Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America and Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company v. Blackbaud, Inc.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND §
SURETY COMPANY OF §
AMERICA, and PHILADELPHIA § C.A. No. 193, 2025
INDEMNITY INSURANCE § C.A. No. 198, 2025
COMPANY, ACADIA INSURANCE §
COMPANY, and UNION § Court Below: Superior Court
INSURANCE COMPANY, § of the State of Delaware
§
Plaintiffs Below, § C.A. No. N22C-12-130
Appellants, § C.A. No. N22C-12-141
§
v. §
§
BLACKBAUD, INC., §
§
Defendant Below, §
Appellee. §

Submitted: November 19, 2025
Decided: February 13, 2026

Before SEITZ, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, TRAYNOR, LEGROW, and
GRIFFITHS, Justices, constituting the Court en Banc.

Upon appeal from the Superior Court. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Kurt M. Heyman, Esquire, (argued), HEYMAN ENERIO GATTUSO & HIRZEL
LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, for Travelers and Surety Company of America,
Plaintiff Below/Appellant.

Lisa C. McLaughlin, Esquire, PHILLIPS, McLAUGHLIN & HALL, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Kenneth T. Levine, Esquire, (argued), de LUCA LEVINE
LLC, East Norriton, Pennsylvania, for Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,
Acadia Insurance Company, and Union Insurance Company, Plaintiffs
Below/Appellants.
John P. DiTomo, Esquire, Jialu Zou, Esquire, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
TUNNELL LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Sarah Fulton Hutchins, Esquire, (argued),
Corri A. Hopkins, Esquire, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Blackbaud, Inc., Defendant Below/Appellee.

2
SEITZ, Chief Justice:

Blackbaud, Inc., a software application and data hosting provider for non-

profits, suffered a major ransomware attack. The hacker infiltrated Blackbaud’s

servers and stole sensitive client data. Blackbaud’s clients lost faith that the

company would address the harm and reimburse them for their losses. The clients

conducted their own investigations and took remedial steps to mitigate their losses.

Their insurers covered some of the losses and then sued Blackbaud as

subrogees/assignees to recover their payments to the insureds.

The Superior Court dismissed the original complaints for failing to state a

claim. In response, the insurers filed amended complaints. The Superior Court

dismissed the amended complaints, this time with prejudice. It held that the insurers

failed to allege factual support for each Blackbaud client’s claims and, as a legal

matter, failed to plead proximate cause.

On appeal, the insurers argue that the court should not have dismissed the

amended complaints because they met the Superior Court’s minimum pleading

requirements. They also contend that the court should not have dismissed the

amended complaints with prejudice. For the reasons explained below, we reverse

because the insurance carriers, as subrogees/assignees, adequately pled a breach of

contract claim in their amended complaints. Given our ruling, we need not address

the second issue on appeal.

3
I.

A.

According to the amended complaints, Blackbaud is a software company that

provides donor relationship management software and information technology

services to their educational and non-profit clients.1 Travelers Casualty and Surety

Company of America (“Travelers”), Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company,

Acadia Insurance Company, and Union Insurance Company (“Philadelphia

Indemnity”) (together with Travelers the “Insurers”) provided insurance coverage to

97 of Blackbaud’s educational and non-profit clients for cyber and criminal incidents

like data breaches.2

The Insurers wrote policies that covered losses in excess of retentions for

damages caused by data breaches.3 The policies allowed the Insurers to subrogate,

or stand in the shoes of the insureds, to recoup payments for certain losses arising

from data breaches.4 The Insurers also obtained contract assignments from

Blackbaud clients.5 We will refer to the Blackbaud clients as the “Insureds.”

1
App. to Philadelphia Opening Br. at A66-67 [hereinafter A___]; App. to Travelers Opening Br.
at AA70-71 [hereinafter AA___].
2
A63-65, A67; AA69-71, AA189.
3
A62, A65-66; AA68-70.
4
A65-66; AA70.
5
A180; AA195.

4
B.

Blackbaud and the Insureds signed Blackbaud Solutions Agreements (the

“Agreements”).6 The Agreements were identical for all the Insureds and are

governed by New York law.7 Blackbaud hosted the Insureds’ sensitive donor data

on its servers.8 The Insureds used Blackbaud’s software applications to collect

payments and transact with donors.9 In the Agreements, Blackbaud agreed to protect

the Insureds’ sensitive data as follows:

• maintain administrative, physical, and technical
safeguards;

• protect against anticipated threats or hazards to the
security of confidential information;

• protect against unauthorized access to or use of
confidential information that could materially harm the
Insureds;

• maintain commercially reasonable information security
procedures and standards;

• implement commercially reasonable, written policies and
procedures addressing potential security breaches;

• have a breach response plan in place; and

6
A67, A176-180; AA71-72, AA191-95.
7
A176-180; AA191-95.
8
A67-69, A71; AA71-73, AA76.
9
A67; AA71.

5
• use commercially reasonable efforts to mitigate any
negative consequences resulting directly from a breach
and provide 72-hour notice of any breach.10

C.

In 2020, a cyber attacker accessed Blackbaud’s system for several months and

exfiltrated confidential customer data from its servers.11 The attacker threatened to

publish the data unless Blackbaud paid a ransom.12 On July 16, 2020, Blackbaud

revealed the breach on its website.13 The website notice stated that “[n]o action is

required on your end because no personal information about your constituents

was accessed.”14

Blackbaud filed a Form 10-Q on August 4, 2020, disclosing the breach but

characterizing the exfiltration of sensitive donor information as hypothetical.15 In a

later September 29, 2020 Form 8-K filing, Blackbaud stated that “the cybercriminal

may have accessed some unencrypted fields intended for bank account information,

10
A177; AA192.
11
A72-76; AA78-80.
12
A75; AA80. This data included full names, age, date of birth, social security numbers, home
addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, financial information, medical information, gender,
religious beliefs, marital status, spouse names, spouses’ donation history, employment information,
educational information, and account credentials. A75; AA81.
13
A76; AA82-83.
14
A76; AA83 (emphasis in original).
15
A77; AA83.

6
social security numbers, usernames and/or passwords.”16

In 2023, Blackbaud agreed to pay a $3 million fine to the Securities and

Exchange Commission to resolve charges that the company made misleading

disclosures about the cyber security attacks.17 Blackbaud also paid $49 million to

resolve state law claims brought by the attorneys general of all 50 states.18

D.

The Insureds claimed that, instead of addressing the cyberattack and

protecting the Insureds, Blackbaud failed to conduct an adequate investigation of the

breach.19 They also contended that, even though sensitive customer data resided on

Blackbaud’s servers, Blackbaud shifted the investigative burden and remediation

efforts onto the Insureds.20 For instance, Blackbaud provided the Insureds a

“Toolkit” with instructions to complete their own investigations.21 The Toolkit listed

“next steps,” such as investigating the data involved in the breach, consulting with

legal counsel, and notifying compromised donors.22

16
A77; AA84.
17
A78; AA84.
18
A78-80; AA84-87.
19
A91-94; AA98-101.
20
A94-98; AA101-105.
21
A94-96, A181-91; AA102-05, AA196-206.
22
Id.

7
Dissatisfied with Blackbaud’s response to the cyberattack, the Insureds

conducted their own investigations and remediation and made claims against their

insurance policies for those expenses.23 Philadelphia Indemnity paid over $600,000

to its Insureds.24 Travelers paid over $1.5 million.25

E.

The Insurers filed suit against Blackbaud in Superior Court as

subrogees/assignees of their Insureds. They alleged breach of contract and

negligence claims against Blackbaud and sought to recover payments the Insurers

made to their Insureds for investigation and remediation expenses.26 Blackbaud

responded with a motion to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings. The court

granted Blackbaud’s motion. It held that the original complaints failed to state a

claim for breach of contract, negligence, or gross negligence.27

After the court denied their motion for reargument, the Insurers filed amended

complaints.28 The court dismissed the amended complaints, this time with

23
A91-94; AA95-101.
24
A62, A94.
25
AA68, AA101.
26
A14-27; AA20-33.

Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Blackbaud, Inc., 2024 WL 1298762, at *13 (Del. Super.
27

Mar. 27, 2024).
28
A61-111; AA67-124.

8
prejudice.29 It found that “a complaint must include specific allegations supported

by facts,” and by pleading the Insureds’ claims in the aggregate, the Insurers “fail[ed]

to provide the required factual support for any insured’s claim and d[id] not

adequately allege a subrogation claim.”30 The court also held that, even if pleading

in the aggregate was sufficient, “the amended complaints fail to adequately plead

proximate cause because they fail to link the alleged damages to any contract

term.”31 To plead proximate cause, the court held, the Insurers could not rely on a

contract term “that required Blackbaud to mitigate negative consequences of a data

breach.”32 Finally, the court held that the Insureds could not rely on “conclusory

allegations of misrepresentations” to plead proximate cause.33

II.

On appeal, the Insurers argue that the Superior Court erred when it found that

the Insurers could not, as a matter of law, plead their breach of contract claims in the

aggregate. According to the Insurers, nothing in Delaware law prohibits aggregated

pleading of subrogation claims, and any other rule would be contrary to Superior

Travelers Cas. & Surety Co. of Am. v. Blackbaud, Inc., 2025 WL 1009551, at *15 (Del. Super.
29

Apr. 3, 2025) [hereinafter Travelers II].
30
Id. at *1.
31
Id.
32
Id.
33
Id. at *2.

9
Court Civil Rule 8(a)’s notice pleading requirements. And second, they argue that,

at the motion to dismiss stage, they were not required to link the alleged damages to

any specific contract term. We review de novo the court’s decision to dismiss for

failure to state a claim.34

A.

Blackbaud does not dispute that the Insurers stand in the shoes of the Insureds

and, as subrogees/assignees, have standing to pursue their Insureds’ breach of

contract claims against Blackbaud. Blackbaud also does not contest that the

contracts are governed by the substantive law of New York and that the pleading

requirements are governed by Delaware law – specifically, Superior Court Civil Rule

8(a). Thus, the issue before us de novo is whether the Insurers have met Rule 8(a)’s

pleading requirements for a breach of contract action governed by New York law.

Under New York law, a breach of contract claim has four elements: “the

existence of a contract, the plaintiff’s performance under the contract, the

defendant’s breach, and resulting damages.”35 Under Superior Court Civil Rule 8(a),

the plaintiff must provide “(1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that

34
Thompson St. Cap. Partners IV, L.P. v. Sonova U.S. Hearing Instruments, LLC, 340 A.3d 1151,
1164-65 (Del. 2025); City of Fort Myers Gen. Emps.’ Pension Fund v. Haley, 235 A.3d 702, 716
(Del. 2020). The Insurers have not appealed dismissal of their negligence claims.
35
Detringo v. S. Island Fam. Med., LLC, 71 N.Y.S.3d 525, 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018) (citations
omitted).

10
the pleader is entitled to relief and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief to which

the party deems itself entitled.”

In Central Mortgage Company v. Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital Holdings

LLC, we held that:

[A] court should accept all well-pleaded factual allegations in the
Complaint as true, accept even vague allegations in the Complaint as
“well-pleaded” if they provide the defendant notice of the claim, draw
all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff, and deny the motion
unless the plaintiff could not recover under any reasonably conceivable
set of circumstances susceptible of proof.36

Here, the Insurers—standing in the shoes of the Insureds—met the Superior

Court’s pleading requirements to state a breach of contract claim under New York

law. First, the Insurers alleged “the existence of a contract.” According to the

Superior Court, “[e]ach Insured entered into a separate ‘Solutions Agreement’ with

Blackbaud[.]”37 Second, the Insurers alleged the Insureds performed under the

contract.38 Third, the Insurers alleged that “the contract was breached.” As set forth

in detail above, the Insurers identified each of Blackbaud’s contractual duties

specific to sensitive data management and data breach response, and how Blackbaud

36
27 A.3d 531, 536 (Del. 2011). In Central Mortgage, we decided not to follow the federal court
pleading standards. Id. at 537.
37
Travelers II, 2025 WL 1009551, at *2.
38
A110 (“The Insureds have complied with any and all conditions precedent to recovery under
their agreements with Blackbaud.”); AA123 (same).

11
breached those contractual provisions. In the words of the Superior Court:

Plaintiffs allege that prior to the data breach, Blackbaud ignored
warning signs that its cybersecurity measures exposed it to an attack.
For example, Blackbaud maintained some unencrypted customer data
on obsolete servers, which Blackbaud intended to migrate onto its new
servers. The older servers were not on a routine maintenance schedule,
so security updates were not implemented. Failure to run security
patches on these older servers concerned Blackbaud employees.

Additionally, a former information security analyst warned
Blackbaud about process vulnerabilities in its systems. The analyst
suggested that Blackbaud encrypt the obsolete servers, but “because the
servers were so old, ‘the exact nature of the data [on these servers] was
unknown.’” Plaintiffs allege that Blackbaud should have discontinued
storing information on the obsolete servers given the potential for
unauthorized access.

Blackbaud also failed to take heed of the analyst’s warnings
about remote desktop access vulnerabilities. Blackbaud knew the risk
was so high that employees would “simply shut down certain machines
at times.” Failures in Blackbaud’s systems were further revealed in the
Kudelski Report. It identified steps that Blackbaud could have taken to
prevent an attack, including requiring customers to use multifactor
authentication. Because Blackbaud had not implemented this security
measure, the cybercriminal was able to use a customer’s password to
access the system and then “freely move across multiple Blackbaud
hosted environments by leveraging existing vulnerabilities . . . .”
Blackbaud also failed to require customers to encrypt social security
numbers and bank account information stored in certain fields on the
system.

Finally, Blackbaud retained some current and former customers’
data for years longer than needed, unnecessarily exposing this data to a
cyber breach.39

39
Travelers II, 2025 WL 1009551, at *5-6 (citations omitted).

12
And fourth, the Insurers alleged “damages [the Insureds] suffered as a result

of the breach.” Again, in the words of the Superior Court:

Collectively, the expenses included: (i) retaining computer
forensics firms to identify the type of information the Insured stored in
the Blackbaud software, the identity of the Insured’s donors, and the
date of the breach; (ii) outside counsel fees incurred in determining
which state/federal data breach laws applied, whether notifications
were required and if so, drafting the notification, and generally
providing legal advice; (iii) retaining printing and mailing firms to send
notifications; (iv) communicating with Blackbaud regarding the scope
of the breach and remedial steps; and (v) credit monitoring “required
under various state laws and expected by federal regulators” (the
“Expenses”). These Expenses were paid by the applicable Plaintiff,
except to the extent that the policy contained a deductible.

Travelers’ amended complaint includes a list of its Insureds,
identifying the name and principal location of the Insured, the
applicable deductible paid by the Insured, and the amount Travelers
paid to each Insured. Travelers seeks recovery of $1,558,086.39 that it
paid to its Insureds and $550,000 in deductibles incurred by certain of
its Insureds.40

Even though the Insurers touched each base for a breach of contract claim

under New York law, the Superior Court dismissed their claims. According to the

court, the Insurers came up short on two grounds—the Insurers could not, as a

pleading matter, aggregate the Insureds’ claims in a subrogation complaint, and the

Insurers failed to plead proximate cause. We address each ground in turn.

40
Id. at *6-7 (citations omitted).

13
B.

The Superior Court held that the amended complaints did not state a

subrogation claim under Superior Court Civil Rule 12(b)(6). According to the court,

by pleading the Insureds’ claims in the aggregate, the Insurers failed to provide the

required factual support for each Insured’s claim. Specifically, the court held that

the Insurers were required to plead data breach-related information specific to each

Insured, specify the privacy law requirements each Insured had to satisfy, and list

the types of expenses each Insured allegedly incurred responding to the breach.

Otherwise, the court held, Blackbaud could not defend against the claims.

We are not persuaded that Blackbaud was at a disadvantage in defending

against the allegations of the amended complaints. Blackbaud controlled its

information technology systems and knew what sensitive information was accessed.

After discovery aimed at each Insured, Blackbaud can amend its answer and assert

new defenses specific to each Insured.41 And if the Insurers claimed damages for

losses that are capped by, or not covered by, the Agreements, Blackbaud could move

for summary judgment on those losses.

The court recognized that no Delaware precedent required pleading

individualized claims in subrogation actions.42 Nonetheless, it turned to a few New

41
Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15.
42
Travelers II, 2025 WL 1009551, at *9.

14
York decisions addressing equitable subrogation pleading requirements when

healthcare providers attempt to recover their cost of care in mass tort cases.43 In

those cases, the New York courts dismissed equitable subrogation claims because

the healthcare entities failed to identify each harmed patient. And, according to the

New York courts, the claims were so unique to the individuals harmed that the

defendants could not be expected to address them in the aggregate.44

Here, however, the Insurers did not seek equitable subrogation to recover costs

paid to an amorphous group of individuals with unique harms.45 Instead, they

43
Id. at *10 n.79; Blue Cross & Blue Shield of N.J., Inc. v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 344 F.3d 211,
218 (2d Cir. 2003) (finding the insurer was required to identify the subrogors and their claims so
defendants could assert defenses against those claims); A.O. Fox Mem’l Hosp. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
Inc., 754 N.Y.S.2d 368, 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003) (finding plaintiffs failed to identify individual
patients and their specific injuries and specify facts to establish liability); E. States Health &
Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc., 729 N.Y.S.2d 240, 252 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2000) (finding
defendants could not “fairly defend” against claims without knowing what the specific injuries
were for each person).
44
In Lawyers’ Fund For Client Prot. of State of N.Y. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 915 N.Y.S.2d
741, 743 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011), the court recognized that other New York decisions dismissed
complaints with aggregated claims that “involved such a high degree of individualized inquiry”
that failing to identify them would not establish a subrogation claim. But in Lawyers’ Fund, the
court affirmed the denial of a motion to dismiss notwithstanding aggregated damages because the
subrogors were a small, clearly defined, and readily identifiable group who each sustained identical
injuries from the same acts and omissions by a defendant with prior knowledge of the claimants.
45
Equitable subrogation arises in equity and prevents unjust enrichment. It allows a party (like an
insurer) who has paid a debt that should have been paid by another to “step into the shoes” of the
creditor to recover that payment. Contractual subrogation, on the other hand, is grounded in a
contract, typically an insurance contract, and the parties’ relationship is governed by the
contractual terms. See Rodriguez v. Great Am. Ins. Co., 2022 WL 591762, at *7-8 (Del. Super.
Feb. 23, 2022) (citing E. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Cach, LLC, 124 A.3d 585, 590 (Del. 2015))
(distinguishing equitable and contractual subrogation); see also N.Y. Mun. Ins. Reciprocal v.
Stewart’s Shop Corp., 212 N.Y.S.3d 859, 860 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024) (same).

15
identified each of the Insureds,46 the Blackbaud contract they had in common,47 the

shared bases for the breaches,48 and the same or similar investigation and

remediation damages incurred responding to the data breach.49 Under Central

Mortgage, nothing more was required to state a breach of contract claim under New

York law. At bottom, Blackbaud objected to claim aggregation because it wanted

more detail in the amended complaints about how each Insured responded to the data

breach and the expenses they incurred. Those details were not needed to state a

claim. They can be explored in discovery.

C.

Next, the Superior Court held that the Insurers failed to state a claim because

they did not plead facts establishing proximate cause. The court confined the

Insurers’ proximate cause argument to two grounds—“Blackbaud’s contractual

promise to mitigate the impact of a data breach” and its “misrepresentations of the

scope of the data breach.”50 As to the former, the court held that it would be

unreasonable to interpret the mitigation provision to impose “strict liability” on

46
A63-65; AA189.
47
A176-180; AA191-95.
48
A98-104; AA106-113.
49
A104-110; AA113-123.
50
Travelers II, 2025 WL 1009551, at *11, *13.

16
Blackbaud for every data breach.51 As to the latter, the court held that there was no

“reasonable reliance” term in the Agreements and the Insurers did not allege when

the Insureds decided to conduct their own investigations.52 Therefore, the court held,

the proximate cause allegations were conclusory and should be dismissed.

Under New York law, the defendant’s breach must be a “substantial factor in

producing the damage.”53 Delaware and New York law are consistent that proximate

cause is ordinarily determined by the trier of fact.54 Here, the Insurers did not limit

their causation arguments to one contractual provision or representation.55 The

Insurers pled that Blackbaud breached multiple information security promises in the

Agreements and then shifted the investigation and remediation responsibilities onto

51
Id. at *12.
52
Id. at *14.
53
Fed. Hous. Fin. Agency v. Morgan Stanley ABS Cap. I Inc., 73 N.Y.S.3d 374, 397 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.
2018) (citations omitted).
54
Duphily v. Del. Elec. Co-op., Inc., 662 A.2d 821, 830 (Del. 1995) (“This Court has consistently
held that the issue of proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact to be determined by the trier
of fact,” a principle established in this Court’s cases dating back to 1934.); see also Voss v. Neth.
Ins. Co., 22 N.Y.3d 728, 737 (N.Y. 2014) (“[Q]uestions of proximate cause and foreseeability
should generally be resolved by the factfinder[.]”).
55
See, e.g., A233-41; AA249-57 (Insurers argued that remediation expenses were proximately
caused by Blackbaud’s breaches of Sections 5(b), 6(a), and 6(b) of the Agreements, which included
failing to protect the Insureds’ confidential information and failing to have a response plan in place.
Blackbaud also gave false assurances to the Insureds through its Toolkit, which was provided more
than 72 hours after the data breach, in violation of Section 6(c).); A241; AA256 (The Insureds had
no choice but “to fill the void and handle the fallout from Blackbaud’s failures.”).

17
the Insureds.56 As a result of the data breach, the Insureds had to retain computer

forensics firms to investigate and mitigate the breach; incur counsel fees to

determine their responsibilities under federal and state law; notify customers;

conduct credit monitoring and more. Once the plaintiff has alleged facts raising a

reasonable inference that damages were caused by the defendant, damages may be

pled generally.57 After discovery, Blackbaud can attempt to limit its damages

through applicable contractual damage limitations.

Under Delaware notice pleading standards, the amended complaints alleged

facts from which—drawing all inferences in the Insurers’ favor—a reasonable

factfinder could find that Blackbaud’s contractual breaches were the proximate cause

of the Insureds’ investigation and remedial expenses.

III.

The Insurers have stated a claim for breach of contract under New York law.

The Superior Court’s judgment is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings

consistent with this opinion. Jurisdiction is not retained.

56
A83-98; AA89-105.
57
Lebanon Cnty. Emp. Ret. Fund v. Collis, 287 A.3d 1160, 1208 (Del. Ch. 2022) (“A court does
not typically parse the scope of damages at the pleading stage. A plaintiff can plead the existence
of damages generally as long as the complaint supports a reasonable inference of harm.”) (citations
omitted).

18