureds with whom the insured has no
relationship.
41. Likewise, if State Farm is provided the medical records of a third-party claimant
that is injured by a State Farm insured, the third-party claimant’s protected health information
could be disclosed to ISO, who offers it for sale to other insurance companies, third-party
administrators, and self-insureds with whom the third-party claimant has no relationship.
42. In essence, detailed protected health information provided to State Farm to
evaluate, litigate, or settle a claim could end up in the hands of Allstate, Liberty Mutual, or any
other ISO-participating organization.
NAMED PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS
43. Plaintiff Mary Brown, while residing in Illinois, was injured in an accident
involving a motorist insured by State Farm and provided State Farm with protected health
information for the limited purpose of evaluating, litigating or settling her claim.
44. Plaintiff Andy Velazquez, while residing in Illinois, was injured in an accident
information for the limited purpose of evaluating, litigating or settling his claim.
45. Plaintiff William Midgett, while residing in Illinois and insured by State Farm, was
injured in an accident involving another motorist insured by State Farm whose liability policy
limits did not cover the full extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and other accident-related losses. Plaintiff
Page 8 of 21
provided State Farm with protected health information for the limited purpose of evaluating,
litigating or settling his claim under the other motorist’s State Farm policy as well as his
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
underinsured motorist claim under his own State Farm policy.
46. Plaintiff Diane Coughlin, while residing in Illinois and insured by State Farm, was
limits did not cover the full extent of Plaintiff’s injuries and other accident-related losses. Plaintiff
litigating or settling her claim under the other motorist’s State Farm policy as well as her
underinsured motorist claim under her own State Farm policy.
DISCOVERY RULE, TOLLING AND CONCEALMENT
47. The statutes of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ claims are
tolled as a result of Defendants’ knowing and active concealment of their conduct alleged herein
and Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ delayed discovery of their claims.
48. Plaintiffs and Class members had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the
facts constituting their claims for relief. They did not discover, nor could they have discovered
through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, Defendants’ practices of retaining, using,
and sharing their protected health information until shortly before this litigation commenced.
49. Plaintiffs and Class members expected and trusted that their protected health
information obtained by State Farm would be kept confidential, and Plaintiffs and Class members
were neither aware nor consented to State Farm and its agents using their protected health
information for functions unrelated to the evaluation, settlement or litigation of their claim.
50. State Farm was and remains under a continuing duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and
Class members its practice of sharing protected health information to parties unrelated to the
litigation or proceeding for which such information was provided.
Page 9 of 21
51. Despite Defendants’ duty to disclose the true character, quality, and nature of their
activities to Plaintiffs and Class members, State Farm does not notify Plaintiffs and Class members
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
that it is submitting their protected health information to ISO, and ISO does not notify Plaintiffs
and Class members that it is in possession of their protected health information or that it is profiting
from the publication and sale of their information.
52. As a result of Defendants’ active concealment and omissions, any and all applicable
statutes of limitations have been tolled.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
53. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to 735 ILCS § 5/2-801 seeking damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of Plaintiffs and the following state-wide classes of similarly situated
individuals (collectively, the “Class” unless otherwise noted):
A. State Farm and ISO Class: Any person not insured by State Farm
who, while residing in Illinois, was injured by a State Farm insured and
provided State Farm with protected health information to evaluate, litigate,
or settle their claim, and rather than “return or destroy” their protected
health information following the resolution of their claim, State Farm sent
it to ISO, who processed it and made it available to ISO subscribers for a
fee, on or after July 19, 2018.
B. ISO Class: Any resident of Illinois who suffered an injury, while

insured by State Farm, and provided State Farm with protected health
information to evaluate, litigate, or settle their claim, and rather than “return
or destroy” their protected health information following the resolution of
their claim, State Farm sent it to ISO, who processed it and made it available
to ISO subscribers for a fee, on or after July 19, 2018.
54. If additional information is obtained through further investigation and discovery,
the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or amended
complaint.
55. Specifically excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants’ officers,
directors, agents, trustees, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, and joint-
Page 10 of 21
venturers; (iii) any entities controlled by Defendants; (iv) Defendants’ heirs, successors, assigns,
or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants, their officers, or their directors;
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
and (v) the judge assigned to this action or any member of that judge’s immediate family.
56. Ascertainability. Members of the Class are readily ascertainable because the Class
is defined using objective criteria, such as geography and specific communications with State
Farm, so as to allow prospective members to determine if they are part of the Class.
57. Numerosity. The Class is so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. At
a minimum, the Class contains thousands of members. Although the precise number of Class
members is unknown to Plaintiffs, the true number of the Class is known by Defendants.
58. Commonality. Common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over
questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Such questions include:
a. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members have a protectable interest in ensuring their
protected health information is not offered for sale to third parties who pay ISO for access to their
database;
b. Whether Defendants violated Illinois law by receiving, sharing, offering for sale
and selling protected health information to third parties, for purposes other than evaluating,
settling, litigating, or adjusting Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ claims, without consent from
Plaintiffs and Class members;
c. Whether Defendants unjustly profit from the disclosure and inclusion of Plaintiffs’
and Class Members’ protected health information in ISO’s database;
d. Whether State Farm wrongfully transferred Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
protected health information to ISO;
Page 11 of 21
e. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members have a right to the disgorgement of profits
earned by Defendants through the sale and publication of their protected health information; and
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
f. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to damages from Defendants.
59. Typicality. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the other members of the Class,
because, among other things, Defendants collected, received, and/or used Class members’
protected health information in violation of the standard of care in the exact same manner for each
Class member.
60. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in complex class actions and
intend to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the Class. Further, Plaintiffs have no interests
that are antagonistic to the Class.
61. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages suffered by each individual member of the
Class are relatively small compared to the burden and expense required to individually litigate a
tort claim against Defendants. Absent a class action, it would thus be impossible for members of
the Class, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs committed against
them. Individualized litigation also risks inconsistent or contradictory judgments and increases the
cost of legal resolution of this matter for all parties and for the court system. By contrast, the
proposed class action presents far fewer management difficulties and offers the benefits of a single
adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
COUNT ONE: NEGLIGENCE
62. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, incorporate the foregoing
allegations as if fully set forth herein.
Page 12 of 21
63. The Defendants had a duty of care to protect the confidentiality of Plaintiffs’ and
the Class members’ protected health information.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
64. State Farm had a duty to refrain from using or disclosing Plaintiffs’ and Class
members’ protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for
which such information was requested.
65. State Farm’s provision of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ protected health
information to ISO—a third party unconnected to the evaluation, litigation, or settlement of their
claim—for business purposes and without Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ consent, constitutes a
violation of the duty to refrain from using or disclosing protected health information for any
purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which the protected health information was
requested.
66. State Farm had a duty to return or destroy Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ protected
health information at the conclusion of the litigation or proceeding.
67. State Farm intentionally retained Plaintiffs’ protected health information after the
close of litigation for underwriting purposes unrelated to Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ claims,
and disclosed their protected health information to ISO without Plaintiffs’ and Class members’
consent, which is a breach of the duty to return or destroy this information.
68. Also in breach of the duty to refrain from using protected health information
without authorization or outside the scope of litigation, ISO collects and stores the protected health
information without Plaintiffs’ or Class members’ consent and maintains it in a database. ISO
analyzes this database and repackages the data to create products and services that it subsequently
sells back to its subscribers, including State Farm. These products and services normally have
Page 13 of 21
nothing to do with adjusting or litigating the claim of the person whose protected health
information is sold and used.

FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
69. Defendants’ retention, transfer, disclosure, offer for sale, and subsequent sale of
Plaintiffs’ protected health information caused Plaintiffs to suffer damages.
COUNT TWO: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
71. ISO has unjustly benefitted from the wrongful disclosure and collection of
Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ protected health information to build their database, without
authorization, which garners billions of dollars.
72. State Farm unjustly benefits from ISO’s database comprised of Plaintiffs’ and Class
members’ protected health information for the purpose of raising premiums and denying policy
coverage of individuals.
73. Plaintiffs and Class members do not consent to Defendants’ disclosure, processing
or retention of their protected health information following the resolution of their claim, nor did
they have any control over the use of their protected health information to produce revenue.
Therefore, under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be permitted to
retain any money derived from their disclosure, processing, retention or sale of Plaintiffs’ and
Class members’ protected health information.
74. Defendants’ retention, processing, and sale of the protected health information to
the detriment of Plaintiffs and Class members thus violates the fundamental principles of justice,
equity, and good conscience.
75. No contract exists that would offer relief in this circumstance.
Page 14 of 21
COUNT THREE: INVASION OF PRIVACY –

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
77. To plead public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must plead (1) the defendant
gave publicity; (2) to plaintiff’s private, not public, life; (3) the matter publicized was highly
offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public
concern.
78. Defendants, both individually and jointly, intentionally intruded upon the privacy
of Plaintiffs and the Class by State Farm submitting protected health information to ISO, and then
ISO publicly offering it for sale.
79. Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ protected health information is nonpublic,
private information, the publication of which is not of legitimate concern to the public.
80. State Farm retained and submitted Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ protected
health information without consent.
81. ISO received, processed, offered for sale, and sold Plaintiffs’ and the Class
members’ protected health information without consent.
82. Defendants’ conduct, both individually and jointly, is highly offensive to a
reasonable person, as evidenced by substantial research, literature, and governmental enforcement
and investigative efforts to protect consumer privacy against surreptitious technological intrusions.
83. The improper nature of Defendants’ public disclosure of information not of
legitimate public concern is illustrated by the public policies embedded in the Illinois Constitution
and HIPAA.
Page 15 of 21
84. The damage Plaintiffs and the Class members suffered by having their protected
health information publicly exposed includes, but is not limited to: use of their legitimate claims
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
as an improper basis for reducing or second-guessing subsequent claims that they might assert,
and increased policy premiums.
COUNT FOUR: INVASION OF PRIVACY –

INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
86. A claim for intrusion upon seclusion requires (1) an unauthorized intrusion into
seclusion like a private place, conversation, or matter; (2) in a manner highly offensive to a
reasonable person; (3) the matter intruded upon was private; and (4) the intrusion caused the
plaintiffs anguish and suffering.
87. The confidentiality of personal medical information is a fundamental component of
individual privacy. Plaintiffs and Class members expected their protected health information to be
used exclusively for adjudicating or litigating their claim and to be kept confidential and not used
for improper purposes by anyone.
88. Litigants, including Plaintiffs and Class members, would not reasonably expect
their protected health information to be used, retained, or disclosed for any purpose beyond the
litigation or proceeding for which their protected health information was requested, or after the
termination of said litigation or proceeding.
89. Defendants intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiffs and the Class by
soliciting, submitting, accepting, maintaining, offering for sale, selling, disclosing, and publicizing
their protected health information for purposes other than the adjudication or settlement of their
claim.
Page 16 of 21
90. ISO intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiffs and the Class in order to
wrongfully profit from their protected health information. Each individual invasion may involve
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
slight intrusions and modest financial gain, but the aggregate of these invasions comprise the
billions of dollars of revenue generated by ISO.
91. State Farm benefits from the intrusion on seclusion by retaining and using the
protected health information in rate making, to scrutinize and reduce the value of future claims,
and to deny people coverage. State Farm’s data intrusions pose a harm to Plaintiffs and the Class
members and could lead to further damage in the future when their protected health information is
later wrongfully accessed by State Farm and other insurers and improperly used by insurers
underwriting a policy.
92. The choice to solicit, submit, obtain, retain, and profit from Plaintiffs’ and the Class
members’ protected health information without consent to profit would be highly offensive to a
reasonable person.
93. The unauthorized taking, retaining, and selling of protected health information from
people through deceit is highly offensive behavior, as evidenced by substantial research, literature,
and governmental enforcement and investigative efforts to protect consumer privacy against
surreptitious technological intrusions.
94. Defendants’ extensive sharing of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ private
information also increases the risk of the disclosure of such information through negligent security,
which is highlighted by ISO’s admission of a data breach in November of 2021. 5
5
Data Breach Notification Letter, ISO (Nov. 1, 2021), https://www.mass.gov/doc/assigned-data-breach-
number-23520-insurance-services-office-inc/download (last accessed July 11, 2023).
Page 17 of 21
95. Plaintiffs and Class members suffer loss of security in their private health
information and mental anguish as a proximate result of Defendants’ intrusive and offensive
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
conduct.
COUNT FIVE: NEGLIGENCE PER SE
97. A claim for negligence per se requires (1) a violation of law; (2) the law was
designed to protect the welfare of others; and (3) the injured person is in a class of people whom
the law exists to protect.
98. Pursuant to HIPAA:
For purposes of paragraph (e)(1) of this section, a qualified

protective order means, with respect to protected health information
requested under paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section, an order of a
court or of an administrative tribunal or a stipulation by the parties
to the litigation or administrative proceeding that: (A) Prohibits the
parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for
any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such
information was requested; and (B) Requires the return to the
covered entity or destruction of the protected health information
(including all copies made) at the end of the litigation or
proceeding.6
99. State Farm intentionally retained Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ protected health
information after the close of litigation, for underwriting purposes unrelated to Plaintiffs’ claims,
and disclosed their protected health information to ISO without Plaintiffs’ consent, which is a
violation of HIPAA.
6
45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(1)(v).
Page 18 of 21
100. State Farm’s provision of Plaintiffs’ protected health information to ISO, a third
party unconnected to the litigation or proceeding, for business purposes and without Plaintiffs’
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
consent, also violates HIPAA.
101. Also in violation of HIPAA, ISO collects and stores Plaintiffs’ protected health
information without their consent and maintains it in a database. ISO analyzes this database and
repackages the data, creating products and services that it sells right back to its subscribers,
including State Farm. These products and services normally have nothing to do with adjusting or
litigating the claim of the person whose protected health information is sold and used.
102. Plaintiffs are the injured parties HIPAA was designed to protect, because they are
individuals whose protected health information was used in the course of litigation as envisioned
by the statute.
103. Defendants’ retention, transfer, disclosure, offer for sale, and subsequent sale of
Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ protected health information caused Plaintiffs and Class members
to suffer damages including, but not limited to, public disclosure of their protected health
information, misuse of their legitimate claims as a basis to second-guess subsequent claims that
they might assert, increased policy premiums, and deprivation of the full opportunity to personally
profit from the retention, submission, processing, and sale of their individually identifiable health
information.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, WILLIAM
MIDGETT, and DIANE COUGHLIN, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class, pray
for an Order as follows:
A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set
forth in 735 ILCS 5/2-801, et seq., and certifying the Class defined herein;
Page 19 of 21
B. Designating Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and the undersigned counsel as

Class Counsel;
FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
C. Entering ajudgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class, and against Defendants;
D. Enjoining Defendants' illegal, deceptive, and unfair conduct alleged herein;
E. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class actual and punitive damages, in addition to
reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and
F. Granting all such further other relief as the Court deemsjust and appropriate.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by a jury.
July 19, 2023 Respectfully subimtted.
Daniel SsHirschner
CORBOY & DEMETRIO,P.O.
33 N. Dearborn Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, Illinois 60602
dsk@corboydemetrio.com
phone:(312)346-3191
Cook County Firm No.02329
William T. Gibbs
CORBOY & DEMETRIO,P.C.
wtg@corboydemetrio.com
phone:(312)346-3191
Cook County Firm No.02329
Korey Nelson {Rule 707 Statementpending)

BURNS CHAREST LLP
365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
knelson@burnscharest.com
phone:(504)799-2845
Amanda Klevom {Rule 707 Statementpending)

BURNS CHAREST LLP
Page 20 of21

FILED DATE: 7/19/2023 3:10 PM 2023CH06670
aklevorn@burnscharest.com
phone:(504)799-2845
Claire Bosarge {Rule 707 Statementpending)

BURNS CHAREST LLP
cbosarge@bumscharest.com
phone:(504)799-2845
Scott A. Kitner {Rule 707Statementpending)

KITNER WOODWARD PLLC
13101 Preston Road, Suite 110
Dallas, Texas 75240
scott@kitnerwoodward.com
phone:(214)443-4300
Martin Woodward {Rule 707 Statementpending)

Dallas, Texas 75240
martin@kitnerwoodward.com
phone:(214)443-4300
Scott E. Smith {Rule 707 Statementpending)

SCOTT ELLIOT SMITH,L.P.A.
5003 Horizons Drive, Suite 101
Columbus, OH 43220
ses@sestriallaw.com
phone:(614)846-1700
Counselfor Plaintiffs
Page 21 of21
Exhibit B
Case:
Hearing'DateC: 1\')1512023 9:301:23-cv-06065
AM Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 25 of 77 PageID #:38
FILED
Location: Court Room 2408 7/19/2023 3:10 PM
Judge: Conlon, Alison C Rec'd in Law Dept. IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT:cLi::RK
JUL 2 6 2023 COOK COUNTY, IL
2023CH06670
Litigation Section 8-3 Calendar, 4
23605373
2120 - Served 2121 -Served 2620 - Sec. of State

2220-Not Served 2221-Not Served 2621 -Alias Sec. of State
2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail
2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication
Summons -Alias Summons (03/15/21) CCG 0001A
#02329 DSK/sg 2023N-1000
Name all Parties
MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, WILLlAM
MIDGETT and DlANE COUGHLIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

2023CH06670
Case No.
INSURANCE CO., a p&c domestic mutual; and
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC., a RIECE!VEOJ
corporation,
Defendants.
JUL~ 4 2023
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
c/o Any Officer or Director for State Farm Mutual
McLEAN COUNTY
SMi;RIFFS DEPT
Automobile Insurance Company
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomin ton, IL 61710
Address of Defendant
Please serve as follows (check one): D Certified Mail 181 Sheriff Service □ Alias
SUMMONS
To each Defendant:
You have been named a defendant in the complaint in this case, a copy of which is hereto attached.
You are summoned and required to file your appearance, in the office of the clerk of this court,
within 30 days after service of this summons, not counting the day of service. If you fail to do so, a
judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief asked in the complaint.
THERE IS A FEE TO FILE YOUR APPEARANCE.
FILING AN APPEARANCE: Your appearance date is NOT a court date. It is the deadline
for filing your appearance/answer. To file your appearance/answer YOU DO NOT NEED
TO COME TO THE COURTHOUSE, unless you are unable to eFile your appearance/
answer. You can download an Appearance form at http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Forms/
approved/procedures/appearance.asp. After completing and saving your Appearance form, you
can electronically file (e-File) it with the circuit clerk's office.
Page 1 of 4

Summons -Alias Summons (03/15/21) CCG 0001 B
E-FILING: E-filing is now mandatory with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first create an account with
an e-filing service provider. Visit http:1/efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm to learn more and to select a
service provider.
If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http:/ /www.illinoiscourts.gov/faq /gethelp.asp or talk with
your local circuit clerk's office. If you cannot e-file, you may be able to get an exemption that allows you to file in-
person or by mail. Ask your circuit clerk for more information or visit www.illinoislegalaid.org.
FEE WAIVER: If you are unable to pay your court fees, you can apply for a fee waiver. For information about
defending yourself in a court case (including filing an appearance or fee waiver), or to apply for free legal help, go to
www.illinoislegalaid.org. You can also ask your local circuit clerk's office for a fee waiver application.
COURT DATE: Your court date will be sent to your e-File email account or the email address you provided to
the clerk's office. You can also call or email the clerk's office to request your next court date. You will need to
provide your case number OR, if unknown, the name of the Plaintiff or Defendant. For criminal case types, you
will also need to provide the Defendant's birthdate.
REMOTE APPEARANCE: You may be able to attend this court date by phone or video conference.
This is called a ''Remote Appearance." Call the Circuit Clerk at (312) 603-5030 or visit their website at www.
cookcountyclerkofcourtorg to find out how to do this.
Contact information for each of the Clerk's Office locations is included with this summons. The Clerk's office is
open Mon - Fri, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm, except for court holidays.
To the officer: (Sheriff Service)
This summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, with endorsement
of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this summons shall be returned so
endorsed. This summons may not be served later than thirty (30) days after its date.
~ Atty. No.: ,,,02e.3"'29.,___ _

□ Pro Se 99500
Name: Daniel S. Kirschner/ Corboy & Demetrio, P.C. 7/1912023 3:10 PM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
Atty. For: Plaintiffs
Address: 33 North Dearborn Street, 21" Floor

□ Service by Certified Mail: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
City: Chicago, Illinois 60602
□ Date of Service: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Telephone: (312) 346-3191 (To be inserted by officer on copy Jcft with employer or other person)
Primary Email: ccfiling@corboydcmctrio.com
Page 2 of 4

GET YOUR COURT DATE BY CALLING IN OR BY EMAIL
CAT I OR SEND AN EMAIL MESSAGE to the telephone number or court date email address below for the
appropriate division, dbtricc or department to rc,1ucst your m.:xt court d;1tc, Email your case numhcr, or, if you do
not have your case number, email the Plaintiff or Defendant's name for civil case types, or the Defendant's name
and birthdate for a criminal case.
CHANCERY DIVISION AU· SUBURBAN CASE TYPES

Court date EMAIL: dmnCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
DISTRICT 2 - SKOKIE
Gen. Info: (312) 603-5133 Court date EMAIL: D2Cow:tDate@cookcountycourt.com
CIVIL DIVISION Gen. Info: (847) 470-7250
Court date EMAIL: CivCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com DISTRICT 3 - ROLLING MEADOWS
Gen. Info: (312) 603-5116 Court date EMAIL: D3CourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
COUNTY DIVISION Gen. Info: (847) 818-31JIIIJ
Court date EMAIL: CntyCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com DISTRICT 4 - MAYWOOD
Gen. Info: (312) 603-5710 Court date EMAIL: l).JCour1l):ttL•@conkcnun1ycourr.com
DOMESTIC RELATIONS/CHILD SUPPORT (.;en. Into: (708) 865-6040
DMSION DISTRICT 5 - BRIDGEVIEW
Court date EMAIL: DRCourtDatc@cookcountycourtcom Court date EMAIL: D5CourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
OR
Gen. Info: (7118) 974-65011
ChildSupCourtDatc@cookcountycourt.com
Gen. Info: (312) 603-6300 DISTRICT 6 - MARKHAM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Court date EMAIL: D6CourtDate@cookcountycourt.com

Court date EMAIL: DVConrtDatc@cookcountycourt.com Gen. Info: (708) 232-4551
Gen. Info: (312) 325-9500
LAW DIVISION
Court date EMAIL: LlwCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
Gen. Info: (312) 611:l-5426
PROBATE DIVISION
Court date EMAIL: ProbCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
Gen. Info: (312) 6113-c.441
Iris Y. Martinez, Oerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Page 3 of 4
.,
cookcountyclcrkofcourt.org
Page 4 of 4
Exhibit C
Case: 1:23-cv-06065 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 30 of 77 PageID
Rec'd in#:43
Law Dept.
SERVICE OF PROCESS JUL 2 6 2023

Litigation Section 9_3
Questions regarding the attached Service of Process should be directed to the person/section
of the Law Department checked in the bottom section below.
The attached papers were:
~ersonally served upon:
Sall{Jlsen Susie Clark Tina Weis

Tami Jackman Doug Nenne
or
□ Received by mail in the Office of the Corporate Secretary
On (date/ ' ] I:)& rJag ,1 ~&,n

J
1_-
After receipt, the attached papers were then forwarded to one of the following sections of the
Law Department:
u;/suf)h,ons I Subpoenas - Utigation Coordinators

Jason Cook (alias JOWG) 309-735-0796
Susie Clark (alias RXQG) 309-766-0558

Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
D Summons {SF Bank) - Bank Section

Kristy McReynolds (alias CMJC) 309-766-4230
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
D Summons I Foreclosures
Email: MAMR SS-FORECLOSURE-NOTICES
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
D Summons/ Garnishment of Wages - HR/Agency & Counseling Section

Lisa Craghead (alias NHWB) 309-766-1936
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
D Summons I Garnishment of Non-Wages - Fire Claims Counsel Section

Megan Pfister (alias XHRX) 309-766-4000
Other_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Case:
Hearing'DateC: 1\')1512023 9:301:23-cv-06065
AM Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 31 of 77 PageID #:44
FILED
Location: Court Room 2408 7/19/2023 3:10 PM
Judge: Conlon, Alison C Rec'd in Law Dept. IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT:cLi::RK
JUL 2 6 2023 COOK COUNTY, IL
2023CH06670
Litigation Section 8-3 Calendar, 4
23605373
2120 - Served 2121 -Served 2620 - Sec. of State

2220-Not Served 2221-Not Served 2621 -Alias Sec. of State
2320 - Served By Mail 2321 - Served By Mail
2420 - Served By Publication 2421 - Served By Publication
Summons -Alias Summons (03/15/21) CCG 0001A
#02329 DSK/sg 2023N-1000
Name all Parties
MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, WILLlAM
MIDGETT and DlANE COUGHLIN, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.

2023CH06670
Case No.
INSURANCE CO., a p&c domestic mutual; and
INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC., a RIECE!VEOJ
corporation,
Defendants.
JUL~ 4 2023
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company
c/o Any Officer or Director for State Farm Mutual
McLEAN COUNTY
SMi;RIFFS DEPT
Automobile Insurance Company
One State Farm Plaza
Bloomin ton, IL 61710
Address of Defendant
Please serve as follows (check one): D Certified Mail 181 Sheriff Service □ Alias
SUMMONS
To each Defendant:
You have been named a defendant in the complaint in this case, a copy of which is hereto attached.
You are summoned and required to file your appearance, in the office of the clerk of this court,
within 30 days after service of this summons, not counting the day of service. If you fail to do so, a
judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief asked in the complaint.
THERE IS A FEE TO FILE YOUR APPEARANCE.
FILING AN APPEARANCE: Your appearance date is NOT a court date. It is the deadline
for filing your appearance/answer. To file your appearance/answer YOU DO NOT NEED
TO COME TO THE COURTHOUSE, unless you are unable to eFile your appearance/
answer. You can download an Appearance form at http://www.illinoiscourts.gov/Forms/
approved/procedures/appearance.asp. After completing and saving your Appearance form, you
can electronically file (e-File) it with the circuit clerk's office.
Page 1 of 4

Summons -Alias Summons (03/15/21) CCG 0001 B
E-FILING: E-filing is now mandatory with limited exemptions. To e-file, you must first create an account with
an e-filing service provider. Visit http:1/efile.illinoiscourts.gov/service-providers.htm to learn more and to select a
service provider.
If you need additional help or have trouble e-filing, visit http:/ /www.illinoiscourts.gov/faq /gethelp.asp or talk with
your local circuit clerk's office. If you cannot e-file, you may be able to get an exemption that allows you to file in-
person or by mail. Ask your circuit clerk for more information or visit www.illinoislegalaid.org.
FEE WAIVER: If you are unable to pay your court fees, you can apply for a fee waiver. For information about
defending yourself in a court case (including filing an appearance or fee waiver), or to apply for free legal help, go to
www.illinoislegalaid.org. You can also ask your local circuit clerk's office for a fee waiver application.
COURT DATE: Your court date will be sent to your e-File email account or the email address you provided to
the clerk's office. You can also call or email the clerk's office to request your next court date. You will need to
provide your case number OR, if unknown, the name of the Plaintiff or Defendant. For criminal case types, you
will also need to provide the Defendant's birthdate.
REMOTE APPEARANCE: You may be able to attend this court date by phone or video conference.
This is called a ''Remote Appearance." Call the Circuit Clerk at (312) 603-5030 or visit their website at www.
cookcountyclerkofcourtorg to find out how to do this.
Contact information for each of the Clerk's Office locations is included with this summons. The Clerk's office is
open Mon - Fri, 8:30 am - 4:30 pm, except for court holidays.
To the officer: (Sheriff Service)
This summons must be returned by the officer or other person to whom it was given for service, with endorsement
of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this summons shall be returned so
endorsed. This summons may not be served later than thirty (30) days after its date.
~ Atty. No.: ,,,02e.3"'29.,___ _

□ Pro Se 99500
Name: Daniel S. Kirschner/ Corboy & Demetrio, P.C. 7/1912023 3:10 PM IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
Atty. For: Plaintiffs
Address: 33 North Dearborn Street, 21" Floor

□ Service by Certified Mail: _ _ _ _ _ _ __
City: Chicago, Illinois 60602
□ Date of Service: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Telephone: (312) 346-3191 (To be inserted by officer on copy Jcft with employer or other person)
Primary Email: ccfiling@corboydcmctrio.com
Page 2 of 4

GET YOUR COURT DATE BY CALLING IN OR BY EMAIL
CAT I OR SEND AN EMAIL MESSAGE to the telephone number or court date email address below for the
appropriate division, dbtricc or department to rc,1ucst your m.:xt court d;1tc, Email your case numhcr, or, if you do
not have your case number, email the Plaintiff or Defendant's name for civil case types, or the Defendant's name
and birthdate for a criminal case.
CHANCERY DIVISION AU· SUBURBAN CASE TYPES

Court date EMAIL: dmnCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
DISTRICT 2 - SKOKIE
Gen. Info: (312) 603-5133 Court date EMAIL: D2Cow:tDate@cookcountycourt.com
CIVIL DIVISION Gen. Info: (847) 470-7250
Court date EMAIL: CivCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com DISTRICT 3 - ROLLING MEADOWS
Gen. Info: (312) 603-5116 Court date EMAIL: D3CourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
COUNTY DIVISION Gen. Info: (847) 818-31JIIIJ
Court date EMAIL: CntyCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com DISTRICT 4 - MAYWOOD
Gen. Info: (312) 603-5710 Court date EMAIL: l).JCour1l):ttL•@conkcnun1ycourr.com
DOMESTIC RELATIONS/CHILD SUPPORT (.;en. Into: (708) 865-6040
DMSION DISTRICT 5 - BRIDGEVIEW
Court date EMAIL: DRCourtDatc@cookcountycourtcom Court date EMAIL: D5CourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
OR
Gen. Info: (7118) 974-65011
ChildSupCourtDatc@cookcountycourt.com
Gen. Info: (312) 603-6300 DISTRICT 6 - MARKHAM
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Court date EMAIL: D6CourtDate@cookcountycourt.com

Court date EMAIL: DVConrtDatc@cookcountycourt.com Gen. Info: (708) 232-4551
Gen. Info: (312) 325-9500
LAW DIVISION
Court date EMAIL: LlwCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
Gen. Info: (312) 611:l-5426
PROBATE DIVISION
Court date EMAIL: ProbCourtDate@cookcountycourt.com
Gen. Info: (312) 6113-c.441
Iris Y. Martinez, Oerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Page 3 of 4
.,
cookcountyclcrkofcourt.org
Page 4 of 4
Fiiar Seiected Hearing Date: No hearing scheduled
Courtroom Number: No hearing scheduled
Location: No hearing scheduled
#02329 DSKNVTG/sg 2023N-1000

FILED
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION 7/19/2023 3:10 PM
IRIS Y. MARTINEZ
CIRCUIT CLERK
MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, COOK COUNTY, IL
::. 2023CH06670
a. WILLIAM MIDGETT and DIANE Calendar, 4
0
~
;; COUGHLIN, on behalf of themselves and all

others similarly situated,
i
;::: No.
2023CH06670
w Plaintiffs,
~
D
D
w v. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
-'
ii:

INSURANCE CO., a p&c domestic mutual; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
and INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, \RECEiVEI!]
INC., a corporation,
JUL 2 42023
Defendants. LEA~couNN
MiHERlffS DEPT
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, WILLIAM MIDGETT, and DIANE
COUGHLIN (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
individuals, by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this Class Action Complaint against
Defendants, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. (hereinafter "State
Farm") and INSURANCE SERVICES OFFICE, INC. (hereinafter "ISO"; collectively, with State
Farm, "Defendants"), for violations of their right to privacy under Illinois state law as follows:
NEED FOR RELIEF
I. The Illinois Constitution guarantees that the people of the State oflllinois shall have
the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and other possessions against unreasonable
invasions of privacy. Ill. Const. Art. I,§ 6.
Page 1 of21
2. As the Illinois Supreme Court has determined, this zone of personal privacy is
0 stated broadly and without limitation and includes the confidentiality of personal medical
.fg
0
:r:
g information, that "is, without question, at the core of what society regards as a fundamental
...~
component of individual privacy."
3. The Supreme Court has also noted that "Physicians are privy to the most intimate
details of their patients' lives, touching on diverse subjects like mental health, sexual health and
reproductive choice."
4. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA")
articulates a standard of care that entities should follow when receiving personal medical
information.
5. The Illinois Supreme Court has determined that this standard of care applies to
insurers like State Farm when it receives personal medical information.
6. State Farm violates this standard of care when it discloses the personal medical
information it receives from claimants to ISO for collection and harvesting.
7. This standard of care also applies to ISO.
8. ISO violates this standard of care by collecting and harvesting personal medical
information from State Farm to build a massive database of individuals' health information, and
then sharing the information with its customers, including State Farm, for profit.
9. In total, State Farm, along with other insurers, have annually provided ISO with
approximately three billion detailed premiums and loss records, and to date, ISO has a database
that contains more than 32 billion records. 1
1 Verisk Grows Premium and Loss Database for Third Consecutive Year, VERISK NEWSROOM (Apr. 5,
2023), https://www.verisk.com/newsroom/verisk-grows-premium-and-loss-database-for-third-
consecutive-year/ (last accessed July 11, 2023).
Page 2 of 21
10. ISO's collection and processing of personal information generates billions of
dollars annually, all at the expense of people whose personal medical information is being used
without their knowledge for financial gain.
II. The sizeable profits ISO derives from individually identifiable health information
is unsurprising given the resale value of someone's electronic health record "could be worth
hundreds or even thousands of dollars."2 The value is in the abundance of exploitable information
contained in an individual's health records.
12. The present case addresses data collection practices that contravene principles of
privacy and ownership of personal information by taking advantage of unwitting people without
recompense.
13. State Farm never notified Plaintiffs or Class members that their private medical
information was submitted to ISO.
14. ISO never notified Plaintiffs or Class members that it continues to retain and profit
off their protected health information.
15. In violation of Plaintiffs' right to privacy, Defendants have created a symbiotic
relationship where ISO runs a business processing massive amounts of premiums and loss data
provided by insurers, including State Farm, and State Farm relies on ISO's analysis of this data to
raise premiums and deny coverage to individuals.
2 Mariya Yao, Your Electronic Medical Records Could Be Worth $1000 To Hackers, FORBES (Apr. 14,
2017, 10:05 PM), https://www.forbes.com/sites/mariyayao/2017 /04/14/your-electronic-medical-records-
can-be-worth-1 000-to-hackers/?sh=2c78ed0f50cf.
Page 3 of21
PARTIES
0 Plaintiffs
-~
0
:c
16. Plaintiff Mary Brown is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois.
j
:a Plaintiff is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
a_
0
.;; 17. Plaintiff Andy Velazquez is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois .
"'
~
~ Plaintiff is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Chicago, Cook County, Illinois.
;::
w
~ 18. Plaintiff William Midgett is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois.
0
0
...,w Plaintiff is and was at all times relevant hereto a resident of Calumet City, Cook County, Illinois .
ii:
19. Plaintiff Diane Coughlin is a natural person and citizen of Cook County, Illinois.
Defendants
20. Defendant State Farm is a property & casualty domestic mutual incorporated in and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois, with its principal place of business located at One
State Farm Plaza, Bloomington, Illinois 61710. State Farm is the number one automobile insurer
in the United States.
21. Defendant IS0 3 is a corporation incorporated in and existing under the laws of the
State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located at 545 Washington Blvd., Jersey
City, NJ 07310.
22. ISO is an association of insurance companies that gathers claim-related information
from insurers and then processes and analyzes that information in its database to provide
3
ISO has evolved substantially since its inception. ISO was created in 1971 when several rating bureaus
consolidated and formed a non-profit association of insurers. In 1993, ISO reorganized into a for-profit
independent corporation. In 2008, it created a new company called Verisk. ISO went public the following
year and became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Verisk. As a subsidiary of a public company, ISO is no
longer controlled by insurers.
Page 4 of 21
subscribing insurers, among others, with collected statistical, actuarial, underwriting, and claims
information for use in underwriting and pricing policies.
23. ISO is a subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, is licensed to do business in the State of
Illinois, and does business in Cook County, and nationwide.
24. ISONerisk and State Farm are not "affiliates" as that term is defined in 215 ILCS
5/1003(B). That is, neither entity "directly, or indirectly through one or more intermediaries,
controls, is controlled by or is under common control with" the other. Thus, neither ISO nor Verisk
is an "affiliate" of State Farm for purposes of215 ILCS 5/1014(L) or any other legal or regulatory
provisions applicable in this context.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25. This Court has personal jurisdiction under 735 ILCS § 2-209(b)(3) ("a corporation
organized under the laws of this State") and§ 2-209(b)(4) (a "corporation doing business within
this State").
26. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 735 ILCS § 2-209(a)(l) ("The
transaction of any business within this State") and § 2-209(a)(2) ("The commission of a tortious
act within this State").
27. Venue is proper pursuant to § 735 ILCS 5/2-101, because venue is proper "in the
county of residence of any defendant ... [or] in the county in which the transaction or some part
thereof occurred out of which the cause of action arose."
STATEMENT OF FACTS
28. Without regard to certain exceptions not relevant here, protected health information
is individually identifiable health information transmitted by electronic media, maintained in
electronic media, or transmitted or maintained in any other form or medium. 45 C.F.R. § 160.103
(2018). In turn, "individually identifiable health information" is information, including
Page 5 of21
"demographic information collected from an individual," that (I) "[i]s created or received by a
health care provider, health plan, employer, or health care clearinghouse;" (2) "[r]elates to the past,
present, or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual; the provision of health
care to an individual; or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to an
individual; and" (3) "identifies the individual" or can reasonably "be used to identify the
individual." 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.
29. Protected health information, or PHI, is a subset of individually identifiable health
information.
30. HIPAA and its implementing regulations prohibit the use or disclosure of an
individual's protected health information, except when (I) use or disclosure of protected health
information is pursuant to a valid authorization or (2) use or disclosure of protected health
information is in the course of a judicial or administrative proceeding. Furthermore, any person
receiving protected health information from a covered entity must return or destroy the protected
health information within sixty days after the conclusion of the judicial or administrative
proceeding for 'Vhich such information was requested.
31. Insurers like State Farm and entities like ISO must comply with the standard of care
articulated by HIP AA and its implementing regulations.
32. When a person involved in an automobile accident submits a claim for personal
injuries to State Farm, State Farm routinely requests and reviews medical records, which
necessarily includes protected health information, to evaluate the claim and the alleged injuries.
33. This is true whether the claimant is insured by State Farm or was injured by an
insured of State Farm.
Page 6 of 21
34. At the conclusion of the litigation or proceeding for which the protected health
information is requested, rather than returning or destroying the records containing a claimant's
protected health information, State Farm retains and uses the claims data, which includes protected
health information, for developing rates and underwriting.

"
0.
0
io 35. The provision of protected health information for purposes of adjudicating or

"'
N
0
~ settling a claim does not transfer ownership of the protected health information, nor does it allow
;:
~
0
State Farm to sell or transfer that protected health information to third parties for purposes
w
J
u: unrelated to the litigation or proceeding.
36. This is where ISO comes in. Insurers, like State Farm, routinely submit reports to
ISO containing individual claimants' protected health information. ISO compiles the personal
information contained in the reports and maintains it in a database that it analyzes.
37. ISO analyzes its database of claimants' protected health information and other
confidential information to create products and services which it subsequently sells back to its
subscribers, including participating insurers, third-party claim administrators, and self-insureds. 4
38. These products and services have nothing to do with evaluating, litigating, or
settling the claim of the person whose protected health information is sold and used. Rather, ISO
helps subscribers use this data to assess the profitability of each type of insurance. Specifically,
the information helps underwriters decide if they should sell a person an auto policy and at what
premium.
39. For example, when adjusting insurance claims, State Farm relies on ISO reports,
which include protected health information only sometimes associated with the claimant. Indeed,
ISO reports have protected health information from third parties who have no connection to the
4 Affidavit of Carlos Martins Para. 2, 5, Shull v. Ellis, No. 15 L 9759.
Page 7 of21
claimant other than a similar name, date of birth, or address. State Farm then judges the claimant
who has the fortunate or unfortunate luck of having intimate details in common with this random
third party.
40. Under this scheme, if an insured's medical records are provided to State Farm, the
insured's protected health information could be disclosed to ISO, who offers it for sale to other
insurance companies, third-party administrators, and self-insureds with whom the insured has no
relationship.
41. Likewise, if State Farm is provided the medical records of a third-party claimant
that is injured by a State Farm insured, the third-party claimant's protected health information
could be disclosed to ISO, who offers it for sale to other insurance companies, third-party
administrators, and self-insureds with whom the third-party claimant has no relationship.
42. In essence, detailed protected health information provided to State Farm to
evaluate, litigate, or settle a_ claim could end up in the hands of Allstate, Liberty Mutual, or any
other ISO-participating organization.
NAMED PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS
43. Plaintiff Mary Brown, while residing in Illinois, was injured in an accident
information for the limited purpose of evaluating, litigating or settling her claim.
44. Plaintiff Andy Velazquez, while residing in Illinois, was injured in an accident
information for the limited purpose of evaluating, litigating or settling his claim.
45. Plaintiff William Midgett, while residing in Illinois and insured by State Farm, was
limits did not cover the full extent of Plaintiff's injuries and other accident-related losses. Plaintiff
Page 8 of21
litigating or settling his claim under the other motorist's State Farm policy as well as his
underinsured motorist claim under his own State Farm policy.
46. Plaintiff Diane Coughlin, while residing in Illinois and insured by State Farm, was
limits did not cover the full extent of Plaintiff's injuries and other accident-related losses. Plaintiff
litigating or settling her claim under the other motorist's State Farm policy as well as her
underinsured motorist claim under her own State Farm policy.
DISCOVERY RULE, TOLLING AND CONCEALMENT
47. The statutes of limitations applicable to Plaintiffs' and Class members' claims are
tolled as a result of Defendants' knowing and active concealment of their conduct alleged herein
and Plaintiffs' and Class members' delayed discovery of their claims.
48. Plaintiffs and Class members had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of the
facts constituting their claims for relief. They did not discover, nor could they have discovered
through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, Defendants' practices of retaining, using,
and sharing their protected health information until shortly before this litigation commenced.
49. Plaintiffs and Class members expected and trusted that their protected health
information obtained by State Farm would be kept confidential, and Plaintiffs and Class members
were neither aware nor consented to State Farm and its agents using their protected health
information for functions unrelated to the evaluation, settlement or litigation of their claim.
50. State Farm was and remains under a continuing duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and
Class members its practice of sharing protected health information to parties unrelated to the
litigation or proceeding for which such information was provided.
Page 9 of 21
51. Despite Defendants' duty to disclose the true character, quality, and nature of their
activities to Plaintiffs and Class members, State Farm does not notify Plaintiffs and Class members
that it is submitting their protected health information to ISO, and ISO does not notify Plaintiffs
and Class members that it is in possession of their protected health information or that it is profiting
from the publication and sale of their information.
52. As a result of Defendants' active concealment and omissions, any and all applicable
statutes of limitations have been tolled.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
53. Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit pursuant to 735 ILCS § 5/2-801 seeking damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of Plaintiffs and the following state-wide classes of similarly situated
individuals (collectively, the "Class" unless otherwise noted):
A. State Farm and ISO Class: Any person not insured by State Farm
who, while residing in Illinois, was injured by a State Farm insured and
provided State Farm with protected health information to evaluate, litigate,
or settle their claim, and rather than "return or destroy" their protected
health information following the resolution of their claim, State Farm sent
it to ISO, who processed it and made it available to ISO subscribers for a
fee, on or after July 19, 2018.
B. ISO Class: Any resident of Illinois who suffered an injury, while

insured by State Farm, and provided State Farm with protected health
information to evaluate, litigate, or settle their claim, and rather than "return
or destroy" their protected health information following the resolution of
their claim, State Farm sent it to ISO, who processed it and made it available
to ISO subscribers for a fee, on or after July 19, 2018.
54. If additional information is obtained through further investigation and discovery,
the foregoing definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or amended
complaint.
55. Specifically excluded from the Class are (i) Defendants; (ii) Defendants' officers,
directors, agents, trustees, representatives, employees, principals, servants, partners, and joint-
Page 10 of 21
venturers; (iii) any entities controlled by Defendants; (iv) Defendants' heirs, successors, assigns,
...
a
•<O
or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendants, their officers, or their directors;
"'
a
:c
0
M
and (v) the judge assigned to this action or any member of that judge's immediate family.
N
!al
56. Ascertain ability. Members of the Class are readily ascertainable because the Class
is defined using objective criteria, such as geography and specific communications with State
Farm, so as to allow prospective members to determine if they are part of the Class.
57. Numerosity. The Class is so numerous that individual joinder is impracticable. At
a minimum, the Class contains thousands of members. Although the precise number of Class
members is unknown to Plaintiffs, the true number of the Class is known by Defendants.
58. Commonality. Common questions of law and fact exist and predominate over
questions affecting only individual members of the Class. Such questions include:
a. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members have a protectable interest in ensuring their
protected health information is not offered for sale to third parties who pay ISO for access to their
database;
b. Whether Defendants violated Illinois law by receiving, sharing, offering for sale
and selling protected health information to third parties, for purposes other than evaluating,
settling, litigating, or adjusting Plaintiffs' and Class members' claims, without consent from
Plaintiffs and Class members;
c. Whether Defendants unjustly profit from the disclosure and inclusion of Plaintiffs'
and Class Members' protected health information in ISO's database;
d. Whether State Farm wrongfully transferred Plaintiffs' and Class members'
protected health information to ISO;
Page 11 of21
e. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members have a right to the disgorgement of profits
earned by Defendants through the sale and publication of their protected health information; and
f. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to damages from Defendants.
59. Typicality. Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of the other members of the Class,
because, among other things, Defendants collected, received, and/or used Class members'
protected health information in violation of the standard of care in the exact same manner for each
Class member.
60. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the Class. Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in complex class actions and
intend to vigorously prosecute this case on behalf of the Class. Further, Plaintiffs have no interests
that are antagonistic to the Class.
61. Superiority. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this controversy. The damages suffered by each individual member of the
Class are relatively small compared to the burden and expense required to individually litigate a
tort claim against Defendants. Absent a class action, it would thus be impossible for members of
the Class, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs committed against
them. Individualized litigation also risks inconsistent or contradictory judgments and increases the
cost of legal resolution of this matter for all parties and for the court system. By contrast, the
proposed class action presents far fewer management difficulties and offers the benefits of a single
adjudication, economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.
COUNT ONE: NEGLIGENCE
Page 12 of21
63. The Defendants had a duty of care to protect the confidentiality of Plaintiffs' and
the Class members' protected health information.
64. State Farm had a duty to refrain from using or disclosing Plaintiffs' and Class
members' protected health information for any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for
which such information was requested.
65. State Farm's provision of Plaintiffs' and Class members' protected health
information to ISO-a third party unconnected to the evaluation, litigation, or settlement of their
claim-for business purposes and without Plaintiffs' and Class members' consent, constitutes a
violation of the duty to refrain from using or disclosing protected health information for any
purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which the protected health information was
requested.
66. State Farm had a duty to return or destroy Plaintiffs' and Class members' protected
health information at the conclusion of the litigation or proceeding.
67. State Farm intentionally retained Plaintiffs' protected health information after the
close of litigation for underwriting purposes unrelated to Plaintiffs' and Class members' claims,
and disclosed their protected health information to ISO without Plaintiffs' and Class members'
consent, which is a breach of the duty to return or destroy this information.
68. Also in breach of the duty to refrain from using protected health information
without authorization or outside the scope of litigation, ISO collects and stores the protected health
information without Plaintiffs' or Class members' consent and maintains it in a database. ISO
analyzes this database and repackages the data to create products and services that it subsequently
sells back to its subscribers, including State Farm. These products and services normally have
Page 13 of21
nothing to do with adjusting or litigating the claim of the person whose protected health
information is sold and used.
69. Defendants' retention, transfer, disclosure, offer for sale, and subsequent sale of
Plaintiffs' protected health information caused Plaintiffs to suffer damages.
COUNT TWO: UNJUST ENRICHMENT
71. ISO has unjustly benefitted from the wrongful disclosure and collection of
Plaintiffs' and Class members' protected health information to build their database, without
authorization, which garners billions of dollars.
72. State Farm unjustly benefits from ISO's database comprised of Plaintiffs' and Class
members' protected health information for the purpose of raising premiums and denying policy
coverage of individuals.
73. Plaintiffs and Class members do not consent to Defendants' disclosure, processing
or retention of their protected health information following the resolution of their claim, nor did
they have any control over the use of their protected health information to produce revenue.
Therefore, under principles of equity and good conscience, Defendants should not be permitted to
retain any money derived from their disclosure, processing, retention or sale of Plaintiffs' and
Class members' protected health information.
74. Defendants' retention, processing, and sale of the protected health information to
the detriment of Plaintiffs and Class members thus violates the fundamental principles of justice,
equity, and good conscience.
75. No contract exists that would offer relief in this circumstance.
Page 14 of21
COUNT THREE: INVASION OF PRIVACY

PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS
0
. fg 76. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the Class, incorporate the foregoing
0
r
0
~ allegations as if fully set forth herein.
""
77. To plead public disclosure of private facts, a plaintiff must plead (1) the defendant
gave publicity; (2) to plaintiffs private, not public, life; (3) the matter publicized was highly
offensive to a reasonable person; and (4) the matter publicized was not of legitimate public
concern.
78. Defendants, both individually and jointly, intentionally intruded upon the privacy
of Plaintiffs and the Class by State Farm submitting protected health information to ISO, and then
ISO publicly offering it for sale.
79. Plaintiffs' and the Class members' protected health information is nonpublic,
private information, the publication of which is not of legitimate concern to the public.
80. State Farm retained and submitted Plaintiffs' and the Class members' protected
health information without consent.
81. ISO received, processed, offered for sale, and sold Plaintiffs' and the Class
members' protected health information without consent.
82. Defendants' conduct, both individually and jointly, is highly offensive to a
reasonable person, as evidenced by substantial research, literature, and governmental enforcement
and investigative efforts to protect consumer privacy against surreptitious technological intrusions.
83. The improper nature of Defendants' public disclosure of information not of
legitimate public concern is illustrated by the public policies embedded in the Illinois Constitution
andHIPAA.
Page 15 of21
84. The damage Plaintiffs and the Class members suffered by having their protected
health information publicly exposed includes, but is not limited to: use of their legitimate claims
as an improper basis for reducing or second-guessing subsequent claims that they might assert,
and increased policy premiums.
COUNT FOUR: INVASION OF PRIVACY -

INTRUSION UPON SECLUSION
86. A claim for intrusion upon seclusion requires (I) an unauthorized intrusion into
seclusion like a private place, conversation, or matter; (2) in a manner highly offensive to a
reasonable person; (3) the matter intruded upon was private; and (4) the intrusion caused the
plaintiffs anguish and suffering.
87. The confidentiality of personal medical information is a fundamental component of
individual privacy. Plaintiffs and Class members expected their protected health information to be
used exclusively for adjudicating or litigating their claim and to be kept confidential and not used
for improper purposes by anyone.
88. Litigants, including Plaintiffs and Class members, would not reasonably expect
their protected health information to be used, retained, or disclosed for any purpose beyond the
litigation or proceeding for which their protected health information was requested, or after the
termination of said litigation or proceeding.
89. Defendants intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiffs and the Class by
soliciting, submitting, accepting, maintaining, offering for sale, selling, disclosing, and publicizing
their protected health information for purposes other than the adjudication or settlement of their
claim.
Page 16 of21
90. ISO intentionally intruded upon the seclusion of Plaintiffs and the Class in order to
wrongfully profit from their protected health information. Each individual invasion may involve
slight intrusions and modest financial gain, but the aggregate of these invasions comprise the
billions of dollars of revenue generated by ISO.
91. State Farm benefits from the intrusion on seclusion by retaining and using the
protected health information in rate making, to scrutinize and reduce the value of future claims,
and to deny people coverage. State Farm's data intrusions pose a harm to Plaintiffs and the Class
members and could lead to further damage in the future when their protected health information is
later wrongfully accessed by State Farm and other insurers and improperly used by insurers
underwriting a policy.
92. The choice to solicit, submit, obtain, retain, and profit from Plaintiffs' and the Class
members' protected health information without consent to profit would be highly offensive to a
reasonable person.
93. The unauthorized taking, retaining, and selling of protected health information from
people through deceit is highly offensive behavior, as evidenced by substantial research, literature,
and governmental enforcement and investigative efforts to protect consumer privacy against
surreptitious technological intrusions.
94. Defendants' extensive sharing of Plaintiffs' and Class members' private
information also increases the risk of the disclosure of such information through negligent security,
which is highlighted by ISO's admission ofa data breach in November of2021. 5
5Data Breach Notification Letter, ISO (Nov. I, 202 !), https://www.mass.gov/doc/assigned-data-breach-

number-23520-insurance-services-office-inc/download (last accessed July 11, 2023).
Page 17 of21
95. Plaintiffs and Class members suffer loss of security in their private health
information and mental anguish as a proximate result of Defendants' intrusive and offensive
conduct.
COUNT FIVE: NEGLIGENCE PER SE
97. A claim for negligence per se requires (I) a violation of law; (2) the law was
designed to protect the welfare of others; and (3) the injured person is in a class of people whom
the law exists to protect.
98. Pursuant to HIPAA:
For purposes of paragraph (e)(l) of this section, a qualified

protective order means, with respect to protected health information
requested under paragraph (e)(I )(ii) of this section, an order of a
court or of an administrative tribunal or a stipulation by the parties
to the litigation or administrative proceeding that: (A) Prohibits the
parties from using or disclosing the protected health information for
any purpose other than the litigation or proceeding for which such
information was requested; and (B) Requires the return to the
covered entity or destruction of the protected health information
(including all copies made) at the end of the litigation or
proceeding. 6
99. State Farm intentionally retained Plaintiffs' and Class members' protected health
information after the close of litigation, for underwriting purposes unrelated to Plaintiffs' claims,
and disclosed their protected health information to ISO without Plaintiffs' consent, which is a
violation of HIP AA.
6
45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(l)(v).
Page 18 of21
100. State Farm's provision of Plaintiffs' protected health information to ISO, a third
g party unconnected to the litigation or proceeding, for business purposes and without Plaintiffs'
. :g
0
:c
0 consent, also violates HIP AA.
"'N
~
101. Also in violation of HIPAA, ISO collects and stores Plaintiffs' protected health
information without their consent and maintains it in a database. ISO analyzes this database and
repackages the data, creating products and services that it sells right back to its subscribers,
including State Farm. These products and services normally have nothing to do with adjusting or
litigating the claim of the person whose protected health information is sold and used.
I 02. Plaintiffs are the injured parties HIPAA was designed to protect, because they are
individuals whose protected health information was used in the course of litigation as envisioned
by the statute.
103. Defendants' retention, transfer, disclosure, offer for sale, and subsequent sale of
Plaintiffs' and Class members' protected health information caused Plaintiffs and Class members
to suffer damages including, but not limited to, public disclosure of their protected health
information, misuse of their legitimate claims as a basis to second-guess subsequent claims that
they might assert, increased policy premiums, and deprivation of the full opportunity to personally
profit from the retention, submission, processing, and sale of their individually identifiable health
information.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, WILLIAM
MIDGETT, and DIANE COUGHLIN, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of the Class, pray
for an Order as fo !lows:
A. Finding that this action satisfies the prerequisites for maintenance as a class action set
forth in 735 ILCS 5/2-801, et seq., and certifying the Class defined herein;
Page 19 of21
B. Designating Plaintiffs as representatives of the Class and the undersigned counsel as

0
r-
Class Counsel;
. ill
0
:c C. Entering a judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class, and against Defendants;
g
N
~
D. Enjoining Defendants' illegal, deceptive, and unfair conduct alleged herein;
E. Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class actual and punitive damages, in addition to
reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and
F. Granting all such further other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.
JURYDEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues triable by ajury.
July 19, 2023 RespectfullyJu
By:
:d,L:....--------~
Daniel . irschner
CORBOY & DEMETRIO, P.C.
dsk@corboydemetrio.com
phone: (312) 346-3191
Cook County Firm No. 02329
William T. Gibbs
CORBOY & DEMETRIO, P.C.
Chicago, lllinois 60602
wtg@corboydemetrio.com
phone: (312) 346-3191
Cook County Firm No. 02329
Korey Nelson (Rule 707 Statement pending)

BURNS CHAREST LLP
knelson@bumscharest.com
phone: (504) 799-2845
Amanda Klevom (Rule 707 Statement pending)

BURNS CHAREST LLP
Page20 of21

aklevorn@burnscharest.com
phone: (504) 799-2845
Claire Bosarge (Rule 707Statement pending)

BURNS CHAREST LLP
cbosarge@burnscharest.com
phone: (504) 799-2845
Scott A. Kitner (Rule 707 Statement pending)

13 IO I Preston Road, Suite 110
Dallas, Texas 75240
scott@kitnerwoodward.com
phone: (214) 443-4300
Martin Woodward (Rule 707 Statement pending)

Dallas, Texas 75240
martin@kitnerwoodward.com
phone: (214) 443-4300
Scott E. Smith (Rule 707 Statement pending)

SCOTT ELLIOT SMITH, L.P.A.
5003 Horizons Drive, Suite I01
Columbus, OH 43220
ses@sestriallaw.com
phone: (614) 846-1700
Counsel/or Plaintiffs
Page21 of21
Exhibit D
,-./012ÿ4.5-6ÿ778798:;:<ÿ=6<;ÿ>? ÐÑÒÓÔ
@ABCDEAFGÿIAJKDÿLAAMÿ ÕÖ×ØÖÙÚÙÛÿÛÝ×ÚÿÞß
NOPQ 1:23-cv-06065 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 58 of 77 PageID #:71
RSTUVWÿYZ[\Z[]ÿ^\_`Z[ÿY
Case:
àáàâÿäåÿæçáèàéêë
ÿ ìíîìïíðÿìòóîô
ÿ õöö÷ÿõöùúûüýÿþÿ
ÿ 01023415561
ÿ 789
8 ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿ!"#!$%$&ÿ&"%ÿ'(ÿÿÿ$%$&)*%++ %
ÿ
ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ"ÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ

#
ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ$%&'ÿ
#
ÿ ÿÿ!ÿ$%&'ÿ
%(('ÿ ÿÿ%(('ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ)*+*
,ÿ--.ÿÿ
012324ÿÿÿÿÿÿ56789:ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 2123;<=111ÿ
>ÿ?@Aÿ->B-C>?ÿ-DCB?ÿDEÿ-DDFÿ-DC?GHÿ>II>D>ÿ
-DC?GÿJA$B?"A?Hÿ-@-ABGÿJ>K>>Dÿ
;LMNÿLOOÿPLQRSN9ÿ
TUVWÿXVYZ;[ÿU;5Wÿ\]Û_à]_[ÿZb^^bUTÿ
Tb5c]ddÿLefÿ5bU;]ÿgYach^b;[ÿieÿjNkLOlÿilÿ
RkNM9NOmN9ÿLefÿLOOÿiRkNQ9ÿ9SMSOLQOnÿ9SRoLRNf[ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿPOLSeRSll9[ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ mpÿ
gL9Nÿ;ipÿabac
ÿdebffgb
ÿ
6dUd]ÿqUVTÿTadaU^ÿUadYTYXb^]ÿ
b;6aVU;g]ÿgYp[ÿLÿrstÿfiMN9RStÿMoRoLOuÿLefÿ ÿ
b;6aVU;g]ÿ6]V\bg]6ÿYqqbg][ÿb;gp[ÿLÿ ÿ
tiQriQLRSie[ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ5NlNefLeR9pÿ
be9oQLetNÿ6NQmStN9ÿYllStN[ÿbetpÿ
bOOSeiS9ÿgiQriQLRSieÿ6NQmStNÿgiMrLenÿ
v1=ÿUfOLSÿ6RNmNe9ieÿ5QSmNÿ
6rQSe:lSNOf[ÿb^ÿw2x13<y2w=ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿUffQN99ÿilÿ5NlNefLeRÿ
PONL9Nÿ9NQmNÿL9ÿliOOiz9ÿ{tkNt|ÿieN}~ÿÿÿgNQRSlSNfÿTLSOÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ6kNQSllÿ6NQmStNÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿUOSL9ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ¡ÿ
ÿ ÿÿÿ ¢ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ £ÿÿÿ ÿ
ÿ¤¥ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ¦ÿÿÿÿ ¡ÿ§ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
¨¦ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ¦ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ£ÿÿÿ¡ÿ
©ª«¬«ÿÿ®ÿ̄««ÿ©ÿ̄°«ÿ±¬ÿ®²²«®¬®³«ÿ́
¯°µÿ®ÿ®²²«®¬®³«ÿÿ±¶·¸ÿ¹ºº»¹¸¹¼½»ÿ¾¹¿»ÿÀÁÿ©ÿ¹ÿ½¶·¸¿ÿ¾¹¿»´ÿÿ§ÿÿÿÿ
ÿ¦ÿ ÿ Â ¡ÿÿÿÿ ÿ Â ÿ±ÿÃÿ©ÿ««Ãÿ
©ÿ³«ÿ©ÿ©ª«ÿ³¬©ª«Äÿ·¼Å»ÁÁÿÆ¶·ÿ¹¸»ÿ·¼¹ÇÅ»ÿ¿¶ÿ»¯ÀÅ»ÿÆ¶·¸ÿ¹ºº»¹¸¹¼½»Èÿ
¹¼ÁÉ»¸´ÿÿÿÿÿÿÊ ÿ ÿÿÂÂ¡ ¡¦ÂË Âÿ
Â Â ¡¡ÿÿÿÊ ÿ¦ÿÿ¦ÿ ÿÊ ÿ ÿÿ
ÿ ÿÿÌÍËÎÿÿÿÿ ÿ £Ïÿ¡ÿ
0123ÿ5ÿ67ÿ8ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
9
ÿÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ9ÿ

ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿÿÿÿ"##ÿ$ÿ%ÿ"##ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ'()*+,*-+.ÿ/ÿ(((+ÿ0ÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
1$29394/5ÿÿ6789:9;<ÿ9=ÿ;>?ÿ@A;BAC>DEÿ?9CFÿ:9@9CGBÿGHG@IC9>;=JÿÿK>ÿG789:GLÿE>Mÿ@M=Cÿ89D=CÿNDGACGÿA;ÿANN>M;Cÿ?9CFÿ
A;ÿG789:9;<ÿ=GDO9NGÿID>O9BGDJÿÿP9=9CÿFCCIQRRG89:GJ9::9;>9=N>MDC=J<>OR=GDO9NG7ID>O9BGD=JFC@ÿC>ÿ:GAD;ÿ@>DGÿA;BÿC>ÿ=G:GNCÿAÿ
=GDO9NGÿID>O9BGDJÿ
S8ÿE>Mÿ;GGBÿABB9C9>;A:ÿFG:Iÿ>DÿFAOGÿCD>MT:GÿG789:9;<LÿO9=9CÿFCCIQRR???J9::9;>9=N>MDC=J<>OR8AUR<GCFG:IJA=Iÿ>DÿCA:Vÿ?9CFÿ
E>MDÿ:>NA:ÿN9DNM9CÿN:GDVW=ÿ>889NGJÿÿS8ÿE>MÿNA;;>CÿG789:GLÿE>Mÿ@AEÿTGÿAT:GÿC>ÿ<GCÿA;ÿGHG@IC9>;ÿCFACÿA::>?=ÿE>MÿC>ÿ89:Gÿ9;7
IGD=>;ÿ>DÿTEÿ@A9:JÿÿX=VÿE>MDÿN9DNM9CÿN:GDVÿ8>Dÿ@>DGÿ9;8>D@AC9>;ÿ>DÿO9=9Cÿ???J9::9;>9=:G<A:A9BJ>D<Jÿ
211ÿY%9Z1[QÿÿS8ÿE>MÿADGÿM;AT:GÿC>ÿIAEÿE>MDÿN>MDCÿ8GG=LÿE>MÿNA;ÿAII:Eÿ8>DÿAÿ8GGÿ?A9OGDJÿ\>Dÿ9;8>D@AC9>;ÿAT>MCÿ
BG8G;B9;<ÿE>MD=G:8ÿ9;ÿAÿN>MDCÿNA=Gÿ]9;N:MB9;<ÿ89:9;<ÿA;ÿAIIGADA;NGÿ>Dÿ8GGÿ?A9OGD^Lÿ>DÿC>ÿAII:Eÿ8>Dÿ8DGGÿ:G<A:ÿFG:ILÿ<>ÿC>ÿ
???J9::9;>9=:G<A:A9BJ>D<Jÿÿ_>MÿNA;ÿA:=>ÿA=VÿE>MDÿ:>NA:ÿN9DNM9CÿN:GDVW=ÿ>889NGÿ8>DÿAÿ8GGÿ?A9OGDÿAII:9NAC9>;Jÿ
à[bÿc%b1Qÿ_>MDÿN>MDCÿBACGÿ?9::ÿTGÿ=G;CÿC>ÿE>MDÿG7\9:GÿG@A9:ÿANN>M;Cÿ>DÿCFGÿG@A9:ÿABBDG==ÿE>MÿID>O9BGBÿC>ÿÿÿÿÿÿ
CFGÿN:GDVW=ÿ>889NGJÿÿ_>MÿNA;ÿA:=>ÿNA::ÿ>DÿG@A9:ÿCFGÿN:GDVW=ÿ>889NGÿC>ÿDGUMG=CÿE>MDÿ;GHCÿN>MDCÿBACGJÿÿ_>Mÿ?9::ÿ;GGBÿC>ÿ
ID>O9BGÿE>MDÿNA=Gÿ;M@TGDÿdeLÿ98ÿM;V;>?;LÿCFGÿ;A@Gÿ>8ÿCFGÿf:A9;C988ÿ>DÿgG8G;BA;CJÿÿ\>DÿND9@9;A:ÿNA=GÿCEIG=LÿE>Mÿÿÿÿ
?9::ÿA:=>ÿ;GGBÿC>ÿID>O9BGÿCFGÿgG8G;BA;CW=ÿT9DCFBACGJÿ
[1`b1ÿ%hh1%[%41Qÿÿ_>Mÿ@AEÿTGÿAT:GÿC>ÿACCG;BÿCF9=ÿN>MDCÿBACGÿTEÿIF>;Gÿ>DÿO9BG>ÿN>;8GDG;NGJÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
KF9=ÿ9=ÿNA::GBÿAÿieG@>CGÿXIIGADA;NGJjÿÿkA::ÿCFGÿk9DNM9Cÿk:GDVÿACÿ]lmn^ÿopl7qplpÿ>DÿO9=9CÿCFG9Dÿ?GT=9CGÿACÿ???Jÿ
N>>VN>M;CEN:GDV>8N>MDCJ>D<ÿC>ÿ89;Bÿ>MCÿF>?ÿC>ÿB>ÿCF9=Jÿ
k>;CANCÿ9;8>D@AC9>;ÿ8>DÿGANFÿ>8ÿCFGÿk:GDVW=ÿd889NGÿ:>NAC9>;=ÿ9=ÿ9;N:MBGBÿ?9CFÿCF9=ÿ=M@@>;=JÿÿKFGÿk:GDVW=ÿ>889NGÿ9=ÿ
>IG;ÿr>;ÿsÿ\D9LÿtQlpÿA@ÿsÿuQlpÿI@LÿGHNGICÿ8>DÿN>MDCÿF>:9BAE=Jÿ
K>ÿCFGÿ>889NGDQÿÿ]vFGD988ÿvGDO9NG^ÿ
KF9=ÿ=M@@>;=ÿ@M=CÿTGÿDGCMD;GBÿTEÿCFGÿ>889NGDÿ>Dÿ>CFGDÿIGD=>;ÿC>ÿ?F>@ÿ9Cÿ?A=ÿ<9OG;ÿ8>Dÿ=GDO9NGLÿ?9CFÿG;B>D=G@G;Cÿ
>8ÿ=GDO9NGÿA;Bÿ8GG=Lÿ98ÿA;ELÿ9@@GB9ACG:EÿA8CGDÿ=GDO9NGJÿÿS8ÿ=GDO9NGÿNA;;>CÿTGÿ@ABGLÿCF9=ÿ=M@@>;=ÿ=FA::ÿTGÿDGCMD;GBÿ=>ÿ
G;B>D=GBJÿÿKF9=ÿ=M@@>;=ÿ@AEÿ;>CÿTGÿ=GDOGBÿ:ACGDÿCFA;ÿCF9DCEÿ]lp^ÿBAE=ÿA8CGDÿ9C=ÿBACGJÿ
ÿ
wÿXCCEJÿx>JQÿÿÿpnlnyzzzzzzzzÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
{ÿÿ|}~ÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ9C;G==ÿBACGÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
xA@GQÿÿÿgA;9G:ÿvJÿ9D=NF;GDRÿk>DT>EÿÿgG@GCD9>LÿfJkJÿ ÿ¡¢£¢¤ÿ¤¦ £ÿ§¨ÿ©ª©«ÿ¬ÿ̈®ª¯©°±² ÿ
XCCEJÿ\>DQÿÿf:A9;C988=ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿSeSvÿ_JÿrXeKSx6Lÿk:GDVÿ>8ÿk>MDCÿ
XBBDG==Qÿÿllÿx>DCFÿgGADT>D;ÿvCDGGCLÿnm=Cÿ\:>>Dÿ {ÿvGDO9NGÿTEÿkGDC989GBÿrA9:Qÿzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzÿÿ
k9CEQÿÿkF9NA<>LÿS::9;>9=ÿopopnÿ {ÿgACGÿ>8ÿvGDO9NGQÿÿzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzÿ
KG:GIF>;GQÿÿ]lmn^ÿluo7lmymÿ ]K>ÿTGÿ9;=GDCGBÿTEÿ>889NGDÿ>;ÿN>IEÿ:G8Cÿ?9CFÿG@I:>EGDÿ>Dÿ>CFGDÿIGD=>;^ÿ
fD9@ADEÿ6@A9:QÿÿNN89:9;<N>DT>EBG@GCD9>JN>@ÿÿ ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
0123ÿ5ÿ67ÿ8ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿÿÿÿ
!ÿ
"#$ÿ%&'ÿ%&'$ÿ()$#ÿ*ÿ)++
,"ÿ
,ÿ%'ÿ*ÿ#)
+ÿ
ÿ
ÿ)++ÿ%'ÿ.#,(ÿ),ÿ#)
+ÿ#..)"#ÿ/0ÿ/12ÿ/23241052ÿ567829ÿ09ÿ:069/ÿ;</2ÿ27<=3ÿ<;;92>>ÿ8230?ÿ@09ÿ/12ÿ
lmnopÿprsotÿuvwxvyzy{ÿ{twzÿ|}ÿÿÿyzy{~zuz
50/ÿ1<A2ÿB069ÿ:<>2ÿ567829Cÿ27<=3ÿ/12ÿD3<=5/=@@ÿ09ÿE2@25;<5/F>ÿ5<72ÿ@09ÿ:=A=3ÿ:<>2ÿ/B42>Cÿ09ÿ/12ÿE2@25;<5/F>ÿ5<72ÿ
<5;ÿ8=9/1;</2ÿ@09ÿ<ÿ:9=7=5<3ÿ:<>2Gÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿH),#'ÿ(
I
.
%,ÿ ÿ)++ÿ.&*&'*),ÿ).#ÿ$]#.ÿ
ÿJÿ#)
+KÿL1<5L069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ ÿ(
.$'
$ÿeÿfÿ.g%g
#ÿ
O25GÿP5@0QÿRSTUVÿWXSYZTSSÿ ÿJÿ#)
+KÿEUL069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ
ÿ
I
+ÿ(
I
.
%,ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿJÿ#)
+KÿL=AL069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ ÿ(
.$'
$ÿhÿfÿ'%++
,"ÿ#)(%c.ÿ
O25GÿP5@0QÿRSTUVÿWXSYZTTWÿ ÿJÿ#)
+KÿESL069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ
ÿ%&,$ÿ(
I
.
%,ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿJÿ#)
+KÿL5/BL069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ ÿ(
.$'
$ÿiÿfÿ)c%%(ÿ
O25GÿP5@0QÿRSTUVÿWXSYZ[TXÿ ÿJÿ#)
+Kÿ
ÿ(%#.$
ÿ'#+)$
%,.\H
+(ÿ.&]]%'$ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ(
I
.
%,ÿ
ÿJÿ#)
_^ÿ +KÿE^L069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ ÿJÿÿ(#)

.$'
$ÿjÿfÿ*'
("#I
#cÿ
+KÿEZL069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ
ÿ
L1=3;`64L069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ ÿ ÿ
O25GÿP5@0QÿRSTUVÿWXSYWSXXÿ ÿ(
.$'
$ÿkÿfÿ)'gH)ÿ
ÿ(%#.$
ÿI
%+#,#ÿ ÿJÿ#)
+KÿEWL069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ
ÿJÿ#)
+KÿEaL069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
O25GÿP5@0QÿRSTUVÿSUZYbZXXÿ
ÿ+)cÿ(
I
.
%,ÿ
ÿJÿ#)
+Kÿd<?L069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ
ÿ]'%*)$#ÿ(
I
.
%,ÿ
ÿJÿ#)
+KÿD908L069/E</2M:00N:065/B:069/G:07ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
ÿ ÿ

ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
ÿ
0123ÿ5ÿ67ÿ8ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
899
89 8
989 9ÿ
ÿÿ!"#$#%ÿ%!$ÿ&'ÿÿÿ#$#%()$**$
0123ÿ5ÿ67ÿ5ÿ
ÿ
ÿ
[\]^_àÿc]d\eÿfgÿh\]^_àÿijh\klm\k
nopqrsotuÿwwxoyzr{ooCase:
|}y|~1:23-cv-06065
z
ÿÿ Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 62 of 77 PageID #:75
01234
5676898
ÿ 8ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ"#$
%&&'ÿ%&)*+,-ÿ./
01023415561
GHIJKÿKMNJOÿPQRQSTSUÿVVOVSÿMWÿÿÿSTSUXYTZZRT
789:;<8=>ÿ@
ABCDEDCF
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿ6ÿÿÿ
01234
56768987ÿ878ÿ
ÿÿ
ÿ !"
#$$%ÿ#$'()*+ÿ,-
./.012/334/
EFGHIÿIKLHMÿNOPOQRQPÿQMPQÿSTÿÿÿQRQPUVRWWXR
56789:6;<ÿ>
?@ABACDD
YZ[\]^_ÿa[bZcÿdeÿfZ[\]^_ÿghfZijkZi
lmnopqmrsÿuuvmwxpymmz{wz|}x~~
ÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ
01234ÿ46738ÿ9

ÿ8ÿÿÿÿ
01231234ÿ2633ÿ78Case: 1:23-cv-06065 Document #: 1-19
Filed:

ÿÿ08/24/23
ÿÿ223Page
76
of 77 PageID #:89
NLOPQLRPÿC
STOIÿUVWWTQX
STOIÿYZ[ÿE@EFS\@]]A@
^TQXÿ_QZ`JabJKXÿcIdTefVIeagLddLTW p<9/:;<=
^LKMIPPaNLTJIÿSZVMhdLJijOiUPTPIÿkTQW NLOPQLRPÿC
^VPVTdÿbVPZÿlJOVQTJRIÿSZ[alJOVQTJRI q?r;9;/7ÿstt;91u
UIQjLRIOÿmnnLRIaÿlJR[aÿTÿSZQoZQTPLZJ STdIJKTQaÿv
w;71rÿ<=
@ABCDBE@EF
.<<xÿ.<?=:4ÿ8::<u=14ÿy?z{1u
@EFED
./01ÿ=t<uz/:;<=
./01ÿ34516.7/00ÿ89:;<=0
./01ÿ>:/:?06@ABCDBE@EFÿÿÿHIJKLJM
800;=z1=:ÿ=t<uz/:;<=
SVQQIJPÿSTOIÿbOOLMJWIJP
./01ÿy?z{1u |}|~.}}
.<?u: ;0:u;9:ÿ
/:1ÿ800;=1r }|}|~
q?r;9;/7ÿstt;91u./71=r/uÿ
/u:4ÿ=t<uz/:;<=
ÿ
HdTLJPLnn _QZ`Jaÿ^TQX LQORhJIQaÿNTJLIdÿU[

SZVMhdLJaÿNLTJI LQORhJIQaÿNTJLIdÿU[

^LKMIPPaÿgLddLTW LQORhJIQaÿNTJLIdÿU[
611!"
!119

# 1$1%&2'()))&))*3+')2))&(,+%',*'+'(,023&0,&&- )12
01231234ÿ2633ÿ78Case: 1:23-cv-06065 Document #: 1-19
Filed:

ÿÿ08/24/23
ÿÿ223Page
77
of 77 PageID #:90
./0123/4
56789:;69<ÿ>?@A BCDEFG?6D<ÿH8?C67ÿIJ
./0123/4
H6K6?@8?L M?E;D8?F6ÿI6DNCF6EÿOKKCF6<ÿM?FJ<ÿ8ÿPQDRQD8LCQ?
IL8L6ÿS8DTÿU;L;87ÿ>;LQÿM?E;D8?F6ÿPQJ
mqvsÿiqfÿknfmnsÿplÿv|mÿopenv
VVWVXWYZY[ P8E6ÿU8?8\6T6?Lÿ]^_[Zÿabcÿ]defghgijÿkllghmn_ÿopqjpqrÿajgspqÿoc
tmspenhm_ÿuphivgpqÿowYxZyÿopenvÿtppzÿYxZy
tmspenhm_ÿuphivgpqÿ{Vÿtgh|infÿdÿ{ijm}ÿomqvmn
ZyWZ~WYZY[ ÿ ÿ
pvghmÿklÿgjgqÿgjmfÿ
ÿÿ
ZyWZ[WYZY[ ÿ ÿ
pvghmÿklÿgjgqÿklÿnpplÿklÿmnghmÿgjmfÿ
ÿÿÿÿÿ
Z~WV^WYZY[ ÿmÿoismÿgjgqÿ ÿ
Z~WV^WYZY[ ÿ ÿ
ojissÿahvgpqÿopzjigqvÿgjmfÿ]den}ÿ{mziqfcÿ

Z~WV^WYZY[ ÿ ÿ
ezzpqsÿssemfÿaqfÿtmvenqijmÿ
Z~WV^WYZY[ ÿ ÿ
ezzpqsÿssemfÿaqfÿtmvenqijmÿ

611!"
!119

# 1$1%&2'()))&))*3+')2))&(,+%',*'+'(,023&0,&&- 212

State Farm Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

State Farm Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:23-cv-06065 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 08/24/23 Page 1 of 77 PageID #:14

Chancery Division Civil Cover Sheet

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

Primary Email: dsk@corboydemetrio.com

#02329 DSK/WTG/sg 2023N-1000

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

v. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, MARY BROWN, ANDY VELAZQUEZ, WILLIAM MIDGETT, and DIANE

COUGHLIN (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated

Defendants, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO. (hereinafter “State

NEED FOR RELIEF

invasions of privacy. Ill. Const. Art. I, § 6.

component of individual privacy.”

4. The federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”)

insurers like State Farm when it receives personal medical information.

information it receives from claimants to ISO for collection and harvesting.

7. This standard of care also applies to ISO.

that contains more than 32 billion records.1

10. ISO’s collection and processing of personal information generates billions of

without their knowledge for financial gain.

contained in an individual’s health records.

information was submitted to ISO.

off their protected health information.

15. In violation of Plaintiffs’ right to privacy, Defendants have created a symbiotic

raise premiums and deny coverage to individuals.

in the United States.

22. ISO is an association of insurance companies that gathers claim-related information

information for use in underwriting and pricing policies.

23. ISO is a subsidiary of Verisk Analytics, is licensed to do business in the State of

Illinois, and does business in Cook County, and nationwide.

provisions applicable in this context.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

act within this State”).

thereof occurred out of which the cause of action arose.”

is individually identifiable health information transmitted by electronic media, maintained in

(2018). In turn, “individually identifiable health information” is information, including

individual.” 45 C.F.R. § 160.103.

29. Protected health information, or PHI, is a subset of individually identifiable health

information is pursuant to a valid authorization or (2) use or disclosure of protected health

information is in the course of a judicial or administrative proceeding. Furthermore, any person

proceeding for which such information was requested.

articulated by HIPAA and its implementing regulations.

insured of State Farm.

health information, for developing rates and underwriting.

35. The provision of protected health information for purposes of adjudicating or

unrelated to the litigation or proceeding.

information contained in the reports and maintains it in a database that it analyzes.

subscribers, including participating insurers, third-party claim administrators, and self-insureds.4

42. In essence, detailed protected health information provided to State Farm to

other ISO-participating organization.

NAMED PLAINTIFF ALLEGATIONS

underinsured motorist claim under his own State Farm policy.

underinsured motorist claim under her own State Farm policy.

DISCOVERY RULE, TOLLING AND CONCEALMENT

and Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ delayed discovery of their claims.

litigation or proceeding for which such information was provided.

from the publication and sale of their information.

statutes of limitations have been tolled.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

individuals (collectively, the “Class” unless otherwise noted):