Electronic Signatures and eSignatures

January 26th 2012

We recently announced our partnership with Contractlogix, the leading contract management solution with customers including Pitney Bowes, Echelon, GoDaddy and many others.    Using esignatures and electronic signatures combined with a contract management solution enables users to completely track, manage and store all of their agreement electronically.   Here is a video describing our integration:

http://www.contractlogix.com/contract-management-lifecycle.html

Information about ContractLogix:

Contract Logix provides extensive features and tools to help automate your entire contract process. Whether you are looking to simply organize and track your contract documents and data, or trying to automate sophisticated workflow processes. Contract Logix systems are powerful, yet easy to use. Each Edition was built with the customer in mind, so driving user adoption or staging mission critical objectives, the system will keep you on track. Literally! And with the flexibility and options available you can have a contract management system which matches your every need.

As one of the leading providers of electronic signature solution, Sertifi has many customers in the Insurance market.    An interesting case that Sertifi has been watching and advising our customers is Barwick Vs Geico.   Excerpt below:

“On April 12, 2010, appellant moved for summary judgment, contending that Ms. Barwick’s electronic signature on the application did not qualify as a written rejection of coverage as required by section 23-89-203. GEICO responded with its own motion for summary judgment, in which it argued that Arkansas Code Annotated section 25-32-107 (Repl. 2002) gives legal effect to electronic records, signatures, and contracts and that Ms. Barwick’s electronic signature on the form satisfied the “in writing” requirement of section 23-89-203. In support of its motion, GEICO submitted excerpts from Ms. Barwick’s deposition, and the “Arkansas Information and Option Form,” completed by Ms. Barwick online. The form indicated that she rejected both medical benefits and medical-payments coverage, and it bore an electronic signature of her name. In her deposition, Ms. Barwick acknowledged that she completed the form on the website and that she did not select coverage for medical benefits. She also testified that she signed the application electronically. Ms. Barwick stated, however, that she had not physically signed any written document provided by GEICO rejecting medical-benefits coverage.”

As a result:

“After a hearing, and upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the circuit court granted GEICO’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the online rejection of coverage and electronic signature satisfied the statutory requirement for a rejection to be in writing under section 23-89-203. Appellant filed a timely appeal from the order of summary judgment entered on August 9, 2010.’

Further evidence that electronic signatures and eSignatures are legally binding.

November 9th 2011