Blog posts

Sophisticated directors and officers insurance programs are generally built in layers, with a full ABC underlying policy, topped with excess limits and/or a Side A DIC (difference in condition) cap. In contrast to the full D&O policy which provides coverage for the company’s balance sheet, Side A DIC D&O policies provide broader coverage solely for non-indemnifiable claims against insured persons. One of their main allures is the ability to fill coverage gaps of the underlying policies.

Despite all the nuances and intricacies of D&O insurance, nothing generates more questions than the simple ABC insuring agreements. We’ve previously provided a general D&O guide here, but in the interest of any lingering confusion, here’s an over-simplified example of the ABCs, in plain English, that everyone can easily understand.

Digital accessibility lawsuits, once perceived as litigation trend that would quickly die down, have now become commonplace, creating a headache for many companies. These lawsuits allege that a company’s website, mobile app or its digital features violate the American’s with Disability act by denying access to those with visual or hearing impairment or other disabilities. Many of these suits arise from very simple formatting and programming errors such as:
 

ESG initiatives are creating emerging exposures for public companies at a rapid rate. Greenwashing claims, emission litigation, cyber/privacy failures, and lawsuits related to diversity and inclusion failures are creating disclosure challenges and fueling litigation. Additionally, the SEC’s newly developed climate and ESG task force, and newly proposed cybersecurity rules signal tighter ESG oversight resulting in an increased potential for regulatory enforcement.

Securing executive liability or cyber insurance may seem like a straight forward process, however the emergence of online service shopping has created considerable confusion and actually become a risk to executives seeking coverage. As organizations delegate insurance inquiries to management and more insurance companies aim for the “quick quote” model, it’s becoming increasingly common for organizations to pursue their coverage needs by saturating the most convenient platforms such as direct quote platforms, online brokerages and insure-tech portals.

This is the part one of our four part Ransomware Guide. Parts 2-4 can be located below.

Part 2: The Most Effective Ransomware Protection According To The Experts

Part 3: Ransomware Insurance: What to Look For

Given the recent surge of ransomware attacks and escalating conflict with Russia, assessing a cyber insurance policy’s war/terrorism exclusion has never been more important. The cyber war exclusion, used by insurers to insulate against catastrophic risk, has been a considerable topic of discussion due to its overly broad language and potential for mis-application. Nearly all cyber attacks are in essence, invasions, involving foreign enemies, many of which do inflict terror – this highlights the obvious issue at hand.

Cyber extortion has quickly become the preferred cyber-crime for malicious actors. Attacks have grown exponentially and it is largely expected that the trajectory will only continue. In response to these attacks, organizations really need to be making careful assessments of their current cyber hygiene and strengthening their security measures. Below we have compiled some of the most effective cyber/ransomware security controls according to the experts and insurance companies.

Despite common misconception, the insurance market for Fintech companies is relatively small. Given the limited carriers providing terms and the difficulty some companies can encounter when going to market, there are some steps executives can take in order to ease the process, maximize terms and reduce pricing.

SPACs have had an eventful and tumultuous year. The undeniable momentum that has recently quelled  will likely stabilize with time but the SPAC roller coaster has definitely entered its next apex with the obsession seemingly shifting from investors to regulators, plaintiff firms, and short sellers. As the overwhelming majority of SPACs appear to be underperforming, trading below their IPO price of $10, there has been considerable speculation over an impending wave of shareholder litigation.