On this episode of “Don’t Take No for An Answer,” Lynda A. Bennett, Chair of Lowenstein’s Insurance Recovery Group, speaks with David Anderson, Vice President of Cyber at Woodruff Sawyer, about the difference between operational technology (OT) and informational technology (IT). They discuss how system failures or cyber-attacks on a company’s OT system may not only give rise to risks to data security, but also may have real world consequences, from business interruption and wasted inventory to physical injury and environmental damage. Lynda and David stress the need for policyholders to carefully understand and negotiate their cyber insurance coverage to cover all potential OT impacts—preferably at the purchase phase, and not after a failure has occurred.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
David Anderson, CIPP/US, Vice President, Cyber Liability, Woodruff-Sawyer & Co

Today on Don't Take No For An Answer, Lynda A. Bennett and Alexander B. Corson discuss a recent Second Circuit decision that reinforces the importance of reading claims-made policies carefully. The case involves Tinder, the online dating service provider, which received notice of a lawsuit on Wednesday but did not provide notice to their insurer until Monday. The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the insurance policy had expired on Saturday at 12:01 AM! Their discussion focuses on such issues as what constitutes a “claim” triggering notice requirements in claims-made policies, the scope of a 60-day grace period applicable to such notice requirements, how policy audits may help companies avoid similar situations, and why it is critical for business to provide notice to their insurers early, often, and immediately upon learning of a potential liability.

Speakers:

Lynda A. Bennett, Partner and Chair, Insurance Recovery
Alexander B. Corson, Associate, Insurance Recovery

Today on “Don’t Take No for an Answer,” Eric Jesse and Alexander B. Corson discuss Aearo Technologies v. ACE American, in which a Delaware court held 3M could not credit $372 million it paid in defense costs against self-insured retentions in legacy CGL policies issued to its subsidiary, Aero Technologies, before its aquisition. The hosts discuss the implications of non-market language included in those policies – which specified that the self-insured retention could not be satisfied by payments made on Aearo’s behalf – and steps the insured might have taken to avoid this hyper-technical coverage defense that seemingly ignored the reality of corporate structuring and would have required 3M to engage in the “pointless formality” of transferring money to an Aearo bank account in order to satisfy its self-insured retentions.

Speakers:

Eric Jesse, Partner, Insurance Recovery
Alexander B. Corson, Associate, Insurance Recovery