Relation Insurance, Inc. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2020-02-10. The breach occurred from 8/14/2019 to 8/15/2019. 2 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 2
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Feb 10, 2020 → Feb 11, 2020. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_24f85a0784a84bb1 · merge_method deterministic · confidence 100%
Time between earliest and latest filing
Not recorded for this incident
Discovery variance · Leak precedence · Materiality delta · SEC filing delay — no leak-site claim in this cluster; no SEC 8-K in this cluster; needs two dated filings.
Identity (basic) · Government ID · Health (basic)
GA MT
HHS OCR · State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Aug 14, 2019
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Relation Insurance, Inc. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2020-02-10. The breach occurred from 8/14/2019 to 8/15/2019. 2 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 2
Relation Insurance, Inc. (d/b/a Relation Insurance Services of Georgia), a business associate operating in GA, reported to HHS on 2020-02-11 a Hacking/IT Incident affecting 4,335 individuals. An employee was the victim of an email phishing scheme exposing ePHI including names, addresses, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, claims information, diagnoses, medications prescribed, and treatment information. Breached information was located in Email. OCR provided technical assistance on the HIPAA Security Rule and Breach Notification Rule.
Affected (this filing): 4,335
About this clustering
DisclosureLens links filings into incidents through layered matchers: deterministic rules (same source document, multistate filings of one breach, tight-window same-victim pairs), a weighted-similarity scorer for cross-source candidates, and an operator review queue for everything uncertain. Each link records its own method and confidence — shown per filing in the timeline below. The system defaults to NOT merging when uncertain, because a false merge (collapsing two unrelated breaches) is more harmful than a false split (showing related filings separately); uncertain pairs route to human review instead of auto-merging. Filing summaries shown in the timeline are AI-generated extracts — verify each against its linked source.