5 Things Insurers' GCs and Their Boards Must Know for Cybersecurity
Cyberregulation and the meaning of reasonable cybersecurity measures are changing rapidly. Insurance companies are in the red zone for new regulatory schemes and heightening expectations of duties of care that are well beyond the responsibility of a company's CIO. In January, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) promulgated 23 NYCRR 500, a first-of-its-kind cyberregulation that requires companies to conduct assessments of their information systems and affirmatively build cybersecurity policies and programs based on those assessments. This includes creating oversight committees of senior officers, reliable chains of communication, and internal reports to educate appropriate decision-makers. The regulation also requires companies to make determinations as to the materiality of risks and events that may implicate other reporting obligations, such as SEC reporting requirements of public entities. The approach outlined in the NYDFS regulation is catching on. Recent NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law drafts (drafts four and five) are based on the regulation and incorporate many of the same requirements. So is pending legislation in other states.
August 29, 2017 at 06:27 PM
15 minute read
Cyberregulation and the meaning of reasonable cybersecurity measures are changing rapidly. Insurance companies are in the red zone for new regulatory schemes and heightening expectations of duties of care that are well beyond the responsibility of a company's CIO. In January, the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) promulgated 23 NYCRR 500, a first-of-its-kind cyberregulation that requires companies to conduct assessments of their information systems and affirmatively build cybersecurity policies and programs based on those assessments. This includes creating oversight committees of senior officers, reliable chains of communication, and internal reports to educate appropriate decision-makers. The regulation also requires companies to make determinations as to the materiality of risks and events that may implicate other reporting obligations, such as SEC reporting requirements of public entities. The approach outlined in the NYDFS regulation is catching on. Recent NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law drafts (drafts four and five) are based on the regulation and incorporate many of the same requirements. So is pending legislation in other states.
Simply put, the regulation and other legislation to come will require insurance companies, brokers, and soon their lawyers, to change their management and corporate culture toward cybersecurity or face certain liability. For those insurers that conduct business in New York and have not yet taken action, time is running out. Here are five things that every insurance carrier, its general counsel and its board of directors should know about these new cybersecurity regulations.
• Yes, Aug. 28. Any insurer or broker who operates under a license, accreditation, or similar authorization under New York's Banking Law, the Insurance Law, or the Financial Services Law must comply with significant portions of the NYDFS regulation by Aug. 28. There is no safe harbor or time extension. The requirements include implementing and maintaining a written cybersecurity policy, implementing a cybersecurity program designed to protect the confidentiality, integrity and availability of the company's “information systems,” appointing a “qualified individual” as a chief information security officer (CISO), instituting access privileges utilization of cybersecurity personnel (either in-house or through a third-party service provider), and implementation of a written incident response plan designed to promptly respond to and recover from any cybersecurity event. Assessments must include any subsidiary or affiliate of the insurer that may have access to the insurer's “information systems” or stored “nonpublic information.”
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 AllThe Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
9 minute readThird Circuit Predicts Pa. High Court's Application of 'Gallagher' and 'Donovan' in 'Mid-Century Insurance v. Werley'
12 minute readAfter the Decision in 'Ungarean,' Is the Battle of Insurance Coverage for COVID Losses in Pa. Over?
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