CCPA is Elevating the Stakes Around Cyber Insurance Blind Spots
The California Consumer Privacy Act will go into effect in January, but if you're thinking about waiting until Thanksgiving to make the necessary adjustments to your insurance coverage, think again.
July 19, 2019 at 08:00 AM
3 minute read
Organizations looking to purchase a standard issue cyber insurance policy that will cover all of their forthcoming needs under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) may be out of luck. Or at the least that was the impression given Wednesday during the “CCPA Insurance Issues: Avoiding Gaps in Your Coverage” webinar held by the law firm Perkins Coie.
Panelists agreed that the CCPA allows for more nuance than can be incorporated into the average cyber insurance policy without a significant investment of time or thought.
“Companies are spending thousands of dollars annually on premiums with the belief that they are buying the type of insurance that's going to cover all of their various risks,” said James Davis, a partner at Perkins Coie.
Basically, it's getting harder to order a standard insurance policy like it's a combo meal at McDonald's. Meanwhile, the stakes for companies or other entities that have not properly vetted their insurance policies are slowly rising, in large part thanks to a CCPA provision that affords consumers a private right of action without the burden of having to show actual damage from a breach.
Panelist Selena Linde, a partner at Perkins Coie, referred to the potential for class action lawsuits as “the plaintiff's candy store”—but the average cyber insurance policy may not account for every item on the menu. For example, while privacy liability is a standard fixture in most cyber insurance policies, that coverage is typically triggered by a breach of some kind. But under the CCPA, as well as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), privacy violations can still occur in absence of a breach.
“It is absolutely critical that somewhere in your insurance portfolio, you have privacy liability coverage that a breach is not required in order to access,” Linde said.
Many insurance carriers are beginning to tweak their policies to address that issue, but there are still other potential blind spots that could prove to be targets for legal action. According to Linde, plaintiffs attorneys have been increasingly targeting a company's directors and officers over the last five years for lawsuits related to a privacy violation.
That trend isn't expected to abate any time soon, and if a company's regulatory insurance coverage encompasses the business itself but neglects to incorporate management specifically, there could be trouble.
“We're seeing massive discovery at what happened at the board level. What did the board know? How often were they reviewing and looking at the security requirements under their systems? How often were they looking at the privacy regulations in multiple states?” Linde said.
Still, cyber isn't the only branch of insurance that could be implicated by the CCPA. Entities may also find themselves falling back on property coverage in the event that damage to a piece of equipment, a building or even the land that building sits upon is responsible for a privacy violation or data breach.
Bradley Dlatt, an associate at Perkins Coie, said many privacy policies allow clients to purchase specific cyber protections that could handle certain CCPA related claims. However, the scope is fairly limited.
“Unless you can show physical damage resulting from a data breach that then led to a CCPA claim, it may be difficult to get your property policy to respond,” Dlatt said.
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
- 1Connecticut Movers: New Laterals, Expanding Teams
- 2Eliminating Judicial Exceptions: The Promise of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act
- 3AI in Legal: Disruptive Potential and Practical Realities
- 4One Court’s Opinion on Successfully Bankruptcy Proofing a Borrower
- 5Making the Case for Workflow Automation
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