Law Firms and Cyber Insurance: Under-Educated and Overexposed
Law professionals can gain a deeper understanding of the digital threats they face, and why (and how) they can be properly insured.
July 24, 2018 at 12:30 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
cyber liability insurance Snellings Walters Insurance forensics and restoration costs purchasing adequate insurance coverage |
Cyber risks for law firms: A primer
An Ounce of (Needed) Prevention
SecurIT360 a phishing incident |
Understanding What's Covered
what protections are provided Stoel Rives Greenberg Glusker |
Cyber Coverage 101
does
- Incident response costs: The legal fees and expenses associated with computer forensics, breach notification, and identity monitoring when a security breach occurs.
- Cyber extortion: Money (or cryptocurrency) paid as a result of threats made to destroy data, attack a computer system, or disclose electronic computer information.
- Business interruption: Loss of income and expenses to restore operations as a result of a computer system disruption caused by a virus or other computer system attack. Contingent business interruption is available to provide coverage when such a computer system disruption occurs to a third-party service provider, such as a website hosting company, rather than to the insured's own network.
- Fraud: Loss of money or securities as a result of computer fraud, funds transfer fraud, or social engineering.
- Network and information-security liability: Coverage for claims arising from unauthorized access to data, failure to provide notification of a data breach when required by law, or transmission of a computer virus from the insured's network.
- Communications and media liability: Coverage for claims arising from copyright infringement, defamation, libel, or slander in electronic content.
- Regulatory defense expenses: Coverage for claims by government agencies as a result of network and information security liability or communications and media liability.
- System failure: Extends business interruption coverage to computer system disruptions caused by any unintentional or unplanned outage of a computer system, not only those caused by viruses; and
- Reputational harm: Lost profits to an insured resulting from damage to its reputation caused by a data breach.
Who Controls the Buy?
Educational Opportunity for Insurers
Shearman & Sterling Lizzy McLellan and Rhys Dipshan contributed reporting to this story.
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
© 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Censorship or Security Measure? TikTok Ban Pits Civil Liberties Groups Against US Officials
- 2Chancery Claims Linking Fox Management to Defamation Liability Clear Hurdle
- 3NJ Managing Partner Survey Indicates Tougher 2024 for Many Law Firms
- 4Southwest Airlines Faces $100M Class Action Over Pay Periods
- 5Firms Saw Slight Declines From Last Year, but Merger Interest Remains High, Managing Partner Survey Reveals
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