Despite Growing Cyber Risk, EMEA Corporations Slow to Adopt Cyber Insurance
While many wait to see the effects of future cyberthreats, and of regulations like the GDPR, the adoption of cyberinsurance remained stunted in the EMEA region in 2016
October 27, 2017 at 09:53 AM
11 minute read
In the age of ransomware and phishing, many organizations are looking to cyberinsurance to mitigate their risk. But in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa—the EMEA region—such insurance is slow to catch on, according to Aon Risk Solutions' 2017 EMEA Cyber Risk Transfer Comparison Report.
The report looks at the results of a Ponemon Institute survey of over 500 cyber and enterprise risk managers in EMEA corporations conducted in late 2016. Over one-third of respondents disclosed they had a “material or significantly disruptive” breach or incident within the past 24 months, the average financial impact of which was $3.3 million. Around two-thirds, 65 percent, also said their risk of a cyberattack will likely increase over the next two years, while 22 percent predicted it will stay the same.
But when it came to adopting cyber insurance as a remedy, only 23 percent of respondents reported having plans in place. Among those that didn't, 46 percent had no plans to purchase cyber insurance over the next two years, while 54 percent did.
However, in comparing the results from the previous year's survey, Kevin Kalinich, global practice leader of cyber/network risk at Aon, noted that “the awareness of cyber risk and the intent to purchase cyber insurance both increased by about 40 percent.”
Kalinich said the discrepancy between the amount of EMEA companies who see higher cyber risk in the future and those who plan to buy cyber insurance is due to the fact that many EMEA companies didn't see the need to protect themselves financially against cyber risk during 2016.
“EMEA is different than the U.S., where there have been a number of high-profile litigation situations that cost companies large amounts of money,” Kalinich said. He predicted, however, that more EMEA companies would get cyber insurance going forward, in light of the growing amount of European companies that have begun to suffer high financial losses connected to breaches in 2017, including shipping company DPEX Express, consumer goods company Reckitt Benckiser and the European offices of DLA Piper.
Aon predictions, though, may be optimistic, given that it helps its own clients find and purchase cyber insurance and has a vested interest in the cyber insurance industry.
Of those respondents who had cyber insurance in 2016, 56 percent noted their general liability limit was between $2 million and $20 million, while 25 percent had covered liabilities from $1 million to $5 million. What's more, 62 percent of those with cyber insurance called their coverage sufficient. Most of these insurance policies covered external attacks by cyber criminals (83 percent) or those by malicious or criminal insiders (76 percent).
Around half also covered the costs of communicating with regulators after an incident and of notifying data breach victims of the loss, while 49 percent covered third-party liabilities as well.
In addition to coverage, most cyber insurers provided their clients with access to cybersecurity forensics experts (84 percent) and access to legal or regulatory experts (74 percent). Such access to legal and regulatory professionals could prove helpful for EMEA companies given how unfamiliar many are with the risk they face under international laws and regulations: Only 30 percent of respondents, for example, were fully aware of the legal and economic consequences of an international data breach or security incident, while 46 percent were “somewhat aware” and 24 percent were “not aware.”
Kalinich, however, noted that this lack awareness is not connected with a lack of understanding of the general fines and legal liabilities under regulations such as the EU's upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but instead with how such liabilities will become reality.
“They don't have any actual examples of how the EU GDPR fines an entity,” he said. “Why should an organization purchase insurance to cover something or have awareness of something that they don't have actuarial data for?”
Building puzzle globe. jannoon028/Shutterstock.com.In the age of ransomware and phishing, many organizations are looking to cyberinsurance to mitigate their risk. But in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa—the EMEA region—such insurance is slow to catch on, according to Aon Risk Solutions' 2017 EMEA Cyber Risk Transfer Comparison Report.
The report looks at the results of a Ponemon Institute survey of over 500 cyber and enterprise risk managers in EMEA corporations conducted in late 2016. Over one-third of respondents disclosed they had a “material or significantly disruptive” breach or incident within the past 24 months, the average financial impact of which was $3.3 million. Around two-thirds, 65 percent, also said their risk of a cyberattack will likely increase over the next two years, while 22 percent predicted it will stay the same.
But when it came to adopting cyber insurance as a remedy, only 23 percent of respondents reported having plans in place. Among those that didn't, 46 percent had no plans to purchase cyber insurance over the next two years, while 54 percent did.
However, in comparing the results from the previous year's survey, Kevin Kalinich, global practice leader of cyber/network risk at Aon, noted that “the awareness of cyber risk and the intent to purchase cyber insurance both increased by about 40 percent.”
Kalinich said the discrepancy between the amount of EMEA companies who see higher cyber risk in the future and those who plan to buy cyber insurance is due to the fact that many EMEA companies didn't see the need to protect themselves financially against cyber risk during 2016.
“EMEA is different than the U.S., where there have been a number of high-profile litigation situations that cost companies large amounts of money,” Kalinich said. He predicted, however, that more EMEA companies would get cyber insurance going forward, in light of the growing amount of European companies that have begun to suffer high financial losses connected to breaches in 2017, including shipping company DPEX Express, consumer goods company Reckitt Benckiser and the European offices of
Aon predictions, though, may be optimistic, given that it helps its own clients find and purchase cyber insurance and has a vested interest in the cyber insurance industry.
Of those respondents who had cyber insurance in 2016, 56 percent noted their general liability limit was between $2 million and $20 million, while 25 percent had covered liabilities from $1 million to $5 million. What's more, 62 percent of those with cyber insurance called their coverage sufficient. Most of these insurance policies covered external attacks by cyber criminals (83 percent) or those by malicious or criminal insiders (76 percent).
Around half also covered the costs of communicating with regulators after an incident and of notifying data breach victims of the loss, while 49 percent covered third-party liabilities as well.
In addition to coverage, most cyber insurers provided their clients with access to cybersecurity forensics experts (84 percent) and access to legal or regulatory experts (74 percent). Such access to legal and regulatory professionals could prove helpful for EMEA companies given how unfamiliar many are with the risk they face under international laws and regulations: Only 30 percent of respondents, for example, were fully aware of the legal and economic consequences of an international data breach or security incident, while 46 percent were “somewhat aware” and 24 percent were “not aware.”
Kalinich, however, noted that this lack awareness is not connected with a lack of understanding of the general fines and legal liabilities under regulations such as the EU's upcoming General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), but instead with how such liabilities will become reality.
“They don't have any actual examples of how the EU GDPR fines an entity,” he said. “Why should an organization purchase insurance to cover something or have awareness of something that they don't have actuarial data for?”
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 AllTrending 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