A hacker is shown from the back, wearing a hoodie, committing Bitcoin fraud on a laptop 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

  • All PropertyCasualty360.com news coverage, best practices, and in-depth analysis.
  • Educational webcasts, resources from industry leaders, and informative newsletters.
  • Other award-winning websites including BenefitsPRO.com and ThinkAdvisor.com.
NOT FOR REPRINT

© 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.

Litigation
Emerging Risk