Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2019-11-26. The breach occurred on 3/15/2019. 130 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 130
Clustered 2 filings across 2 jurisdictions · filing window Nov 26, 2019 → Dec 6, 2019. View entity profile → Other incidents for this victim →
incident inc_4802b535d3684c1a · merge_method deterministic · confidence 95%
Discovered → first regulatory filing
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.
CA MT
all State AG
Earliest sighting first · deep chronology in Litigation Timeline
Mar 15, 2019
When the intrusion reportedly occurred, per the linked filings
Mar 15, 2019
Reported by CALIFORNIA AG filing
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. reported a data breach to the Montana Attorney General. The breach was reported on 2019-11-26. The breach occurred on 3/15/2019. 130 Montana residents were affected.
Affected (this filing): 130
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. notified individuals that an outside law firm assisting with legal proceedings transferred data from an encrypted drive to an unencrypted hard drive and subsequently misplaced the drive while traveling. The incident was discovered on March 15, 2019. Affected data included names, dates of birth, and Social Security numbers. Gallagher engaged third-party investigators, notified regulators, and offered credit monitoring services. No evidence of data access or misuse was found.
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.