Despite Growing Ransomware Risk, Insurance Oversight Catches Some Firms Off Guard
Captive insurance and a lack of in-depth cybersecurity insurance knowledge can leave some law firms with a rude awakening.
June 02, 2020 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
Long aware they've been in hackers' crosshairs, law firms are currently under attack by a new breed of ransomware and attackers.
However, when law firms are hit with a ransomware attack, some are shocked to find out their insurance policies don't include coverage for ransomware payments. Indeed, ransomware is a 21st century business threat that older insurance policies weren't drafted for, observers say.
While ransomware was once considered a novel intrusion against large enterprises, the cyberattack has become increasingly rampant in all corners of the legal industry.
"It used to be ransomware attacks were rare specialty events that you read about in the newspaper that happened to large corporations," said Joshua Motta, co-founder and CEO of cyber insurance provider Coalition Inc. "At that time I think it was difficult for smaller and midsize companies to relate. Now, they aren't aware of someone that hasn't been affected by ransomware."
Despite growing frequency and awareness of ransomware, some firms may purchase insurance and incorrectly assume ransomware costs and coverage is included.
"The biggest point and perhaps misconception I see with law firms is that they think it's covered under general insurance, but they have to buy specific cyber insurance," Motta said.
Captive insurance, which in the legal industry is an insurance company whose owners and members are all law firms for professional malpractice coverage usually at a lower premium, may also lull members into a false sense of security against ransomware demands, noted Fox Rothschild privacy and data security practice co-chair Mark McCreary.
"Unfortunately a lot of members of those captives see the [policy] will be advertised as cyber insurance," he said. "One of the gaping holes for ransomware is it doesn't pay the ransom. [And] unfortunately a lot of the clients I deal with don't have good backups, and they need to get moving and they see it as being cheaper to pay the ransom."
Though lawyers are meticulous by profession, lawyers can miss details of their own insurance policies, McCreary noted. "They think if they buy an insurance policy and it talks about cyber," it includes ransom payments, he said. "They don't know what they're missing."
To offset not having ransom payment coverage, law firms like Fox Rothschild and other captive insurance members will take out separate cyberinsurance policies from CHUBB, AIG or other insurance providers, McCreary added.
To be sure, paying out of pocket can set law firms back significantly. The average value of ransom demands have grown exponentially since 2017 and it's "not uncommon to see ransom in the millions," Motta said. In turn, law firms are increasing their ransom limits on their cyberinsurance policies to multimillion-dollar losses, Motta added.
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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 12024 Year in Review: Land Use and Zoning Law in Philadelphia
- 2How I Made Partner: 'Find Ways to Contribute to Firm Success Beyond the Billable Hour,' Says Elisabeth Baker-Pham of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch
- 3People in the News—Dec. 4, 2024—Post & Schell, Tucker Arensberg
- 4Re-Examining the Footprint of Arbitration
- 5Securities and Securities Intermediaries: How Secure are Intermediated Holdings?
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