Submit a Case Submit Case Find a Neutral Search Neutral

Is Cyberinsurance Really Worth It?

Publication Banner

Is Cyberinsurance Really Worth It?

Date: October 27, 2016
While strengthening a company’s cybersecurity posture can make a considerable difference, companies must also prepare for the unfor- tunate inevitability of a successful cyberattack. Recognizing this risk, companies have turned to cyberin- surance as a tool for mitigating their cybersecurity risks. Unfortunately, uncertainty still exists regarding how courts will interpret this relatively new type of insurance policy. Accordingly, contractual alternatives such as arbi- tration or mediation are often the most efficient means for resolving cyber coverage disputes. Cyberinsurance, as an industry, is experiencing rapid growth. With 25 to 50 percent annual increas- es in premiums, 2015 set a record with $2.75 billion in gross premiums written. This is expected to double by 2020 and may get as high as $20 billion by 2025. One feature of this rapidly expanding market is that not all exposures have been properly identified, turned into language and priced into the policy. Terms and con- ditions are negotiable and the forms are revised frequently. This means there is little value in court prec- edents in interpreting these policies and from the cases so far it is clear that there have been unintended consequences from policy wordings to date. Before delving into case law, it is important to understand what cyberin- surance is and what it insures against. A cyberinsurance policy is generally an amalgamated form of different types of insurance, including: errors & omissions coverage, network security coverage and privacy coverage. While policies can be heavily tailored, they generally feature several of the follow- ing types of coverage: loss/corruption of data, business interruption, public relations/crisis management, cyber- terrorism, etc. Of great importance is the fact that insurers can write specific base- line requirements for cybersecurity compliance into their policies, which provides sometimes-necessary guid- ance to companies who are develop- ing or revising their cybersecurity posture. Further, insurers are able to provide services to companies before, during and after a cyber- attack. These services can be invalu- able in mitigating and remediating the harms associated with such an attack. While cyberinsurance offers tre- mendous benefits to those who seek to mitigate their risks, due to its Is Cyberinsurance Really Worth It? Using ADR to Resolve Cyberattack Disputes October 27, 2016 By Daniel Garrie and Andrew Nadolna Photo: iStockrelative youth as an industry, there are many cases where cyber claims will be disputed. For example, in P .F. Chang’s Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co., P.F. Chang’s discovered a data breach in June 2014. The breach involved 33 restaurants and compro- mised the credit card data of roughly 60,000 customers. Upon learning of the breach, P.F. Chang’s reported it immediately to Federal Insurance Company (Chubb). The company sought coverage under their cyberin- surance policy for payments to credit card companies resulting from fraudu- lent payments associated with the breach. The policy covered “direct loss, legal liability, and consequential loss resulting from cybersecurity breach- es,” but the Court nevertheless held that the data breach fell outside the policy coverage. Relying on case law involving commercial general liability policy coverage for data breaches, the court found that liability is gener- ally excluded for “the assumption of another’s liability, such as an agree- ment to indemnify or hold another harmless.” Because P.F. Chang’s was seeking coverage for the assumption of the credit card companies’ liability, the Court ruled that this was excluded under the policy and Chubb did not have to pay for vendor related, fraudu- lent payment costs. The case of P.F. Chang’s illustrates that cyberinsurance is still in relative infancy compared to other forms of insurance. The market has yet to determine what should and should not be in an insurance agreement, and, more importantly, what the terms of an insurance policy necessarily mean. Most forms have now been amended to cover the exposures at issue in the P.F. Chang’s case. But there contin- ues to be new kinds of exposures that are fought over in court. This lack of steady footing in stable forms will continue to lead to a large amount of costly and time-consuming litigation. While the courthouse door is always an option, insurance providers and purchasers should begin looking at contractual options, such as arbitra- tion, to expedite the dispute resolution process, and ensure a relatively quick and confidential outcome. Why is ADR better than litigation in resolving cyberclaim coverage dis- putes? Depending on the specifics of a dispute, mediation or arbitration can save anywhere from a handful of months to several years. This is par- ticularly true because the parties can set their own discovery procedures, which are almost always faster, easier and more direct than discovery in the traditional litigation context. Moreover, cyber insurance involves complex technical and insurance issues that judges will often need significant time and resources to understand. By con- trast, mediation or arbitration allows the parties to select a neutral with technical cyber experience and/or rel- evant insurance experience to help navigate the nuances associated with cyber-related disputes. Additionally, since these disputes can often be highly visible, ADR allows the par- ties to keep the dispute out of the courtroom and away from the media and public eye. Companies consider- ing purchasing cyber policies should strongly consider adding arbitration or mediation clauses to allow for the more efficient resolution of coverage disputes. Daniel B. Garrie Esq. is an arbi- trator, forensic neutral and technical special master at JAMS, a private alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provider. He is also the executive managing partner of Law & Forensics and head of the computer forensics and cybersecurity practice groups. Andrew Nadolna is a mediator and arbitrator with JAMS. He has 25 years of experience in the insurance indus- try as a claims executive and litigator. Michael Mann, who contributed to this article, is a senior analyst at Law and Forensics. He received his J.D. from the New York University School of Law. October 27, 2016 Reprinted with permission from the October 27, 2016 edition of LAW.COM © 2016 ALM Media Properties, LLC. This article appears online only. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. For information, contact 877-257-3382 or # 087-12-16-02

JAMS Neutrals

Practice Areas