The amended statute clearly places the onus on defendants to proactively address insurance coverage matters. Defense counsel can no longer wait for plaintiffs to pursue the issue and respond as necessary.

Across the United States, legislatures are passing new biometric privacy laws with potentially onerous fines, making businesses who collect biometric information, and the insurance companies that sell policies to those companies, understandably nervous.

Proactively limiting discovery, or shielding information, may not be an effort to hide such information from a litigant, but necessary to avoid irrelevant information from impacting a motion for summary judgment or more importantly, a jury's decision.

These provisions can play a pivotal role in the amount of coverage available for a given claim or claim(s) and can determine whether "claims" trigger multiple policy years or instead, whether those "claims" trigger only a single policy year.

The article examines the potential limitations of CBI coverage and the practical challenges of litigating CBI claims. It also discusses ways to draft stronger CBI policies and the growing popularity of other types of insurance in response to global supply chains that are increasingly reliant on just-in-time sourcing and that continue to be aggravated by recent disasters.

Many prudent businesses are revisiting their insurance portfolio, seeking confirmation that their coverage will adequately protect them if they are victimized by increasingly sophisticated cyberattacks, including those connected to the acute conflict in Ukraine.