Cyber Regulatory Enforcement Actions and Implications for Insurance Coverage
An enforcement action brought by the New York Department of Financial Services against First American Title Insurance Company alleging that the company breached the DFS's cyber regulations raises significant questions regarding whether the targets of such actions are afforded insurance coverage, and in particular, whether affording such coverage would be consistent with New York public policy.
November 04, 2020 at 11:30 AM
8 minute read
On July 22, 2020, the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS), announced that it had commenced a regulatory enforcement action against First American Title Insurance Company (First American), which according to the DFS, is the second largest title insurance provider in the United States. In the action, DFS alleges that First American violated the DFS's Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies (or the "Cybersecurity Regulation"), which first took effect on March 1, 2017, and generally requires, among other things, all entities regulated by the DFS, such as banks and insurance companies, to adopt a cybersecurity program to protect consumers' private information. Specifically, DFS alleges that First American exposed hundreds of millions of documents over the course of several years as a result of a vulnerability in First American's information systems, which may have exposed documents containing consumers' private information, including bank account numbers, mortgage and tax records, Social Security numbers, and drivers' license images.
The DFS's enforcement action is noteworthy for several reasons. It is the first such action commenced under the Cybersecurity Regulation. Additionally, the manner in which the private information was allegedly exposed is noteworthy, as the exposure was not due to an outside hacker compromising First American's cybersecurity protections, but rather, because of a purported flaw in a web-based document delivery system which allowed anyone to gain unauthorized access to private information. Further, the number of documents allegedly exposed in this manner is, in the words of the DFS's complaint, "staggering"—more than 850 million documents were accessible according to the DFS.
This article will discuss the requirements of the DFS's Cybersecurity Regulation, as well as the allegations at issue in the enforcement action against First American. This article will also discuss the penalties that the DFS is seeking against First American and the statute which imposes such penalties. Finally, this article will also discuss the implications of the enforcement action (and any similar future actions) on insurance coverage.
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 AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Trump Mulls Big Changes to Banking Regulation, Unsettling the Industry
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
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