Does Cyber Insurance Cover What You Think It Does? What In-House Counsel Need to Know
With one in three organizations ranking cyber threats as their top concern, buying insurance should help reduce risk. In-house counsel, however, are finding that cyber insurance does not always cover what's been promised.
January 24, 2023 at 01:39 PM
4 minute read
Most organizations understand how a data breach, phishing scam or ransomware attack affects the bottom line. The 2023 Allianz Risk Barometer report – a survey of risk management experts that identifies the most pressing corporate risks – finds 34 percent of responses rank cybersecurity as the number one risk.
Cyber threats have prompted companies to invest in cyber insurance to mitigate risk and protect themselves in case of a security incident. In reviewing these policies, in-house counsel will be surprised to learn that cyber insurance may not cover all aspects of cyber threats – potentially leaving the organization vulnerable following an incident.
"Based on how they're marketed, buyers think policies are designed for anything related to cyber," says Scott N. Godes, partner and co-chair of the Insurance Recovery and Counseling Practice with Barnes & Thornburg. "But the claims department is quick to say that these policies aren't a panacea for everything."
When in-house and corporate counsel consider cyber insurance, they should consider several factors, including what specific cyber incidents the policy covers. Legal leaders must also realize that language is crucial – and how the policy is written makes a significant difference.
What Do These Policies Cover, Anyway?
Cyber insurance is a burgeoning and growing market, with some predictions estimating its value at about $20 billion worldwide by 2025. In general, cyber insurance can cover a range of cyber threats, from data breaches to email compromise scams to ransomware attacks. Policies should help victimized organizations recoup the cost to restore data lost in a breach, loss of income due to business interruptions, and even certain legal expenses.
A typical policy, however, might not always cover intentional acts, or provide full coverage for social engineering attacks.
"A good standalone cyber policy should cover the costs to resolve a ransom demand, for example," says Godes. "That said, there's no standardization in cyber policies."
The list of places where carriers push back is "endless," says Godes, adding that over the last year: "Carriers are taking an astonishingly aggressive approach on how they interpret statements policyholders make in their applications."
Policy Language Matters
What companies understand the least about cyber insurance, says Godes, is pretty much everything about cyber insurance. That's because cyber, compared to any other insurance policy, is still new.
Since most companies still haven't experienced a significant attack, what's covered in the policies can be fuzzy – and that is why the policy language matters.
"Start by working with a sophisticated broker," explains Godes. "In-house counsel and others involved in decision-making should ask about the policy language."
That seems simple enough, but it's a must-have conversation because carriers don't provide the full set of policy language at the time of purchase.
In-house counsel should also ensure that carriers fully understand their firms' lines of business to offer the right policies. Indeed, communication is key.
"Sitting down and having a detailed conversation with the broker in advance of the date that the policy needs to be bound is helpful," says Godes. "A best practice for in-house counsel who know data privacy and cyber risk would be to have a tabletop exercise to discuss how policies would apply in certain situations. How would we want to proceed? What losses would the company incur? If I had a ransomware attack, where is the coverage?"
And if a claim is denied? Try to understand the rationale behind the denial – as well as that carriers rarely favor broad interpretations of coverage – and go from there. This is why in-house counsel must understand what the policy covers and how language changes affect the outcome.
"The insurance industry has made this a very difficult market in the last couple of years," says Godes. "In-house counsel need to do their homework."
Barnes & Thornburg's Insurance Recovery and Counseling practice has additional information for in-house counsel about insurance and risk.
Johanna Marmon is a writer in upstate New York who has been reporting on trends impacting the legal industry for more than 15 years.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBeyond the Courtroom: Protecting High-Profile Clients From Online Smear Campaigns and Cyber Threats
6 minute readAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
AI Adoption, Data Center Building Boom Opening More Doors for Cybercriminals, Many of Them Teenagers
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250