Author Archives: Scott Godes

Presentation on Your Cyber Security Strategy — How to Capitalize on New Opportunities & Mitigate Risks

Interested in cyber security issues?  Please join me for the following program (now archived here), live or via webinar, presented by the Washington Metropolitan Area Corporate Counsel Association:

WMACCA Government Contractors Forum: Your Cyber Security Strategy — How to Capitalize on New Opportunities & Mitigate Risks

Dec 9, 2009
8:00 AM – 10:00 AM
LIVE at Gannett Co., Inc., 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia OR by WEBCAST from your desk.

Overview

As the corporate world becomes more and more virtual, the need for cyber and data security has never been greater. Understanding the Administration’s new cyber security initiatives and changes on the legislative front can give companies a competitive advantage in developing comprehensive cyber security programs. If your business is grappling with emerging threats, limited funds, and slow procurement processes, you are not alone.  Find out how to capitalize on the opportunities available through the Safety Act and other mechanisms to protect your company, and how your insurance coverage policies may cover potential liabilities. This program will address what you need to know, what you need to do, and how to “just do it.”

Speakers

Presented by Scott N. Godes, [formerly] of Dickstein Shapiro LLP; David Kessler, Senior Corporate Counsel, Symantec Corporation; Kenneth A. Mendelson, Managing Director, Stroz Friedberg. Moderated by Brian E. Finch of Dickstein Shapiro LLP.

Notes

Breakfast will be provided on-site from 8:00 – 8:30 a.m.  The program and webcast will begin at 8:30 a.m.

Webcast Log-In Instructions:
1. Go to http://www.ec.commpartners.com
2. In the middle of the page where it says Meeting Number, type the following number –340258
3. Click Enter
4. Type your full name and e-mail address when prompted

CLE

Credits: 1.5 hour pending
State: Virginia
Category: General

Contact

Robin Hayutin
Phone: 703-242-8773
E-mail: robin.hayutin@wmacca.com

Location

LIVE at Gannett Co., Inc., 7950 Jones Branch Drive, McLean, Virginia OR by WEBCAST from your desk.

703-854-6000

Sign Up

Cost

Free of charge

View All Events

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

“Strategy for Creating an Effective Corporate Compliance Program”

I welcome you to check out the new Lexis Corporate Compliance Practice Guide:  The Next Generation.  My colleagues and I wrote Chapter 43. Specific Corporate Compliance Challenges by Practice Area: Insurance.  I wrote the section on insurance coverage for cyber security risks.

Here’s what Lisa C. Coppolo McManus, Legal Content Planner for LexisNexis® Matthew Bender®, wrote:

LexisNexis is providing a free download of a chapter from “The Corporate Compliance Practice Guide: The Next Generation.” An excerpt:

The CEO/President of the corporation should provide leadership for the compliance program. This includes launching the compliance program with the message from the CEO/President. This leadership at the top sets the tone for the compliance program and is an essential element of creating a culture of compliance within the corporation.

Further, top management must ensure the effectiveness of the compliance office by providing necessary personnel and funding. Top management should take a leadership role in fostering the compliance program by supporting the program in their daily activities.

Finally, ”specific high-level personnel,” which usually consists of the compliance officers in the compliance office, should be designated with the responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the compliance program. The chief compliance officer is critical to the success of the compliance program. For the compliance effort to succeed, the chief compliance officer should be afforded access to the CEO/President and the Board of Directors, as well as sufficient funding and staff. A chief compliance officer should be appointed to coordinate the activities of individual compliance ”officers” at subsidiaries. Finally, it is vital that the chief compliance officer and all other compliance officers be known for their integrity and high ethical standards.

For the free download, go to http://tinyurl.com/ylnjeff . Login is required, but it’s free and easy (and no spam!).

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

“Dusting Off an Old Law” – Insurance Coverage for Trespass to Chattels Claims.

“TrespNo Trespassingass to chattels”?!?  Isn’t that a doctrine that was dead and buried, brought up only to torment…educate first year law students?  Not any more!  In the electronic age, the trespass to chattels doctrine has been revived.  It has been used for all sorts of claims, including anti-spam claims, network interference claims, and more.

Of course, if you’re like me, you wonder, “Is there insurance available to cover such claims?”  I wrote an article, bylined with two co-authors, in which I address those questions.  Risk and Insurance just published the piece.

The piece’s introduction reads:

As computer technology rapidly advances, legislatures often cannot enact laws quickly enough to respond to new cybersecurity risks. Enterprising lawyers, however, have turned to old legal doctrines for relief. The doctrine of “trespass to chattels,” for example, is an antiquated term that once was buried in the dusty pages of old law dictionaries. But lawyers who handle cybersecurity issues, including allegations of spam, viruses, worms, unauthorized access, and more, have revived the doctrine as a means of redress. For companies facing potential liabilities based on such allegations, the availability of insurance coverage is critical to navigate the nuances of the ever-changing landscape.

Is there coverage for such claims?

Although designed to cover a wide range of risks that could befall a business, many standard form “traditional” insurance policies do not explicitly mention cybersecurity or claims arising out of online activity. But look closely, because coverage can still be available. For example, commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies, the basic insurance policies bought by thousands of companies every year, provide, in standard form, two basic coverages relevant to this question: coverage for liability arising out of “property damage” and coverage for liability arising out of “personal and advertising injury.” Both coverages might apply to potential liability for a trespass to chattels claim.

Where should a company look when facing trespass to chattels claims?

Although designed to cover a wide range of risks that could befall a business, many standard form “traditional” insurance policies do not explicitly mention cybersecurity or claims arising out of online activity. But look closely, because coverage can still be available. For example, commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policies, the basic insurance policies bought by thousands of companies every year, provide, in standard form, two basic coverages relevant to this question: coverage for liability arising out of “property damage” and coverage for liability arising out of “personal and advertising injury.” Both coverages might apply to potential liability for a trespass to chattels claim.

For the analysis of property damage and personal and advertising injury coverage in CGL policies for trespass to chattels claims, click on over to Risk and Insurance to read the full piece. If not available through those links, the piece has been saved in the Internet Archive by clicking here.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

New content coming!

New posts coming!Loyal readers, I know that I have not updated the site with new content for longer than I’d prefer.  Rest assured that I have been working on a number of pieces, all of which are close to being finished.  I’ll either make them available here or put links here so that you can get to the content.

But for those of you who are hungry for more content, here’s an overview of the pieces that are coming:

  1. Insurance coverage for an improperly named insured.  The article discusses an insurance company’s duty to defend a lawsuit brought against an insured wrongly named in or served with a complaint.
  2. Insurance coverage for data breaches.  The article discusses the various forms of insurance that should respond to allegations of a data breach.
  3. Discovery of reinsurance in the context of insurance coverage litigation.  Recent cases and other materials have demonstrated that reinsurance is relevant to insurance coverage disputes, and the piece provides both an overview of why and a discussion of new decisions and public information confirming the relevance.
  4. Insurance coverage for trespass to chattels claims.  Trespass to chattels is probably something you’d never think that you’d hear after the first year of law school ended.  But the theory has been used recently in the context of cyber security claims.  The piece discusses insurance coverage for such allegations.
  5. Insurance coverage for cloud computing risks.  Cloud computing is the next big thing, it seems.  Insurance for such risks will have an ever increasing importance as cloud computing becomes more prevalent, and this piece discusses potential sources for coverage for such risks.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

Steve Goldberg: “Insurers Too Often Want to Weasel Out of the D&O Insurance They Sold.”

WeaselShould this be the new corporate mascot for insurance companies?  The weasel?  Maybe so, based on the title of my colleague, Steve Goldberg’s post:  “Insurers Too Often Want to Weasel Out of the D&O Insurance They Sold.”

Steve explains over at the Catastrophic Insurance Coverage blog that “Fortunately, [insurance companies] don’t always succeed, as evidenced by the recent decision discussed below.”

In his post, Steve gives a nice analysis about some of the arguments that insurance companies make when trying to deny coverage for D&O claims.  Steve starts out by explaining:

One of the many ways that some insurance companies try to avoid honoring their obligations under D&O insurance policies is to claim that one of the many insureds included within the coverage of the policy took some action that assisted the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the company and its directors and officers. In doing so, they rely upon the insured vs. insured exclusion. That exclusion is frequently called by way of shorthand the IVI exclusion.

The line from Steve’s post that struck me as most important for corporate policyholders, directors, and officers to keep in mind is:

The moral of these two cases is simple: when the stakes are high, as they most always are in these types of D&O coverage disputes, an insured needs to be ever vigilant and perhaps aggressive when dealing with its carriers as the carriers will often themselves be quite aggressive in seeking to deny coverage.

Steve goes on to discuss recent authority in which courts refused to let insurance companies weasel out of their D&O policy obligations.  It’s worth clicking over to Steve’s blog, the Catastrophic Insurance Blog, and giving the piece a read.

rssAnd if you haven’t already added Steve’s feed to your newsreader, here’s the link to do so.  I added the feed to my Google Reader subscription list as soon as I saw the blog go live.  You can also add the feed for the Corporate Insurance Blog to your newsreader by clicking here.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

Video CLE: Insurance Coverage for Premises/Operations (“Non-Products”) Claims

The fine folks at LexisNexis have created an online Continuing Legal Education center in the Insurance Law Center.   They’ve created a CLE out of the presentation that I gave for HB Litigation Conferences regarding insurance coverage for asbestos premises/operations claims (often, claims against premises owners or insulation contractors).  You can find the CLE, titled Emerging Trends in Asbestos Litigation: Insurance Coverage Issues for Asbestos Non-Products, by clicking here.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

Note:  as a speaker at the conference, I was not charged a fee to attend the remainder of the conference.

Court grants motion to amend to add insurance company as defendant.

Law360 published a piece about a court decision granting a motion to amend that I wrote.  In short, I represented a policyholder that suffered an explosion and fire at its plant and sought insurance coverage for the related losses.  The policyholder had brought suit against its first party property insurers, and then sought leave to amend to add its pollution liability carrier.   The Federal District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the contested motion.  For the full piece, click here (subscription required).

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

Steve Goldberg on Chinese Drywall and Insurance Coverage

My prolific former colleague, Steve Goldberg, just wrote a piece regarding insurance coverage for potential Chinese drywall liabilities.  In the piece, Steve discusses another piece on Chinese drywall and insurance coverage for builders and subcontractors, by John M.Sadler of Sadler and Company, which also has appeared in Claimsjournal.com.  Steve notes what may be an open secret amongst those who represent policyholders in insurance coverage disputes:

John points out, what many of us policyholder insurance coverage lawyers already know. When many serious liability risks arise, many insurers, as one famous court decision once stated in a products liability context, run for cover rather than coverage.

Steve discusses other issues relating to insurance coverage for potential Chinese drywall liabilities, and cites an article on the issue co-authored by our former colleague Leon Kellner, “Chinese Drywall, Legal, Insurance, and Other Strategic Considerations” in the Florida Homebuilders Association Magazine.

For Steve’s full post, click here.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.
myspace profile views counter

Join Me for Insurance Coverage for Cybersecurity CLE Hosted by the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.

On Wednesday, August 26, 2009, I’ll be presenting a CLE for the Pennsylvania Bar Institute on insurance coverage for cybersecurity liabilities.  Here’s a snapshot of the PBI’s page so that you can sign up.

Business Law | Insurance Practice
search:
advanced
Tele-Web Seminar

Tele-Web Seminar
Insurance Coverage for Cybersecurity

1.5 Total CLE credits (No Ethics)

Note: This tele-web seminar will begin on Wednesday, August 26, 2009 at 12:00 PM to 1:30 PM Eastern Time.
Product №: 6116T
Course Level: Intermediate
Duration: 90 minutes

Register Now
Item Description | Faculty | Pricing

Item DescriptionThe financial liability of failing to protect information properly can be extraordinarily high.  One way in which to protect your clients and yourself from liability is to obtain cybersecurity insurance.  This program examines this relatively new type of insurance, the pros and cons of obtaining it, and will help you to help your clients explore their options.

Our faculty will discuss:

  • An overview of cybersecurity and data breach risks and potential liabilities
  • How “traditional” insurance coverage might cover cybersecurity and data breach risks and liabilities
  • New insurance products in the marketplace for cybersecurity and data breach risks and liabilities
Register Now Back to top

Pricing Back to top
  • Members–PA or any co. bar assn.
$99.00
  • Nonmember
$119.00

Faculty Register Now Back to top
Scott Godes, Esq., [formerly] Dickstein Shapiro, LLP, Washington, DC
Timothy Delahunt, Esq., Kenney, Shelton, Liptak & Nowak, LLP, Buffalo, NY
Arturo PerezReyes, Client Executive, Saylor & Hill, Oakland, CA
Register Now Back to top
Register NOW so you can print the course materials when they are available.
icon_acrobat Instructions (1 Page, 14 KB)
Contact us at 1-800-932-4637
Email us at callincle@pbi.org
click for live chat Having trouble using this site?
Help us improve
Powered by Legalspan

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Coverage Disputes Over Data Breaches . . . (as summarized by HB Litigation Conferences)

On July 15, 2009, I gave a presentation regarding insurance coverage for data breaches for my friends at HB Litigation Conferences, along with Tim Delahunt and Arturo Perez-ReyesTom Hagy (yes, the “H” in “HB”) wrote a really nice blog post discussing and summarizing the content of the teleconference, which you can find by clicking here.

Tom opens the piece with a provocative title and subtitle, asking:

Coverage Disputes Over Data Breaches . . .

. . . A Deluge or a Dud?

He explains:

With hundreds of laws governing data privacy and the potential for billions of dollars in damages, you can’t help but think that insurance coverage disputes are about to fall on courts like confetti.

Maybe yes; maybe no.

Either way, companies need to pay as close attention to their insurance policies as they do their data protection policies.

Tom then gives a nice summary of the introduction and overview regarding potential insurance coverage for data breaches that I provided to the conference attendees:

Speaking on HB’s July 15 teleconference – “Private Data Breaches: Insurance Coverage Implications & Prevention – policyholder counsel Scott Godes [formerly] of Dickstein Shapiro told listeners that, despite what insurance counsel might say, “don’t write off your existing coverage” if looking for protection. He also said to know the window of time to get your notice in quickly to get your insurer “to partner up with you,” and to consider new cyber-security coverage – but “know its limitations.”

Tom also featured some of the fascinating data points that my co-presenter Arturo Perez Reyes provided on this burgeoning area of liability:

Co-presenter Arturo Perez Reyes said California alone has 81 separate privacy laws, and there are hundreds of laws outside the U.S. If you lose records, you will have to tell everyone that you lost them, he said, “essentially notifying a whole class of potential plaintiffs.”

There was a 44% increase in data losses last year that resulted in $50B in losses, Reyes reported, adding that nine million people were affected by identification theft.

“The concept of a firewall is a joke,” Reyes declared.

Tom also highlighted some back and forth between me and co-presenter Tim Delahunt:

Godes criticized insurance company arguments against coverage for data theft arising from failures on the part of the policyholder’s systems. “If there is no failure to maintain proper authentication and no failure of data security measures, there would be no potential liability and no lawsuits,” he said. “And if there never was a failure of proper authentication and never was a failure of data security, I suppose insurance companies would be thrilled because they would get your insurance premiums and nothing ever goes wrong.”Co-presenter Timothy Delahunt of Kenney, Shelton, Liptak & Nowak called this a “classic policyholder complaint – that insurance companies issue coverage then deny it.”

“The analogue is that courts will find coverage when they need to, to satisfy an underlying liability. Do I think the facts and policy language have changed?” Delahunt asked. “By and large no. Could the coverage landscape change as underlying liability expands? I believe that’s possible.”

For the rest of the analysis and the post, click here.  And thanks, of course, to Tom and HB Litigation Conferences for the write up!

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Corporate Insurance Blog featured in Blawg Review #224.

Thanks, Baby Barista and Times Online for featuring the Corporate Insurance Blog in Blawg Review #224.  In light of the recent issues with Twitter, Baby Barista wrote:

Finally, with Twitter down, if you start to worry about the consequences of cyber-attacks then Corporate Insurance Blog says it’s a good week to read about insurance coverage in that respect.

myspace profile views counter

If you’re getting here via Blawg Review, welcome!  And feel free to take a look at my writings on the fascinating issue of insurance coverage.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Total Cessation of Business Is Not Required for BI Coverage.

Advisen just published my article, Just How Much Business Disruption Is Required To Obtain Coverage Under Contingent Business Interruption Insurance Policies?.

In the piece, I explain that:

In insurance coverage cases relating to the application of contingent business interruption coverage, insurers consistently argue that there must have been a “total cessation” of operations, no matter the applicable policy language. They further argue that if there was no “total cessation” of business operations, the insurers are not obligated to provide contingent business interruption coverage. Those arguments, however, should not carry the day.

What is contingent business interruption insurance coverage?

“Regular business-interruption insurance replaces profits lost as a result of physical damage to the insured’s plant or other equipment; contingent business-interruption coverage goes further, protecting the insured against the consequences of suppliers’ problems.” Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2001) (“Archer v. Hartford”). In short, if a third party suffers a business interruption that affects the policyholder, such as “damage to [a third party’s] plant, which was neither owned nor operated by” the insured, “contingent business interruption insurance applie[s] to the losses suffered by” the named insured. CII Carbon, L.L.C. v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., 918 So.2d 1060, 1068 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2005).

The article discusses what sort of interruption is required under contingent business interruption policies. I argue that:

The plain language of policies that require only an “interruption of business” does not, by the terms, require a total “cessation” or “suspension” of business.

For the complete analysis, click here to read the complete article.

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Welcome, Steve Goldberg!

Steve Goldberg, a former colleague of mine at Dickstein Shapiro LLP, has joined the blogosphere.  Steve just started writing the Catastrophic Insurance Coverage Blog.  Surf on over to his blog and give his pieces a read.  Steve’s a sharp lawyer who is another terrific advocate for corporate policyholders.

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Insurance Coverage for Cyberattacks and Denial-of-Service Incidents.

If your business suffered the same sort of cyberattacks alleged to have taken place against “U.S. government Web sites – including those of the White House and the State Department –” over the July 4, 2009 holiday weekend, would your insurance cover losses that your company faced?[1] Not worried, because the alleged attacks were only against government sites?  Unfortunately, the cyberattacks were more widespread, and allegedly included, “according to a cyber-security specialist who has been tracking the incidents, . . . those run by the New York Stock Exchange, Nasdaq, The Washington Post, Amazon.com and MarketWatch.”[2]

Denial of Service Attacks

 

The cyberattacks described were denial-of-service incidents.  Personnel from “CERT® Program,” which “is part of the federally funded Software Engineering Institute (SEI), a federally funded research and development center at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,” have explained:

Denial-of-service attacks come in a variety of forms and aim at a variety of services. There are three basic types of attack:

  • consumption of scarce, limited, or non-renewable resources
  • destruction or alteration of configuration information
  • physical destruction or alteration of network components.[3]

Some attacks are comparable to “tak[ing] an ax to a piece of hardware,” and are known as “so-called permanent denial-of-service (PDOS) attack[s].”[4] If a system suffers such an attack, which also has been called “pure hardware sabotage,” it “requires replacement or reinstallation of hardware.”[5]

What Insurance Coverage Might Apply?

If your company faces a denial-of-service cyberattack and suffers losses as a result, but your company has not purchased a specialized suite of policies marketed as cyber security policies, coverage nonetheless may be available under other insurance policies.  Consider whether first party all risk or property coverage may apply.  First party all risk policies tend to provide coverage for the policyholder’s losses due to property damage.  If the denial-of-service cyberattack caused physical damage to your company’s servers or hard drives, your company’s first party all risk insurer should not have a credible argument that there was no property damage.  Even if the damage is limited to data and software, however, it may be argued that the loss is covered under your company’s first party all risk policy, as some courts have found that damage to data and software consists of property damage.[6]

First party policies may also provide coverage for extra expense, business interruption, and contingent business interruption losses due to a cyberattack.  (Contingent business interruption losses may include those arising out of a third party’s cyber security-based business interruption.)[7]

Look also to other first party coverages, such as crime and fidelity policies, to determine whether there may be coverage for losses due to a cyberattack.  In particular, crime policies may have endorsements, such as computer fraud endorsements, that may cover losses from a denial of service cyberattack.

If, after a cyberattack, third parties seek to hold your company responsible for their alleged losses, consider whether your company’s liability policies would provide coverage.  More importantly, consider your company’s commercial general liability (CGL) insurance policy (if your company does not have a specialized cyber liability policy).

The first coverage provided in a standard-form CGL insurance policy covers liability for property damage.  Similar to the analysis above for first party all risk policies, if there was damage to servers or hard drives, insurers should not be heard to argue that there was no property damage.  Courts are divided as to whether damage to data or software alone consists of property damage under insurance policies, with some courts recognizing that “the computer data in question ‘was physical, had an actual physical location, occupied space and was capable of being physically damaged and destroyed’” and that such lost data was covered under a CGL policy.[8] Be aware, however, that the insurance industry has revised many CGL policies to include definitions giving insurers stronger arguments that damage to data and software will not be considered property damage.  But also note that your company’s CGL policy may have endorsements that provide coverage specifically for damage to data and software.[9] Consider further whether a claim would fall within the property damage coverage for loss of use of tangible property—loss of use of servers and hard drives because of the cyberattack.

Consider Cyber Security Specialty Policies

Looking beyond the coverages and endorsements discussed above, your company should consider the recent cyberattacks as an opportunity to reevaluate the need for specialized coverages for cyber security losses.  Insurance companies continue to introduce new specialized products for cyber security risks, marketing the new policies as including data compromise, cyber liability, network risk, and/or computer data coverage.  The Insurance Services Office, Inc., which designs and seeks regulatory approval for many insurance policy forms and language, has a standard insurance form called the “Internet Liability and Network Protection Policy,” and insurance companies may base their coverages on this basic insuring agreement, or they may provide their own company-worded policy form.  Cyber security and data breach policies, certain forms of which may be known as Network Risk, Cyber-Liability, Privacy and Security, or Media Liability insurance, are relatively new to the marketplace and are ever-changing.  An experienced broker may be able to advise what coverages are available, and an attorney with experience in advising policyholders about insurance coverage issues may be able to advise as to the potential strengths and weaknesses of the various policy terms offered.

[Note 1:  This post also appears on Lexis’ Insurance Law Center, with thanks to my friend Karen Yotis.]

[Note 2:  This post is featured in Blawg Review #221, thanks to  H. Scott Leviant of The Complex Litigator.]


[1] U.S. Government Sites Among Those Hit by Cyberattack, CNN, http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/07/08/government.hacking/index.html(July 8, 2009).

[2] Siobhan Gorman & Evan Ramstad, Cyber Blitz Hits U.S., Korea, Wall St. J., http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124701806176209691.html (July 9, 2009).

[3] Denial of Service Attacks, CERT, http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/denial_of_service.html (last visited July 9, 2009); About CERT, CERT, http://www.cert.org/meet_cert/ (last visited July 10, 2009).

[4] Kelly Jackson Higgins, Permanent Denial-of-Service Attack Sabotages Hardware, Security Dark Reading, http://www.darkreading.com/security/management/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=211201088 (May 19, 2008).

[5] Id.

[6] See, e.g., Lambrecht & Assocs., Inc. v. State Farm Lloyds, 119 S.W.3d 16 (Tex. App. 2003) (first party property coverage for data damaged because of hacker attack or computer virus); Am. Guar. & Liab. Ins. Co. v. Ingram Micro, Inc., No. 99-185 TUC ACM, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7299, at *6 (D. Ariz. Apr. 18, 2000) (construing “physical damage” beyond “harm of computer circuitry” to encompass “loss of access, loss of use, and loss of functionality”).

[7] Se. Mental Health Ctr., Inc. v. Pac. Ins. Co., 439 F. Supp. 2d 831, 837 (W.D. Tenn. 2006) (finding coverage under business interruption policy for computer corruption); see also Scott N. Godes, Ensuring Contingent Business Interruption Coverage, Law360, (Apr. 8, 2009) http://insurance.law360.com/articles/94765 (discussing coverage under first party policies resulting from third party interruptions).

[8] See, e.g., Computer Corner, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 46 P.3d 1264, 1266 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002).

[9] See, e.g., Claire Wilkinson, Is Your Company Prepared for a Data Breach?, Ins. Info. Inst., at 20 (Mar. 2006) http://www.iii.org/assets/docs/pdf/informationsecurity.pdf (discussing the Insurance Services Office, Inc.’s endorsement for “electronic data liability”).

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Interested in joining me for a teleconference regarding insurance coverage for data breaches?

hblc
Dickstein

Private Data Breaches – Insurance Coverage Implications & Prevention

Are You Covered When Hackers Get Through?

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

2:00 – 3:40pm EST

$149 – unlimited listeners; $99 – single listener

1.5-2.0 CLE Credits

[formerly] Dickstein Shapio Counsel, Scott Godes, Esq., will speak on this upcoming teleconference.  The program will discuss:

  • An overview of data breach incidents
  • Does a company have coverage for data breaches?
  • An overview of current insurance coverage cases relating to data breaches
  • Advising clients who have been hacked
  • Top recommendations for clients to prevent data breaches and to secure coverage for future incidents

To register for this teleconference, please click here.

telecon

CAN’T ATTEND?

You can still benefit from this teleconference! Audio recordings are available now.  Individually priced and packaged, each recording captures the information and insights delivered by our faculty. Listen to experts, gain new perspectives, and learn proven techniques. For more information, click here or contact Allison Emery at 484-324-2755 x205 or Allison.Emery@litigationconferences.com.

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Kirk Hartley Offers Commentary On My Post Regarding The Definition of Occurrence in Insurance Policies

Kirk Hartley, one of the prolific authors of GlobalTort, just posted “Commentary On The Definition of Occurrence in Insurance Policies – Another Reason GCs for Insureds Get Grey Hair Managing Legacy Claims,” in which he commented on my post, “Is Uncertainty Over the Meaning of “Occurrence” Susceptible to a Drafting Solution?”

Kirk says that it’s “[a]n interesting post,” the original and complete version of which is found over at the Adams Drafting blog, because Ken Adams, Adam Scales, and I address an issue that Kirk says will cause “[b]illions and soon trillions of dollars [to] change hands based on the meaning given or found by court’s deciding insurance coverage cases for underlying toxic tort cases.”

Kirk was kind enough to conclude that “[t]he following words from Scott are key:”

Although the term was designed to be a clarification of coverage, it comes as no surprise to someone who represents policyholders when claims have been denied that insurance companies would have courts believe that instead, “occurrence” was designed to support coverage denials or limitations. Insurance companies also are happy to argue conflicting interpretations of “occurrence,” depending on which interpretation will mean less coverage for the policyholder in the dispute at issue.”
Kirk, thanks very much for commenting on the post!  And for those of you with an interest in mass tort litigation questions, both in the national and international arenas, be sure to visit GlobalTort and add its feed to your news reader, as I’ve done.

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Is Uncertainty Over the Meaning of “Occurrence” Susceptible to a Drafting Solution?

Ken Adams, who runs the Adams Drafting blog, is a Lecturer in Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, and the author of the Manual of Style for Contract Drafting, asked me to write some commentary regarding the drafting of insurance policies and the interpretation of “occurrence.”  I was honored by the request, because Ken has been described as “a leading authority on modern and effective contract drafting.”

Ken asked, on his blog:

Can astute contract drafting can forestall all contract disputes? No, it cannot. Most contract disputes, sure. But not all.

Ken thought about this issue in the context of insurance policies, specifically, as to the interpretation of the term “occurrence.”

So here’s my question: Couldn’t insurance companies draft policies—and an insurance policy is just another kind of contract—in such a way as to bring clarity to the meaning of “occurrence”?

Ken, however, explains that he is not an expert in the area of insurance.  To get some perspective on the issue, he turned to Professor Adam Scales and me:

Normally I think through such issues on my own. But I know next to nothing about insurance, and I’m not inclined to give myself a crash course in the subject, so for my own edification I consulted two people who have experience with this issue. I offer you their thoughts, in case this is an issue of any interest to you.

In my discussion of the issue, I explain:

The meaning of “occurrence” is a question that has been contested for some time in courts across the United States, with questions of whether potential or actual underlying liability against a policyholder is considered an occurrence, and, if so, just how many occurrences are there under one or multiple insurance policies. Adding to the complexity, the question has been answered in multiple ways by state and federal courts (not to mention arbitrators) across the country.

* * *

Although the term was designed to be a clarification of coverage, it comes as no surprise to someone who represents policyholders when claims have been denied that insurance companies would have courts believe that instead, “occurrence” was designed to support coverage denials or limitations. Insurance companies also are happy to argue conflicting interpretations of “occurrence,” depending on which interpretation will mean less coverage for the policyholder in the dispute at issue.

For the conclusion that I offer, as well as the comments that Ken Adams and Adam Scales offer, head on over to the Adams Drafting blog to read more.

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Private Data Breaches – Insurance Coverage Implications & Prevention

HBLC Logo

On July 15, 2009, I’m going to be speaking at a teleconference for my friends at HB Litigation Conferences.  The conference is:

Private Data Breaches – Insurance Coverage Implications & Prevention

Are You Covered When Hackers Get Through?

Here’s the agenda:

Are You Covered When Hackers Get Through?

  • An overview of data breach incidents
  • Does a company have coverage for data breaches?
  • An overview of current insurance coverage cases relating to data breaches
  • Advising clients who have been hacked
  • Top recommendations for clients to prevent data breaches and to secure coverage for future incidents

I’ll be joined by Arturo Perez Reyes, Saylor & Hill Company, A Barney & Barney Company, Oakland, CA and Timothy Delahunt, Esq., Kenney, Shelton, Liptak & Nowak, L.L.P., Buffalo, NY.

Please join us for the teleconference!  I’m looking forward to speaking at the event and talking about insurance coverage for data breaches, an issue that could affect just about any company out there.  If you’re interested in joining us, surf on over to the conference page on HB Litigation’s site, and sign up!

Date: July 15, 2009
Time: 2:00-3:40 pm ET
Price: $149 – unlimited* (includes CLE for 1 listener); $99 – single (includes CLE for 1 listener)

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Corporate Insurance Blog featured on Inter Alia.

I was happy to see this morning that the Corporate Insurance Blog was featured in Inter Alia.  Tom Mighell writes Inter Alia, which is is an internet legal research blog, among other things.  It features a wide varieties of blogs discussing legal issues for its blawgs of the day.

Thanks, Tom, for the mention!

myspace profile views counter

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

Part 4 of My Speech on Insurance Coverage for Asbestos Non-Products Claims at HB Litigation Conferences

I just received an e-mail with a link to Part Four of my speech on “non-products” (premise-operations) coverage for asbestos claims against former asbestos insulation contractors, installers, and insulators.  The speech was at HB Litigation Conferences’ Emerging Asbestos Litigation Conference held March 9-11, 2009, in Beverly Hills, at the Four Seasons Hotel.  The clip of the speech is below.  And if you’re interested in purchasing the materials from the conference (video and handouts), head over to HB Litigation’s site.

Disclaimer:

This blog is for informational purposes only. This may be considered attorney advertising in some states. The opinions on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of the author’s law firm and/or the author’s past and/or present clients. By reading it, no attorney-client relationship is formed. If you want legal advice, please retain an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed here belong only the individual contributor(s). © All rights reserved. 2009.

myspace profile views counterNote:  as a speaker at the conference, I was not charged a fee to attend the remainder of the conference.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »