| Universal Am. Corp. v National Union Fire Ins. Co. ofPittsburgh, PA. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06321 [110 AD3d 434] |
| October 1, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Universal American Corp., Appellant, v NationalUnion Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA.,Respondent. |
—[*1] Nixon Peabody LLP, New York (Barbara A. Lukeman of counsel), forrespondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered January 8,2013, which denied plaintiff insured's motion for summary judgment and granteddefendant insurer's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously modified, on thelaw, to declare that the policy does not provide coverage for the claimed loss, andotherwise affirmed, without costs.
The motion court properly interpreted the policy as a matter of law (see Dean v Tower Ins. Co. ofN.Y., 19 NY3d 704, 708 [2012]; White v Continental Cas. Co., 9 NY3d 264, 267 [2007]).The court correctly found that the unambiguous plain meaning of defendant's computersystems fraud rider, covering loss from a fraudulent "entry of electronic data" or "changeof electronic data" within the insured's proprietary computer system, was intended toapply to wrongful acts in manipulation of the computer system, i.e., by hackers, and didnot provide coverage for fraudulent content consisting of claims by bona fide doctors andother health care providers authorized to use the system for reimbursement for healthcare services that were not provided.
We modify solely to declare the rights of the parties in this action for declaratoryrelief (see Lanza v Wagner, 11 NY2d 317, 334 [1962], cert denied 371US 901 [1962]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Saxe and Clark, JJ.[Prior Case History: 38 Misc 3d 859.]