Authored by attorney Douglas M. Palais
This question cannot be answered definitively at this time, but should be considered carefully by all insurance professionals.
Typical CGL policies exclude acts of terrorism and acts of war. In the past, it was relatively easy to define "war" as hostile military actions by nation states. But today, hostile actions – military and cyber in nature – are being launched with regularity by individuals and groups which may, or may not, be considered as state-sponsored. If such attacks are ultimately considered to be acts of "war," they are likely to be excluded.
What about coverage questions in D & O and even in some cyber policies? Do directors and officers face potential liability to their companies if there is insufficient cyber coverage?
Some of the factors and challenges to be considered are the following:
The lesson to be learned is that, as insurance professionals, you should consider carefully the scope of liability coverage for your commercial clients. Discussion and documentation of the scope of coverage will be even more essential than before. If current trends continue, it is likely that cyberattacks will be considered acts of "war" and, without a change in forms, exclusions may eviscerate coverage that your clients thought was in place. E & O claims may surely follow.
This article was featured in the Indepent Insurance Agents of Virginia, Inc March 2015 Newsletter. Click here to read more.
You must read and accept these terms in order to send us email.
Use of this website for communication does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter for which we do not already represent you. Please do not send any confidential or privileged information electronically via this website unless we have already agreed to represent you.
If you send us information electronically via this website, you agree that our review of that information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and, further, even if it is highly confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.