Three New York residents, Alexander Mirvis, Betty Butler and Lainie Froehlich, allege in their proposed class action that Geico and Berkshire Hathaway were negligent in failing to protect policyholders' personal information, enabling hackers to access it.

According to their complaint, the plaintiffs each received a letter from Geico on April 9 saying a data breach had occurred between November 2020 and March.

The letter said personal information illegally obtained from other sources had been used to gain access to customer driver's license numbers through Geico's online sales system and could be used to fraudulently apply for unemployment benefits, the complaint says.

All three plaintiffs, represented by Philip M. Hines of Held & Hines LLP, say false claims have been filed under their names, including for unemployment benefits.

The complaint accuses Geico and Berkshire Hathaway of negligence, breaches of contract and fiduciary duty and unfair trade practices in violation of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349(a). It seeks actual, compensatory, statutory, punitive and consequential damages, credit monitoring services and attorney fees.

Two days after the New York plaintiffs filed suit, Mark Vennerholm II and Reanna Vennerholm, represented by Andrew D. Stolper of Frank Sims & Stolper LLP, filed a proposed class action in San Diego federal court asserting similar claims against Geico.

Their suit also alleges Geico failed to protect its customers' personal information by allowing fraudsters to access the insurer's online sales system between Jan. 21 and March 1.

They say Geico filed a notice April 15 with the California Office of the Attorney General saying hackers had accessed customers' driver's license numbers and could use such stolen information to apply for unemployment benefits.

The suit accuses Geico of violating California's Consumer Privacy Act, Cal. Civ. Code Ann. § 1798.150, and California's unfair-competition law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Ann. § 17200. It also alleges negligence, breach of contract and a breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

The plaintiffs are seeking certification of a nationwide class and a California subclass, plus compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages.

In an unrelated matter, the Georgia Supreme Court answered three certified questions from the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 19, saying state law and a policy provision do not shield Geico Indemnity Co. from liability for a $2.7 million excess judgment for a bad-faith failure-to-settle claim brought by a debtor.

Fife Whiteside, a trustee for a bankruptcy estate, represented by Frank M. Lowrey IV of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore LLP, sued Geico in September 2016, alleging the insurer's failure to settle an injury claim from a car accident was in bad faith.

Geico, represented by Edward H. Wasmuth Jr. of Smith, Gambrell & Russell LLP, argued that its auto policy's notice provision and a Georgia law, Ga. Code Ann. § 33-7-15, relieved it of liability for the judgment because the insurer was never notified of the personal injury lawsuit.

A Georgia federal judge ruled that the failure to notify Geico did not prevent recovery for a tort of bad-faith failure to settle.

Geico appealed to the 11th Circuit, which certified three questions to the Georgia high court. Whiteside v. Geico Indem. Co., 977 F.3d 1014 (11th Cir. 2020).

On the question of notice, a panel of the Georgia Supreme Court said the law and provision do not apply because the suit is a tort action that seeks damages for failing to settle a claim. Geico owed a duty to settle, breached that duty and was found partially at fault by a jury, the panel said.