P&C Market Update: How TRIPRA Nonrenewal Affects Insurance Programs & Why it’s a Favorable Environment for Buyers

Posted by on December 31, 2014 | Be the First to Comment

 Mkt Update DEC2014 Hero Image

The non-renewal of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (TRIPRA) has far-reaching implications, as the federal backstop will be unavailable to traditional insurers as well as to US-based captive insurers. In the latest Market Update, Lockton provides expertise on what this means not only on a broader scale, but how it may affect clients’ insurance programs.

As the issue unfolds, Lockton remains in constant contact with key senior carrier executives and industry associations as it advocates for a retroactive Jan. 1, 2015 reinstatement of TRIPRA when Congress reconvenes.

Concerning the overall commercial insurance market, heading into 2015 it is becoming more competitive. Capacity remains plentiful, although much depends on each client’s individual risk characteristics and loss history.

Market Update Fast Facts_infographic FINAL

As carriers fight to retain renewals and secure new business, the advantage goes to the buyer. Markets are even more willing to negotiate on terms and conditions as an added point of differentiation. With carrier appetites broadening, greater flexibility with terms and conditions, and increased capacity, the market remains highly competitive for the foreseeable future.

Read more about these developments as well as special updates in cyber, healthcare, international, energy, and construction in Lockton’s newest Property & Casualty Update.

Halliburton Ruling Creates Risks for Securities Litigants on Both Sides

Posted by on July 2, 2014 | Be the First to Comment

Halliburton white paper 06-14_1

A ruling has come down from the Supreme Court on Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund. It has been decided to not overturn the precedent set by Basic, Inc. v. Levinson.

Now that the speculation is over as to whether the Court  would reverse Basic, the focus is on what level of impact  the ruling will have on securities class action litigation going forward. While the Halliburton ruling may not  impact the numbers of shareholder suits filed, it may very well impact how cases are litigated and resolved—possibly increasing costs on both fronts.

Learn more about the Supreme Court’s decision and the impact it may have on D&O coverage in my recent white paper:  Halliburton Ruling Creates Risks for Securities Litigants on Both Sides

Cyber Security Risks Hit Directors and Officers

Posted by on April 19, 2012 | Be the First to Comment

On October 13, 2011, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued disclosure guidance for cyber risks. The guidance is available at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/ cfguidance-topic2.htm. The guidance changes the cyber security game for companies and their directors and officers. Do not take my word for it. No less than the Chairman of the U.S. Senate’s Commerce Committee has said that the new guidance issued by the SEC “fundamentally changes the way companies will address cyber security in the 21st century.”

The purpose of the guidance is to alert companies to types of cyber risks and events that should be disclosed to investors in a company’s public filings. To assess what must be told to investors, the SEC states that a company must disclose cyber risks if they “are among the most significant factors that make an investment in the company speculative or risky.”

Disclosures of cyber risks must be specific to the company’s business. The SEC cautions against providing generic disclosures that could apply to any business. That said, the SEC is conscious of the possibility that detailed disclosures could be used as a roadmap by someone who wants to harm the company. Companies are not required to provide a level of detail that would enable such harm.

While the SEC does not offer a “one-size-fits-all” list of matters that every business must disclose, it lists the following matters that should be applicable to many companies:

 * Aspects of the business that could give rise to cyber security risks.

 * The extent to which a company outsources functions that have material cyber security risks.

 * A description of prior cyber security events the company has experienced, including their cost and other consequences.

 * Cyber security risks that may remain undetected for a long time.

 * Potential costs and consequences of cyber risks.

 * Relevant insurance coverage purchased by the company to address its exposures.

The SEC’s guidance is not binding. That may sound like good news, but the standards in the guidance are likely to be used by the SEC and shareholders as a baseline to assess compliance with disclosure requirements in the securities laws. Investors in private companies can be expected to do likewise.

If you are a “glass-half-full” person, you might see the guidance as a sound analytical framework to evaluate and disclose cyber risks. Someone with a “glass-half-empty” outlook may see the guidance as a brush and bucket of red paint that directors and officers can use to paint targets on themselves. Both views are justified.

The guidance undeniably is helpful because it takes the guesswork out of deciding what must be disclosed to investors. The guidance is detailed enough though that it could enable shareholders and the lawyers who represent them to allege that necessary disclosures were not made, or that existing disclosures were not adequate. This could lead to more lawsuits against directors and officers.

What Should Companies Do?

* Assure that appropriate disclosures of cyber risks and cyber events are being made.

* Prepare for much deeper inquiries by D&O insurance underwriters.

*Review options for insuring losses resulting from cyber events.

An expanded discussion of the SEC’s cyber security guidance and the steps companies should take in response can be found in a Lockton white paper available at http://www.lockton.com/Resource_/PageResource/MKT/Cyber%20 Guidance%20revised.pdf.