Cyber Coverage Getting its Day in Court
By: Judy Greenwald (Business Insurance) May 2015
A court ruling in favor of an insurer in one case and coverage litigation in another — both involving cyber insurance policies — may mark the beginning of a new stage in the coverage as a growing number of firms obtain these policies.
“It’s not surprising to see cases beginning to be filed under cyber policies, given their increasing adoption across various industries,” said Russell P. Cohen, a partner with law firm Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe L.L.P. in San Francisco, who is not involved with either case.
In one of the first coverage rulings involving a cyber insurance policy, the U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City held last week that a Travelers Cos. Inc. unit is not obligated to defend a policyholder.
Salt Lake City-based Federal Recovery Services Inc., which is in the business of providing processing, storage, transmission and other handling of electronic data for its customers, had a cyber insurance policy with Travelers Property Casualty of America, according to the ruling in Travelers Property Casualty Co. of America et al. v. Federal Recovery Services Inc. et al.
Travelers had issued a CyberFirst policy to the defendants that included a technology errors and omissions liability form stating coverage would be provided for an “errors and mission wrongful act,” which “means any error, omission or negligent act,” says the ruling.
Federal Recovery allegedly refused to transfer some requested data until Lexington, Kentucky-based Global Fitness Holdings L.L.C., with which it had a contract, “satisfied several vague demands for significant compensation,” according to the ruling. In March 2014 Global filed suit against Federal Recovery on charges including breach of contract
Federal Recovery sought defense coverage from Travelers under its cyber policy. Travelers provided a defense, but with a reservation of rights.
The District Court ruled Travelers does not have a duty to defend Federal Recovery, holding that Global alleges the defendants withheld the information until Global met certain demands, not because of an error, omission or negligence.
Joseph F. Bermudez, a partner with law firm Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker L.L.P. in Denver, who is not involved in the case, said the ruling is significant because “it’s one of the first decisions in regard to coverage under a cyber policy.”
However, Linda Kornfeld, a partner with law firm Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman L.L.P. in Los Angles, who also is not involved in the case, pointed out this ruling “should not apply when a company is seeking defense costs under a breach policy for an actual data breach event.”
Exclusions dispute
Separately, Columbia Casualty Co., a unit of Chicago-based CNA Financial Corp., is seeking a judicial ruling that it is not obligated to pay a $4.1 million settlement under an exclusion in Santa Barbara, California-based Cottage Health System’s cyber policy that precludes coverage for “failure to follow minimum required practices.”
The complaint in Columbia Casualty Co. v. Cottage Health System was filed May 7 in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles. Policyholder attorney Stephen T. Raptis, a partner with law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips L.L.P. in Washington, said the exclusion in Cottage Health Systems’ policy is common in cyber policies and “one that’s troubled me for a long time” because it is “completely open-ended” and overly broad, as well as subjective.
Mr. Cohen, who was not involved in the case, said it “highlights the importance of negotiating over the terms of your cyber policy to eliminate these kinds of broad exclusions.”
Categories
- Benefits Resources
- Bonding
- BOP
- Business Insurance
- Commercial Auto
- Commercial Property
- Company News
- Construction
- Crime Insurance
- Cyber Insurance
- Directors & Officers
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Practice Liability Insurance
- Entertainment
- General Liability
- Health Insurance
- Healthcare
- Healthcare Reform
- Homeowners Insurance
- Hospitality
- Manufacturing
- Medical Malpractice
- Mining & Energy
- Nightclubs
- Personal Auto
- Personal Insurance
- Professional
- Restaurants
- Retail & Wholesale
- Risk Management Resources
- Safety Topics
- SBA Bonds
- Security
- Seminars
- Technology
- Tourism
- Transportation
- Uncategorized
- Workers Compensation
Archives
- May 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- November 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- February 2013
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- April 2010
- February 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- November 2008
- August 2008