Kidnap and Ransom Insurance: Unlocking Coverage for Ransomware Attacks
In managing the potential risk of a ransomware attack, those expected to participate in responding to a breach event may want to consider K&R coverage as an alternative to a dedicated network security/privacy liability policy.
April 30, 2018 at 05:40 PM
5 minute read
The threats facing U.S. companies from cyberattacks are constantly changing, and recent media reports suggest that the era of large-scale data breaches may be giving way to more localized attacks, which promise a faster payday for cybercriminals.
In 2017, “ransomware” became a household word with the “Wannacry” outbreak, which disabled more than 200,000 computers in approximately 150 countries. Since then, there have been other isolated and large-scale ransomware events—each locking businesses and individuals out of computers and other devices unless a timely “ransom” is paid. Many cyber experts predict more to come. According to Cybersecurity Ventures, “the cost of global ransomware attacks will exceed $11.5 billion annually by 2019, up from $5 billion last year and $325 million in 2015”—a 35 times increase in just four years.
With this evolving threat, companies and individuals alike may ask what can be done to protect against the risk of data loss and the ransom that a cybercriminal may demand. Corporate risk managers, counsel and other executives may be tempted to assume that only a specialized network security/privacy liability policy, often colloquially referred to as a “cyber coverage,” is likely to cover such loss. There is an often overlooked alternative. Kidnap, ransom and extortion (K&R) coverage, which is often included in traditional directors and officers liability (D&O) or crime policies, may provide a much-needed source of recovery for policyholders and an efficient alternative to a dedicated cyberpolicy.
|K&R Coverage for Cyber Extortion
Some K&R forms provide reimbursement for ransoms paid by corporations, but only in connection with the “kidnap,” “detention” or “hijack” of an “insured person.” Needless to say, these forms will not afford coverage for a ransomware attack on corporate computer systems. However, other K&R coverage forms are not so limited. Alternative forms may include coverage for ransom paid because of “cyber extortion.” Cyber extortion, in turn, may extend to threats to, among other things, 1. introduce malware into a computer system; or 2. alter, damage or destroy a computer program, software or data stored on such computer system, where the ransom is demanded as a condition of not carrying out the threat.
Ransomware itself may constitute evidence of malware already introduced into a computer system. Although ransomware does not typically cause “damage” to the insureds' computer system or the data stored thereon, ransomware can alter and/or destroy programs, software and data by forever denying access to such items in the absence of the ransom requested by the cybercriminal. Appropriately worded K&R coverage forms may offer reimbursement for funds paid to restore access to computer systems and data disrupted by a ransomware attack.
|Cyber Coverage for Ransomware Attacks
When it comes to insurance coverage, the potential “cyber” solutions now available in the market can seem vast and daunting. Within the past few years, most major insurance carriers have unveiled new or revised policy forms specifically designed to protect against the burgeoning threat of cyberattacks and related liability and other risks. Although policy terms continue to vary widely, a standalone “cyber” policy may also provide coverage for ransoms paid, with the insurer's consent, in response to an extortion threat, subject to conditions similar to those found in some K&R coverage forms.
However, depending on individual policy terms, cyber policies may have deductibles, which prohibit any substantial recovery in the event of a ransomware attack. Corporate insureds, who are specifically seeking some form of ransomware coverage in a dedicated cyber policy, should make sure that deductibles are appropriate to this objective. K&R coverage, on the other hand, may have limits and deductibles more conducive to recovery. Because not every ransomware attack involves an authorized disclosure of personal information, corporate policyholders considering a dedicated cyber policy solution should also ensure that such a disclosure is not a condition of coverage for a ransomware attack.
|The Continuing Ransomware Threat
Ransomware has been a cyberthreat for more than a decade. But its surge within the last few years is the expression of a trend that is expected to carry over into 2018 and beyond.
Relative to stealing and selling individual credit card or health information, ransomware provides a more direct path to payment for cybercriminals. Even state actors have joined in extortion campaigns, and technological developments have enabled common criminals to effectively “hire” sophisticated ransomware infrastructure to stage attacks. With more and more companies (and individuals) outsourcing data storage, cybercriminals have also significant opportunities and incentives to launch ransomware attacks on the cloud.
As criminals become more sophisticated and discriminating in their targets, those businesses most dependent on timely access to data—health care providers, law firms, and government agencies—share the greatest exposure to ransomware risks in 2018.
In managing the potential risk of a ransomware attack, risk managers, in-house counsel and others expected to participate in responding to a breach event may want to consider K&R coverage and carefully review the terms of available K&R forms as an alternative to a dedicated network security/privacy liability policy.
Micah E. Skidmore is a partner in the insurance coverage group at Haynes and Boone. Skidmore represents corporate policyholders in significant insurance coverage disputes, including assistance in recovering defense costs, settlements, judgments and other losses under various types of insurance policies, including cyber policies.
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 AllProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readLingering Questions at Supreme Court About Climate Change Litigation Need Resolution
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1King & Spalding E-Discovery Director Jumps to Nebraska Women-Owned Firm
- 2Nation's Largest Utility Parts Ways With CLO Who Helped It Navigate Bribery Scandal
- 3Advocates Renew Campaign for Immigrant Right to Counsel in New York
- 4From ‘Unregulated’ to ‘A Matter of Great Concern’: PFAS Regulation under Biden
- 5Public Interest Lawyers in NY Fear Rollback of Federal Loan Assistance in '25, Ask Gov. to Add $4M to State Program
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