South Carolina Court Of Appeals Rules Endorsement Covering Theft Did Not Cover Loss Of Money Unwittingly Wired To Hacker
Speights v. Chubb Ltd., No. 2026-UP-194, 2026 S.C. App. Unpub. LEXIS 205 (S.C. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2026).

An insured attorney filed a claim with the firm’s insurer after a bookkeeper wired money to a hacker posing as the attorney, resulting in a $250,000 loss. After the insurer denied coverage for the loss, the insured sued for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The coverage dispute centered around a Money and Securities endorsement, which covered theft and stealing; a Forgery and Alteration endorsement, which covered forgery or alteration of checks, drafts, and promissory notes; and a false pretenses exclusion on the policy form, which barred coverage for “voluntarily parting” with property under false pretenses or fraudulent inducement. The court found the Forgery and Alteration endorsement inapplicable because the emails were demands for money and not a promise to pay. The court ruled that the false pretenses exclusion did not conflict with the Money and Securities endorsement because the latter expressly incorporated the exclusions listed in the policy form. The court also found the exclusion’s “voluntarily parting” language unambiguous, reasoning that the bookkeeper intended to wire the money and voluntarily did so, even if she did not intend to send the money to a hacker. Read the decision.