Cyber insurance continues to be one of the hottest topics in the insurance industry. In the last several years it has evolved from a little-known specialty product to a standard purchase for some corporate risk departments. By now, most companies generally are aware that cyber attacks present substantial risks. Many unfortunately have first-hand experience as victims of an attack. 
But many companies still do not necessarily view cyber insurance as a “must-have” type of insurance, like general liability or property insurance. Some companies may believe their potential cyber exposure is minimal or simply think that cyber coverage is cost prohibitive. A recent D.C. Circuit decision is a sobering reminder that cyber insurance should at least be considered in connection with a company’s risk management plan, and is probably a “must-have” for companies that maintain records containing a substantial amount of personal information.
Published on:
Think You Don’t Need Cyber Insurance? This Recent Data Breach Class Action Ruling May Change Your Mind
range of individuals, unless they file a written opt-out. These changes to the California Labor Code are creating confusion for some businesses regarding which employees must now be included on workers’ comp insurance coverage. The consequences of noncompliance can be severe, and businesses would be well-advised to ensure that they have secured the necessary additional coverage or obtained the necessary opt-outs from affected officers, directors, and working partners.
like other industries, fashion—design houses, retailers, textile manufacturers, modeling agencies—carries property, D&O, cyber, and many other lines of insurance. But unique aspects of the fashion world, and recent litigation trends affecting it, underscore the importance for the fashion industry to understand insurance in order to maximize successful recovery of insurance assets. Here, we comment briefly on three areas: IP, employment, and antitrust.
such deals are nothing new, the use of representations and warranties insurance (R&W insurance) is increasingly becoming a key component in the decision-making process for buyers and sellers alike. R&W insurance provides coverage for breach of representations or warranties contained in deal documents in addition to, or as a replacement for, indemnity provisions. R&W policies allow buyers and sellers to shift enough of the risk to third-party insurers to provide the certainty necessary to close the deal.
liability carriers have surprisingly little understanding of just how that standard coverage feature is triggered—or how it works in practice. Recent experience with the drop-down provision suggests that it can be a highly valuable tool to help resolve disputes in which one or more carriers is refusing to meet its coverage obligations. But triggering the coverage is fraught with difficulties.
Pennsylvania recently issued a ruling in an insurance case that, like Flint, related to alleged contamination in drinking water stemming from corroded pipes. The decision rejects two insurers’ attempts to avoid coverage and serves as a good reminder of some fundamental insurance law principles—the duty to defend is broad, ambiguous policy language usually is construed against the insurer, and policies should be interpreted in favor of their purpose to provide coverage. It is also a reminder that the pollution exclusion is not nearly as all-encompassing as insurers like to think it is.
