Cyber-insurance: Mitigating the dreaded Friday night phone call
In order to maximize coverage, companies need to make a claim within the time limits required and respond to the breach consistent with the requirements of their insurance policies.
December 18, 2013 at 03:00 AM
10 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Every in-house counsel dreads the telephone call on a Friday evening that starts with the words “I'm glad I found you.” That's especially true if that telephone call informs the in-house counsel about the newly terminated IT department employee who was able to access the company's confidential data systems 30 minutes before his access was deactivated. At that point, in-house counsel knows she is in for a long weekend and weeks or months of investigation, mitigation and possibly recriminations. Of course, there are two more questions that may be forgotten in this moment of crisis but will be asked soon enough: “How much will the investigation and remediation cost?” and “Who pays?”
Add to our example an additional twist: Our in-house counsel breathes a sigh of relief when she is told that the company's security team has determined that the ex-employee introduced a virus that was intended to damage the company's systems but that it failed to do any damage. Problem solved, correct? Unfortunately, even if there is no damage, the company could still incur significant costs as a result of the breach. In most circumstances, IT security departments will require a review of all of the major systems to confirm that the virus did not in fact infiltrate any systems and cause latent damage or a cybersecurity breach. Such an investigation can be extremely costly. At least one study has determined that the average cost to resolve an actual or potential cyber-attack is approximately $600,000. These costs can include forensic and investigative activities, assessment and audit services, crisis team management, and communications internally to executive management and board of directors and possibly externally to shareholders or the public.
While in-house counsel and the company's IT security team are dealing with the immediate impact of a breach and beginning to plan for the longer-term response, a key aspect that should be at the top of the “to-do” list is to contact the company's internal and external insurance coverage counsel and representatives. In order to maximize coverage, companies need to make sure that not only have they made a claim within the time limits required, but also that they are responding to the breach consistent with the requirements of their insurance policies.
Most companies typically have traditional insurance policies that may cover cyber risks, including commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. CGL policies generally cover the company against liability for claims alleging “bodily injury” and/or “property damage” and also against liability for claims alleging “personal injury” and/or “advertising liability.” Insurers typically argue that “cyber” risks are not intended to be covered under CGL policies, but insureds have had some success in pursuing coverage for cyber risks. Insurers have begun to constrict CGL policy language in an effort to preclude coverage for losses arising from data breaches. In order to specifically cover the risks associated with cyber breaches, and to protect the company's balance sheet, companies are looking toward cybersecurity insurance.
Insurance companies are currently offering cybersecurity insurance policies that protect businesses from Internet-based risks, and more generally from risk relating to information technology infrastructure and activities. While cyber-insurance coverage is relatively new to the market, the types of coverage are typically divided between first-party coverage, which protects the policyholder itself, and third-party coverage, which protects against the claims of a third party against the policyholder. First-party cybersecurity policies may provide coverage for:
- The costs associated with determining the scope of the breach and taking steps to stop the breach;
- The costs of providing notice to individuals whose identifying information was compromised;
- Public relations services to counteract the negative publicity that can be associated with a data investigation;
- The costs of responding to government investigations;
- The costs of replacing damaged hardware or software;
- The costs of responding to parties vandalizing the company's electronic data; and
- Business interruption costs.
Third-party cybersecurity policies may provide coverage for:
- Liability for permitting access to identifying information of customers;
- Transmitting a computer virus or malware to a third-party customer or business partner;
- Failing to notify a third party of their rights under the relevant regulations in the event of a security breach; and
- Potential “advertising injury,” i.e., harms through the use of electronic media, such as unauthorized use or infringement of copyrighted material, as well as libel, slander, and defamation claims.
There is also specific cyber-insurance for privacy breach incidents. This insurance could pay for the immediate response to the breach to stop the damage, reimburse the costs of replacement of hardware or software, and the costs to investigate the scope of the breach. This insurance could also pay for the costs of providing notice to people whose information was disclosed, and may even have preferred companies that it favors for providing that notice. Business interruption costs may also be covered, as well as reimbursement for the costs of responding to investigations or work to counteract negative publicity.
While our in-house counsel probably can't save her Friday night plans, proper planning on the part of the company can reduce the monetary harm and other risks of actual or even potential cybersecurity breaches. Companies should seriously consider purchasing cybersecurity insurance and, in so doing should consider first and third-party coverage, data restoration costs and coverage for regulatory actions.
Every in-house counsel dreads the telephone call on a Friday evening that starts with the words “I'm glad I found you.” That's especially true if that telephone call informs the in-house counsel about the newly terminated IT department employee who was able to access the company's confidential data systems 30 minutes before his access was deactivated. At that point, in-house counsel knows she is in for a long weekend and weeks or months of investigation, mitigation and possibly recriminations. Of course, there are two more questions that may be forgotten in this moment of crisis but will be asked soon enough: “How much will the investigation and remediation cost?” and “Who pays?”
Add to our example an additional twist: Our in-house counsel breathes a sigh of relief when she is told that the company's security team has determined that the ex-employee introduced a virus that was intended to damage the company's systems but that it failed to do any damage. Problem solved, correct? Unfortunately, even if there is no damage, the company could still incur significant costs as a result of the breach. In most circumstances, IT security departments will require a review of all of the major systems to confirm that the virus did not in fact infiltrate any systems and cause latent damage or a cybersecurity breach. Such an investigation can be extremely costly. At least one study has determined that the average cost to resolve an actual or potential cyber-attack is approximately $600,000. These costs can include forensic and investigative activities, assessment and audit services, crisis team management, and communications internally to executive management and board of directors and possibly externally to shareholders or the public.
While in-house counsel and the company's IT security team are dealing with the immediate impact of a breach and beginning to plan for the longer-term response, a key aspect that should be at the top of the “to-do” list is to contact the company's internal and external insurance coverage counsel and representatives. In order to maximize coverage, companies need to make sure that not only have they made a claim within the time limits required, but also that they are responding to the breach consistent with the requirements of their insurance policies.
Most companies typically have traditional insurance policies that may cover cyber risks, including commercial general liability (CGL) coverage. CGL policies generally cover the company against liability for claims alleging “bodily injury” and/or “property damage” and also against liability for claims alleging “personal injury” and/or “advertising liability.” Insurers typically argue that “cyber” risks are not intended to be covered under CGL policies, but insureds have had some success in pursuing coverage for cyber risks. Insurers have begun to constrict CGL policy language in an effort to preclude coverage for losses arising from data breaches. In order to specifically cover the risks associated with cyber breaches, and to protect the company's balance sheet, companies are looking toward cybersecurity insurance.
Insurance companies are currently offering cybersecurity insurance policies that protect businesses from Internet-based risks, and more generally from risk relating to information technology infrastructure and activities. While cyber-insurance coverage is relatively new to the market, the types of coverage are typically divided between first-party coverage, which protects the policyholder itself, and third-party coverage, which protects against the claims of a third party against the policyholder. First-party cybersecurity policies may provide coverage for:
- The costs associated with determining the scope of the breach and taking steps to stop the breach;
- The costs of providing notice to individuals whose identifying information was compromised;
- Public relations services to counteract the negative publicity that can be associated with a data investigation;
- The costs of responding to government investigations;
- The costs of replacing damaged hardware or software;
- The costs of responding to parties vandalizing the company's electronic data; and
- Business interruption costs.
Third-party cybersecurity policies may provide coverage for:
- Liability for permitting access to identifying information of customers;
- Transmitting a computer virus or malware to a third-party customer or business partner;
- Failing to notify a third party of their rights under the relevant regulations in the event of a security breach; and
- Potential “advertising injury,” i.e., harms through the use of electronic media, such as unauthorized use or infringement of copyrighted material, as well as libel, slander, and defamation claims.
There is also specific cyber-insurance for privacy breach incidents. This insurance could pay for the immediate response to the breach to stop the damage, reimburse the costs of replacement of hardware or software, and the costs to investigate the scope of the breach. This insurance could also pay for the costs of providing notice to people whose information was disclosed, and may even have preferred companies that it favors for providing that notice. Business interruption costs may also be covered, as well as reimbursement for the costs of responding to investigations or work to counteract negative publicity.
While our in-house counsel probably can't save her Friday night plans, proper planning on the part of the company can reduce the monetary harm and other risks of actual or even potential cybersecurity breaches. Companies should seriously consider purchasing cybersecurity insurance and, in so doing should consider first and third-party coverage, data restoration costs and coverage for regulatory actions.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllFrom Reluctant Lawyer to Legal Trailblazer: Agiloft's GC on Redefining In-House Counsel With Innovation and Tech
7 minute readLegal Tech's Predictions for Legal Ops & In-House in 2025
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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