Despite Cyber Insurer's Suggestions, Some Firms Tread Their Own Vendor Path
Cyber insurers usually push a preapproved list of cybersecurity vendors for their clients to use, but some law firms are more comfortable treading their own path, even if that means higher costs.
October 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM
3 minute read
A cyber insurance policy can force an insured client to take certain security precautions. But for law firms, this doesn't mean dropping their own cybersecurity vendors for their carrier's recommended list. Indeed, even with financial incentive, some law firms continue to leverage their own preferred cybersecurity vendors, despite their insurance carrier's suggestions.
Typically, ALPS Corp., a legal malpractice company that also offers cyber liability insurance to law firms, requires policyholders to work with specific cybersecurity vendors in the event of a claim.
"Think of how most health insurance policies are with their lists of preferred providers—the cyber insurers [also] have lists of providers," explained Attorneys Liability Protection Society risk manager Mark Bassingthwaighte.
The preference for specific cybersecurity vendors is driven by the insurance carrier previously negotiating fixed rates, which help contain some costs. "Cyber insurers have potentially very high exposure in terms of all of this, and they are going to try to do everything to keep their losses in line," Bassingthwaighte said.
Cyber insurers also review their preferred cybersecurity third parties beforehand for quality purposes. "I think that the insurance company, in general, is investing a lot of time and money to vet if those cybersecurity companies are qualified and capable," noted Lowenstein Sandler insurance recovery group chair Lynda Bennett.
Still, law firm clients are also taking the initiative in specifying who will manage their client data, sometimes against the cyber insurer's suggestions.
"I think some law firms are inquiring whether they can get vendors [who] right now manage their data to be preauthorized in the event of a breach, and that's really driven by how law firms are very concerned about keeping their confidential data confidential," Bennett explained. "Rather than having a discussion and debate when a data breach is ongoing, they are asking their cyber insurers to already authorize [their vendor]."
Usually cyber insurers will accept the request to use a client-suggested vendor, but with a caveat.
"I think the insurers, when you ask them to add your own vendor, they may be willing to do that but there might be a higher deductible or self-insured retention up front," Bennett said.
Still, not all cyber insurers require clients to use specific cybersecurity vendors. Eddie Chang, second vice president of cyber risk management at Travelers, said that when a cyber incident occurs some cyber insurance carriers are offering a new coverage called "betterment." He described the coverage as helping the company pay for security improvements that will reduce a repeat breach, as recommended by the client's incident response vendor.
"Because there isn't a one-size-fits-all solution when it comes to cybersecurity, it won't always work for an insurer to dictate the use of a specific product or service," Chang wrote in an email.
To be sure, finding a vendor to perform security audits, router checks and other preventive services can sometimes be challenging for firms and cyber insurers, especially in in rural areas.
"In terms of the upfront preventive things that is a little harder," Bassingthwaighte said. "I'm a national risk manager for ALPS; I'm working with firms across the country. I get these calls from three-lawyer firms in small communities, and it's very difficult to find who they can work with to provide preventative cybersecurity services. There is a shortage in some areas."
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
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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