There are two types of entities in the world, goes the adage: those who have learned that their data was breached; and those who just don’t know it yet. The cost of these data breaches is no laughing matter, however; according to a recent study sponsored by IBM, the average data breach costs a company more than $200 for each record lost. (In the health-care sector, the cost are even greater, approaching $400 per-record lost record.) The more records that are lost, the greater the per-record expense, so that a large data breach may give rise to exorbitant costs.
Thoughtful executives can mitigate these costs through effective utilization of insurance coverage. Insurance companies aggressively are marketing new cyber-insurance policies that provide first-party and third-party coverage in the event of a data breach. Often, the new policies are accompanied by an exclusion in the entity’s Commercial General Liability Policy for losses arising from a data breach.
Entities entering the market for cyber coverage therefore must be vigilant to ensure that, at the end of the day, their efforts not yield less coverage than previously had been available.
Cyber Insurance Policies Are Often Conditioned Upon Maintaining a Particular Level of IT Security.
The new cyber policies typically require an applicant to complete a comprehensive assessment of its cyber security measures, affirming, for example, that it has in place “up-to-date, active firewall technology,” and “updated anti-virus software active on all computers and networks.” Coverage may be conditioned on the accuracy of these representations. In the event of a breach, if it turns out that the IT security information represented in the application form was inaccurate, coverage might not be available.
Thus, in one recent case, an insurer sought to deny coverage because, among other things, the insured health-care provider had not maintained the level of IT security described in its application. The insurer argued that the policy therefore was void. Under cyber-liability policies, then, an insured might be excluded from coverage in the event that it was negligent in implementing cyber-security measures – hardly the result that the insured had in mind when it purchased the policy.
Traditional CGL Policies Offer Some Protection for Data Breaches Even When the Insured Failed to Maintain Adequate IT Security.
When a data breach arises from an entity’s failure to maintain security, third-party coverage likely would be available under a standard Commercial General Liability Policy. The standard CGL Policy provides coverage for “advertising injury.” It defines such advertising injury to include injury caused by “oral or written publication, including publication by electronic means,” which “disclosed information about a person’s private life.”
This definition of “advertising injury” is ill-suited for costs arising from a data breach since it depends upon “publication.” In the event of a data breach, many of the costs are unrelated to the actual publication of private data; the costs arise from the mere possibility of publication, not its actuality. Conditioning data-breach coverage upon an irrelevant “publication” standard makes little sense.
Two recent cases highlight the limitation of relying on the “publication” standard to provide protection against data-breach claims. In one case, electronic data concerning 50,000 employees fell out of a transport van and never was recovered. The Connecticut Supreme Court held that the data had not been “published,” since there no factual support for the conclusion that the data, which was not in a readily usable format, ever was accessed by anyone. In contrast, in another recent case, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court decision that damages resulting from a data-breach did constitute “advertising injury” because the information had been made available on the internet, and therefore was “published.”
Cyber-data and Cyber-security policies can be better designed than the CGL “advertising injury” coverage, so that coverage is not dependent on publication. But as some insureds have learned to their dismay, cyber-liability policies may be drafted to shift the costs of negligence back to the insured, and to make coverage unavailable for the very data breaches for which the insured purchased the insurance in the first place.
Cyber-risk insurance therefore may serve a useful purpose by providing coverage that is targeted specifically towards data breaches, and that covers damages that go beyond the scope of the traditional CGL Policy. Buyers must beware however that the extra financial and administrative burden they assume in buying such policies not leave them worse-off than before.
For more information, please contact Marty at firstname.lastname@example.org or 202.751.2002.
 Id. at 7.
 Id. at 7.
 Id., Cyber-Risk Policy at III.M. (p. 22).
 Columbia Cas. Co. v. Cottage Health Sys., 15-cv-3432 (2015 C.D. Cal.).
 Id., Dkt No. 22.
 Recall Total Info. Mgmt., Inc. v. Fed. Ins., 317 Conn. 46, 115 A.3d 458 (2015). The Connecticut Supreme Court adopted the reasoning of the appellate court in Recall Total Information Management, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 147 Conn.App. 450, 465, 83 A.3d 664 (2014).
 Travelers Indem. Co. of Am. v. Portal Healthcare Sols., L.L.C No. 14-1944, 2016 WL 1399517, at *2 (4th Cir. Apr. 11, 2016).
Tagged: advertising injury, CGL Policies, CGL Policy, Commercial General Liability Policy, Connecticut Supreme Court, cyber insurance coverage, cyber-insurance policies, cyber-liability policies, data breach, Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, insurance coverage, insurance policy, Insurers, Policyholders