Fear of Cyber

Brokers Balking at Cyber Insurance

Brokers may be dropping the ball on cyber coverage for smaller clients.
By: | February 18, 2014 • 7 min read
R2-14p86-87_03Cyber.indd

Cyber crime, espionage and other “malicious cyber activity” cost the United States anywhere from $24 billion to $120 billion each year, according to a joint report by McAfee and the Center for Strategic and International Studies. That price tag comprises loss of intellectual property, sensitive business information and personally identifiable information (PII), reputational damage, and the costs of fixing security systems and recovering from data breaches.

As businesses become more dependent on technology, hackers likewise grow more sophisticated in their attacks, exposing businesses big and small to debilitating breaches.

Cyber crime, espionage and other “malicious cyber activity” cost the United States anywhere from $24 billion to $120 billion each year.

Entities as big as the New York Times, JPMorgan and Target have suffered hits, but research suggests that smaller, mom-and-pop shops make easy targets for cyber thieves looking to cash in on stolen debit and credit card numbers.

“It doesn’t matter what size company you are or what industry you are,” said Tim Francis, enterprise cyber lead, Travelers. “You should consider yourself a target.”

Advertisement




“From some things I’ve read,” said Marty Frappolli, senior director of knowledge resources at The Institutes, “the average cost of a data breach is more than $5 million, and the FBI is on record saying that most small businesses won’t survive a cyber attack.”

High-profile attacks have raised awareness about cyber liability, both among the business community and regulators. Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands all have laws requiring private or government entities to notify individuals of PII security breaches.

And yet the development of cyber insurance products and take-up by smaller and medium-sized businesses remains somewhat stagnant. Shouldn’t companies be scrambling to get coverage for one of their scariest business threats? Somewhere between the awareness of cyber risk and actually purchasing insurance against it, there’s a dangerous disconnect. Indications are that brokers may be the weak point.

Are Brokers Balking?

In internal research conducted by one major underwriter, a survey of both brokers and insurance buyers found that buyers expressed interest in purchasing cyber coverage, but hadn’t followed through mainly because their brokers hadn’t engaged with them or educated them about the topic.

Correspondingly, a much lower number of brokers claimed that their clients had a need, under-reporting the interest their customers had expressed. Taking the responses of both groups together, the underwriter concluded that a significant number of brokers may not fully understand cyber exposures or the insurance solutions on the market, and therefore are shirking the topic altogether.

A survey conducted by Marsh at their annual Communications, Media and Technology conference revealed similar findings. While 69 percent of attendees indicated increased concern about cyber security and liability over the past year, few had made moves to tighten their risk management.

Just 13 percent thought cyber risk was a matter for the risk management function, with most believing that the responsibility should fall to the IT department. Only about one-fifth of respondents said that their organization currently purchased cyber insurance, and only 11 percent of them felt confident that their coverage met their needs.

Clearly, there is a communication gap between buyers and the insurance community, and the onus falls on brokers to bridge it. 

Emerging, Evolving Risk

Brokers could be side-stepping cyber coverage for several reasons. First and foremost, novelty and constant change.

“[One broker] felt that she couldn’t present the cyber quotes to her clients because she really couldn’t explain how the policies were different.”
– Nick Economidis, underwriter, Technology, Media and Business Services, Beazley

“Cyber risk, even though it’s been around for decades, is still an emerging, evolving risk,” Frappolli said. Exposures are ever-changing, and insurance solutions must change as rapidly to address them.

Lack of standardization in terminology also contributes to the confusion.

Advertisement




Nick Economidis, underwriter for Beazley’s Technology, Media and Business Services group, said he “met with one insurance broker who said that all the policy forms were different, and it was hard to understand how they compared to each other.

“She felt that she couldn’t present the cyber quotes to her clients because she really couldn’t explain how the policies were different,” he said.

Greg Gamble, director, Management and Professional Risk Group, Crystal & Co., said that while coverage is standard, policy wording varies among the 15 or so carriers that offer it.

“In that regard, it’s confusing because we have to make this understandable to our customer base and articulate it back to them in a way that makes sense.

“I would agree that there could be more standardization among carriers,” Gamble said, “but I don’t think that’s coming anytime soon because carriers have a lot of private ownership of their policies. They have people who’ve spent a tremendous amount of time developing those products, and they label agreements and write the policies their own way, and I don’t think they’re focused on coming together with industry standard categories of coverage.”

Tough Regulatory Environment

Varied state regulations also factor into non-uniform policies. Different legislatures have different notification standards, which affects what a company can stand to lose through notification costs alone.

“There are new laws coming through at the federal and state levels. European law is changing,” said Chris Keegan, senior vice president, Willis. “The ways in which technology is being used is changing, which can make those laws out of date very quickly.

“A lot of people are hoping for federal level simplification. We’ve seen Congress trying to put that in place for the last four or five years but they never seem to be able to get that legislation passed,” he said.

Notification laws can easily throw brokers for a loop.

Ken Goldstein, worldwide cybersecurity manager, Chubb Insurance, said it can be hard to keep track of who needs to be notified of a breach in which state. Some laws require attorneys general to be notified in states where customers were affected, and some require that credit monitoring agencies be alerted, depending on what type of information was disclosed.

“Different industry segments have different legal and regulatory requirements,” Goldstein said. “Identifying these exposures will ultimately help agents and brokers figure out how to protect clients from an insurance perspective.”

In-House Expertise

Not all brokers struggle with the changes, though. Larger brokerage houses and carriers have teams dedicated to researching, assessing and developing products responding to cyber risk. Brokers that have that in-house specialized expertise at their disposal have a much easier time finding the right solutions for their clients.

“There are only about five brokerage houses that have people with that level of expertise.”
– Chris Keegan, senior vice president, Willis

But indications are that the community of experts among brokers remains too small.

“There are only about five brokerage houses that have people with that level of expertise,” Keegan said. “For some of the other houses that don’t have that internal specialized expertise, they may struggle to get the consulting and policy advice that clients need.”

Advertisement




That explains why take-up is much lower among small and mid-sized businesses: They generally don’t have the same resources as large companies to work with the handful of big brokerages with in-house experts.

Some carriers also offer tools like breach cost calculators and risk assessment portals that allow brokers to estimate the financial impact of notification, data cleanup and business interruption. But those resources might not be enough. According to Travelers’ Francis, carriers could do more to work with and educate brokers on their coverages.

“One of the ways the industry can be working to address this issue is having carriers that not only deliver products, but are experts in the products they’re selling,” he said. Carriers should be helping brokers understand each account’s unique level of exposure and the insurance solutions available. “That collaboration right now is as important as, or more important than, the insurance product that is the end delivery,” he said.

“For smaller and mid-sized businesses, there really is great opportunity for the agents and brokers to fill that knowledge gap,” said Frappolli of The Institutes. “I would say that best-in-class agents are doing this for their clients. There’s always an opportunity for the broker to be not just somebody who sells you an insurance policy, but somebody who is your de facto risk manager.”

Solutions in Education

There are ways brokers can educate themselves on the evolving cyber environment, beyond reading journals and attending webinars. Conferences, for example, provide easy access to expert speakers, said Mark Greisiger, president of NetDiligence, which hosts twice-yearly educational forums on cyber risk.

“Both the speakers and attendees are the insurance companies, and their inside lawyers sometimes. We have retail and wholesale brokers attending. We have risk managers and CFOs who buy the insurance there, and various state and federal regulators. Many top security experts who can help customers safeguard their data come and speak as well,” he said.

“We also see a lot of smaller brokerage groups coming, because they need that technical expertise,” Greisiger said.

According to Willis’ Keegan, the industry can expect to see a lot of growth in take-up in cyber coverage among smaller clients in the next two to three years.

Brokers that can capitalize on that demand and independently stay up to speed on changing exposures will reap the rewards.

Katie Siegel is a staff writer at Risk & Insurance®. She can be reached at [email protected]
Share this article:

Aviation Woes

Coping with Cancellations

Could a weather-related insurance solution be designed to help airlines cope with cancellation losses?
By: | April 23, 2014 • 4 min read
02282014Airlines

Airlines typically can offset revenue losses for cancellations due to bad weather either by saving on fuel and salary costs or rerouting passengers on other flights, but this year’s revenue losses from the worst winter storm season in years might be too much for traditional measures.

At least one broker said the time may be right for airlines to consider crafting custom insurance programs to account for such devastating seasons.

For a good part of the country, including many parts of the Southeast, snow and ice storms have wreaked havoc on flight cancellations, with a mid-February storm being the worst of all. On Feb. 13, a snowstorm from Virginia to Maine caused airlines to scrub 7,561 U.S. flights, more than the 7,400 cancelled flights due to Hurricane Sandy, according to MasFlight, industry data tracker based in Bethesda, Md.

Advertisement




Roughly 100,000 flights have been canceled since Dec. 1, MasFlight said.

Just United, alone, the world’s second-largest airline, reported that it had cancelled 22,500 flights in January and February, 2014, according to Bloomberg. The airline’s completed regional flights was 87.1 percent, which was “an extraordinarily low level,” and almost 9 percentage points below its mainline operations, it reported.

And another potentially heavy snowfall was forecast for last weekend, from California to New England.

The sheer amount of cancellations this winter are likely straining airlines’ bottom lines, said Katie Connell, a spokeswoman for Airlines for America, a trade group for major U.S. airline companies.

“The airline industry’s fixed costs are high, therefore the majority of operating costs will still be incurred by airlines, even for canceled flights,” Connell wrote in an email. “If a flight is canceled due to weather, the only significant cost that the airline avoids is fuel; otherwise, it must still pay ownership costs for aircraft and ground equipment, maintenance costs and overhead and most crew costs. Extended storms and other sources of irregular operations are clear reminders of the industry’s operational and financial vulnerability to factors outside its control.”

Bob Mann, an independent airline analyst and consultant who is principal of R.W. Mann & Co. Inc. in Port Washington, N.Y., said that two-thirds of costs — fuel and labor — are short-term variable costs, but that fixed charges are “unfortunately incurred.” Airlines just typically absorb those costs.

“I am not aware of any airline that has considered taking out business interruption insurance for weather-related disruptions; it is simply a part of the business,” Mann said.

Chuck Cederroth, managing director at Aon Risk Solutions’ aviation practice, said carriers would probably not want to insure airlines against cancellations because airlines have control over whether a flight will be canceled, particularly if they don’t want to risk being fined up to $27,500 for each passenger by the Federal Aviation Administration when passengers are stuck on a tarmac for hours.

“How could an insurance product work when the insured is the one who controls the trigger?” Cederroth asked. “I think it would be a product that insurance companies would probably have a hard time providing.”

But Brad Meinhardt, U.S. aviation practice leader, for Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., said now may be the best time for airlines — and insurance carriers — to think about crafting a specialized insurance program to cover fluke years like this one.

Advertisement




“I would be stunned if this subject hasn’t made its way up into the C-suites of major and mid-sized airlines,” Meinhardt said. “When these events happen, people tend to look over their shoulder and ask if there is a solution for such events.”

Airlines often hedge losses from unknown variables such as varying fuel costs or interest rate fluctuations using derivatives, but those tools may not be enough for severe winters such as this year’s, he said. While products like business interruption insurance may not be used for airlines, they could look at weather-related insurance products that have very specific triggers.

For example, airlines could designate a period of time for such a “tough winter policy,” say from the period of November to March, in which they can manage cancellations due to 10 days of heavy snowfall, Meinhardt said. That amount could be designated their retention in such a policy, and anything in excess of the designated snowfall days could be a defined benefit that a carrier could pay if the policy is triggered. Possibly, the trigger would be inches of snowfall. “Custom solutions are the idea,” he said.

“Airlines are not likely buying any of these types of products now, but I think there’s probably some thinking along those lines right now as many might have to take losses as write-downs on their quarterly earnings and hope this doesn’t happen again,” he said. “There probably needs to be one airline making a trailblazing action on an insurance or derivative product — something that gets people talking about how to hedge against those losses in the future.”

Katie Kuehner-Hebert is a freelance writer based in California. She has more than two decades of journalism experience and expertise in financial writing. She can be reached at [email protected]
Share this article:

Sponsored Content by CorVel

Advocacy: The Impact of Continuous Triage

Claims management is never stagnant. Utilizing a continuous triage model keeps injured employees on track to recovery.
By: | May 4, 2016 • 6 min read

SponsoredContent_CorVel

Introduction

In the world of workers’ compensation, timing is everything. Many studies have shown that the earlier a workplace incident or injury is acted upon, the more successful the results*. However, there is further evidence indicating there is even more of an impact seen when a claim is not only filed promptly, but also effective triage is conducted and management of the claim takes place consistently through closure.

Typically, every program incorporates a form of early intervention. But then what? While it is common knowledge that early claims reporting and medical treatment are the most critical parts of a claim, if left alone after management, an injured worker could – and often does – fall through the cracks.

All Claims Paths are Not Created Equal

Even with early intervention and the best intentions of the adjuster, things can still go wrong. What if we could follow one injury down two paths, resulting in two entirely different outcomes? This case study illustrates the difference between two claims management processes – one of proactive, continuous claims triage and one of inactivity after initial intervention – and the impact, or lack thereof, it can have on the outcome of a claim. By addressing all indicators, effective triage can drastically change the trajectory of a claim.

The Injury

While working at a factory, David, a 40-year-old employee, experienced sudden shoulder pain while lifting a heavy box. He reported the incident to his supervisor, who contacted their 24/7 triage call center to report the incident. After speaking with a triage nurse, the nurse recommended he go to an occupational medicine clinic for further evaluation, based on his self-reported symptoms of significant swelling, a lack of range of motion and a pain level described as greater than “8.”

The physician diagnosed David with a shoulder sprain and prescribed two weeks of rest, ice and prescription strength ibuprofen. He restricted David from any lifting over his head.

By all accounts, early intervention was working. Utilizing 24/7 nurse triage, there was no lag time between the incident and care. David received timely medical attention and had a treatment plan in place within one day.

But Wait…

A critical factor in any program is a return to work date, yet David was not given a return to work date from the physician at the occupational medicine clinic; therefore, no date was entered in the system.

One small, crucial detail needs just as much attention as when an incident is initially reported. What happens the third week of a claim is just as important as what happens on the day the injury occurs. Involvement with a claim must take place through claim closure and not just at initial triage.

The Same Old Story

After three weeks of physical therapy, no further medical interventions and a lack of communication from his adjuster, David returned to his physician complaining of continued pain. The physician encouraged him to continue physical therapy to improve his mobility and added an opioid prescription to help with his pain.

At home, with no return to work in sight, David became depressed and continued to experience pain in his shoulder. He scheduled an appointment with the physician months later, stating physical therapy was not helping. Since David’s pain had not subsided, the physician ordered an MRI, which came back negative, and wrote David a prescription for medication to manage his depression. The physician referred him to an orthopedic specialist and wrote him a new prescription for additional opioids to address his pain…

Costly medical interventions continued to accrue for the employer and the surmounting risk of the claim continued to go unmanaged. His claim was much more severe than anyone knew.

What if his injury had been managed?

A Model Example

Using a claims system that incorporated a predictive modeling rules engine, the adjuster was immediately prompted to retrieve a return to work date from the physician. Therefore, David’s file was flagged and submitted for a further level of nurse triage intervention and validation. A nurse contacted the physician and verified that there was no return to work date listed on the medical file because the physician’s initial assessment restricted David to no lifting.

As a result of these triage validations, further interventions were needed and a telephonic case manager was assigned to help coordinate care and pursue a proactive return to work plan. Working with the physical therapist and treating physician resulted in a change in David’s medication and a modified physical therapy regimen.

After a few weeks, David reported an improvement in his mobility and his pain level was a “3,” thus prompting the case manager’s request for a re-evaluation. After his assessment, the physician lifted the restriction, allowing David to lift 10 pounds overhead. With this revision, David was able to return to work at modified duty right away. Within six weeks he returned to full duty.

With access to all of the David’s data and a rules engine to keep adjusters on top of the claim, the medical interventions that were needed for his recovery were validated, therefore effectively managing his recovery by continuing to triage his claim. By coordinating care plans with the physician and the physical therapist, and involving a case manager early on, the active management of David’s claim enabled him to remain engaged in his recovery. There was no lapse in communication, treatment or activity.

CorVel’s Model

After 24/7 nurse triage is conducted and an injured worker receives initial care, CorVel’s claims system, CareMC, conducts continuous triage of all data points collected at claim inception and throughout the life of a claim utilizing its integrated rules engine. Predictive indicators send alerts to prompt the adjuster to take action when needed until the claim is closed ­– not just at the beginning of the claim.

This predictive modeling tool flags potentially complex claims with the risk for high exposure, marking claims that need intervention so that CorVel can assign appropriate resources to mitigate risk.

Claims triage is constant – that is the necessary model. Even on an adjuster’s best day, humans aren’t perfect. A rules engine helps flag things that people can miss. A combination of predictive systems and human intervention ensures claims management is never stagnant – that there is no lapse in communication, activity or treatment. With an advocacy team in the form of an adjuster empowered by a powerful rules engine and a case manager looking out for the best care, injured employees remain engaged in their recovery. By perpetuating patient advocacy, continuous triage reduces claim severity and improves claim outcomes, returning injured workers to the workforce and reducing payors’ risk.

*WCRI.

This article was produced by CorVel Corporation and not the Risk & Insurance® editorial team.



CorVel is a national provider of risk management solutions for employers, third party administrators, insurance companies and government agencies seeking to control costs and promote positive outcomes.
Share this article: