Pa.'s Insurance Data Security Law—Getting Ready for the Second Phase
If your organization (or your client) has not yet begun preparing for satisfy the requirements of this phase, time now is of the essence to undertake these steps and build a record of affirmative evidence showing compliance.
August 23, 2024 at 12:01 PM
6 minute read
In 2023, Pennsylvania joined the growing number of states enacting the National Association of Insurance Commissioners' (NAIC) Model Law on Insurance Data Security. Going into effect in December, but with a staggered implementation, the law first required covered insurance companies and "licensees" (i.e., any person or organization required to have a license to engage in the business of insurance) to investigate and report cybersecurity events to the insurance commissioner. On Dec. 11, 2024 (just four months away), the second phase of the law goes into effect, which requires licensees to undertake detailed risk assessments, design and implement comprehensive and written cybersecurity programs, and, for some organizations, publicly certify compliance with the law. If your organization (or your client) has not yet begun preparing for satisfy the requirements of this phase, time now is of the essence to undertake these steps and build a record of affirmative evidence showing compliance.
As a quick recap, the Insurance Data Security Law requires organizations to implement and maintain adequate cybersecurity measures to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of insurance-related data, labeled "nonpublic information," and defined by the statute as business-related information whose compromise would have a "materially adverse impact" to the licensee's business, and consumer personal data combined with that person's Social Security number, driver's license or nondriver identification card number, PCI or financial account data, PHI, or biometric data. This definition is broader than the definition for personal identifiable information under Pennsylvania's data breach notification statute. The statute defines a "cybersecurity event" as an unauthorized access, misuse, or disruption of a licensee's information system or nonpublic information—again, a term that is much broader than a "breach of security" under Pennsylvania's data breach notification statute.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllWhile Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can Be Prevented
4 minute readSurvival Guide for Executives and Board Members: 4 Steps to Safeguard Against Individual Liability for Data Security Failures
9 minute readProposed 'Bulk Sensitive Personal Data' Rule and the DOJ’s Comprehensive National Security Regulations
7 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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