The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict that imposed 100% liability on an escrow agent for a wire transfer it sent to a cybercriminal/imposter and attributed no fault to the imposter or the party whose systems were compromised by the imposter. Cybersecurity practitioners and Arizona litigators should take note of the decision and its potential implications.
In Mago v. Arizona Escrow & Financial Corp., the plaintiff (“Mago”) had contracted to purchase a Subway franchise from the prior owners (the “Sellers”). The escrow agent for the deal was Arizona Escrow (the “Escrow Agent”).
Before the transaction closed, a cybercriminal (the “Imposter”) breached Mago’s email account and imitated the Sellers by creating a similar email address (in which an “rn” in the Sellers’ email address was changed to an “m”). The day before the sale, the Imposter emailed with Mago directly. On the day of the sale, the Imposter emailed Mago and the Escrow Agent, explaining that the wire instructions had changed. The Escrow Agent questioned the changed instructions in both the group email and to Mago directly; Mago confirmed that the Escrow Agent should release the funds per the new wire instructions. However, the Escrow Agent did not call the Sellers to get a voice confirmation of the new wire instructions.
The Escrow Agent transferred the funds per the Imposter’s wire instructions. As a result, the Sellers never received the funds, Mago could not recover his funds, and the sale did not close. Mago therefore sued the Escrow Agent.
The trial court instructed the jury to determine “the relative degrees of fault” for Mago, the Imposter, and the Escrow Agent. The jury found that the Escrow Agent was 100% at fault for Mago’s loss. As a result, Mago recovered from the Escrow Agent the full amount that was lost in the transfer,1 as well as prejudgment interest and attorneys’ fees.
On appeal, the Escrow Agent argued that A.R.S. § 12-2506(B), Arizona’s Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasor’s Act, required the jury “to assess some fault against [the Imposter], whose fault is undisputed.” The Court of Appeals rejected that argument, holding that A.R.S. § 12-2506(B) only required the jury to consider apportionment of fault, which was satisfied by the jury instructions and the verdict form, which had fields in which the jury was to indicate the relative degrees of fault for Mago, the Imposter, and the Escrow Agent. The appellate court thus affirmed the jury’s verdict and awarded Mago his attorneys’ fees on appeal.
This jury verdict and appellate opinion could have significant implications in both the cybersecurity field and in Arizona litigation more broadly. In the cybersecurity context, professional service providers should note that they may be held liable for failing to catch or prevent a cybercrime or unauthorized payment, even if the hacker never infiltrates the service provider’s own systems. Arizona litigants and litigators, meanwhile, should note that an allocation of liability to all parties at fault is not mandatory and juries may decline to attribute any fault to an undisputed non-party at fault, so long as they consider whether to do so.
For more information about the case, or to discuss any questions regarding cybersecurity or Arizona litigation, please contact Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US or another member of Lewis Roca’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity team.
____________________
1 The jury awarded additional damages to Mago above the amount lost in the transfer, but those additional damages were eliminated by the trial court on remittitur.
Tags: Data Privacy and Cybersecurity- Associate
Patrick is an associate in the firm's Litigation, Data Privacy and Cybersecurity, and eDiscovery Practice Groups. Patrick is a Certified Information Privacy Professional (CIPP/US) and assists clients on all aspects of data privacy and cybersecurity compliance and response, from ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- Salma G. Granich
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam