The court looked to multiple examples of California state cases that found a requirement for physical alteration of property in claims for direct physical loss. (Credit: Marc Bruxelle/Adobe Stock)
The federal district court for the Northern District of California has ruled that a homeowner's claim for stolen cryptocurrency is not covered because there was no direct loss to physical property. The case is Burt v. Travelers Commer. Ins. Co., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147564 (N.D. Cal. 2022).
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free PropertyCasualty360 Digital Reader
Your access to unlimited PropertyCasualty360 content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking insurance news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Weekly Insurance Speak podcast featuring exclusive interviews with industry leaders
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the employee benefits and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, BenefitsPRO and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
