Assessing Third Party Risk
The financial services industry is in “high gear” to reassess third-party risk management practices in response to regulatory guidance.
Institutions are investing in technology to improve reporting and analytics, so that third-party risks are appropriately assessed and that controls are effective, according to the Third Party/Vendor Risk Management Survey, recently released by the Risk Management Association and sponsored by MetricStream.
It’s not just about assessing the risks from vendors and their subcontractors, but also affiliates, debt buyers, agents, channel partners, and correspondent banks, to name just a few third parties that banks and credit unions work with, said Edward DeMarco, RMA’s general counsel and director of operational risk/regulatory relations/communications.
Best practices are in “an evolutionary state,” DeMarco said.
“Prudent third-party risk management requires that the third party be risk-assessed in connection with the enterprise and not simply any one individual business line.” — Edward DeMarco, general counsel, Risk Management Association
“Multiple business lines and functional units within an institution might have their own special relationship with the same third party,” he said. “Prudent third-party risk management requires that the third party be risk-assessed in connection with the enterprise and not simply any one individual business line.”
Institutions are also increasingly putting pressure on to make sure third parties assess the risks of their own contractors, DeMarco said.
“For example, a bank might hire XYZ appraisal company, and that company might sub out to appraisal companies 1, 2, 3 and 4,” he said. “While the bank won’t require a report because they are not in control of those relationships, the banking company does expect its third party to assess their risks.”
Other survey findings include:
• Nearly 50 percent of the respondents said their institution’s risk management functions were responsible for oversight of vendor risk.
• More than 50 percent said their institutions send questionnaires to vendors for risk management purposes.
• Roughly one-third said they have more than 25 “enterprise critical” suppliers that have the potential to affect their entire organization in the event of a failure.
• More than 75 percent have in place a supplier code of conduct that suppliers must acknowledge.
Negotiations with third parties and vendors can be time consuming — and cyber insurance coverage is “an integral part” of those conversations. –Michael O’Connell, managing director and financial Institutions practice leader, Aon Risk Solutions.
Peter Foster, executive vice president and one of the leaders of the cyber risk group at Willis, said that many of his financial institution clients require their vendors to complete a Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 16, which is a guidance from the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants.
“But this is the minimal of what a vendor should be doing to demonstrate how they are protecting their systems,” Foster said.
“That report really doesn’t get deep into the weeds whether or not the security around the data or around operational applications is really secure.
“Financial institutions should take a step further with a set of questions or a physical audit of a vendor, particularly if the application is more critical to operations or contains customers’ personally identifiable information.”
Institutions should also require third parties to have a technology errors and omissions policy with cyber insurance built into the one policy, he said.
An institution should require third parties to name it as an “additional insured” and provide it with certificates of insurance to cover any disruptions, including liability to cover unauthorized access or unauthorized use of data.
An institution should also have coverage for vicarious liability and direct liability under its own cyber policy, which would cover a data breach resulting from outsourcing, Foster said. That way, the institution will be covered if its third party doesn’t have a policy or its policy doesn’t provide such coverage.
Such is often the case with cloud computing firms, he said.
“We recommend [third parties provide coverage] because it should be the first line of dense — the vendor who causes the breach should be paying for the breach,” Foster said. “But we’re also cognizant of the fact that many vendors will not provide that coverage and that the bank needs to use that vendor.”
Negotiations with third parties and vendors can be time consuming — and cyber insurance coverage is “an integral part” of those conversations, said Michael O’Connell, managing director and financial Institutions practice leader at Aon Risk Solutions.
“Also, a critical part of these discussions centers around who is liable for what part and how much of the loss, especially when there is a breach of confidential data,” he said.
From a risk management perspective, he recommended that vendor risk assessments include answers to these questions:
• Does the insurance fully cover the liability of the insured due to an incident caused by third-party providers?
• Are regulatory investigations, fines and penalties addressed?
• Are first-party business interruption and crisis management included within the cyber policies and are there full limits or sublimits?
“Additionally, the contingent business interruption component must include increased attention to the number and complexity of third-party relationships,” O’Connell said.
Firms must have a complete plan for loss mitigation, restitution, and a response to the potential reputational damage that may be caused, he said.
Legal Spotlight: October 1, 2014
Firms Given More Control Over Independent Counsel
Signal Products Inc. manufactured handbags and luggage using a design known as the “Quattro G Pattern executive in brown/beige colorways,” in accordance with its license from Guess? Inc.
In 2009, Gucci America Inc. filed suit against Guess?, Signal and others, claiming the design “infringed on a distinctive Gucci trade dress known as the ‘Diamond Motif Trade Dress.’ ” Signal’s share of the infringement claim was $1.8 million.
Signal filed suit in U.S. District Court in California after its insurers — American Zurich Insurance Co., which had issued a primary commercial general liability policy, and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Co., which had issued an umbrella liability policy — refused to pay $1.9 million in defense costs.
Zurich countersued, seeking a summary judgment that it was not required to reimburse Signal for a $750,000 interim legal payment to the primary legal firm retained by Guess? (of a total $1.9 million in fees for Signal) or for $1.2 million in legal fees for a second law firm that represented Signal in the action.
The insurers argued they were not required to pay fees to the second law firm because Signal had already retained another law firm to represent it, and that the fees were not incurred in connection with Signal’s defense.
U.S. Judge Christina Snyder in August rejected requests from both sides for summary judgment, ruling more information was needed to determine reasonableness of legal fees and other “genuine issues of disputed material fact.”
However, she did rule, in this case of first impression, that Signal could use more than one law firm as independent counsel when there is a potential conflict of interest in insurance cases.
“Having accepted that multiple attorneys may serve as … counsel, there does not appear to be any principled grounds for requiring as a matter of law that all of those attorneys need to be employed at the same law firm,” she wrote.
Scorecard: The insurers may have to pay up to $1.2 million to the second of two law firms, in addition to possibly having to pay up to $1.9 million in litigation costs to the primary firm.
Takeaway: California law allows an insured to retain more than one law firm as independent counsel in an insurance dispute.
Attorneys’ Fees Not Included in Damages Exclusion
Both actions were settled by PNC: One in 2010 for $12 million — which included $3 million in attorneys’ fees, $77,857 in costs and expenses, and $15,000 toward incentive fees for the representative plaintiffs — and one in 2012 for $90 million, including $27 million for attorneys’ fees, $183,302 for reimbursement of costs, and $30,000 in plaintiffs’ incentive awards.
On May 21, a U.S. judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania recommended that the insurers cover the settlement costs. Both Houston Casualty Co. and Axis Insurance Co. had issued policies with a $25 million liability limit, subject to a $25 million retention.
In June, U.S. Judge Cathy Bissoon in that district disagreed. She ruled that the insurers were not responsible for the part of the settlements that returned overdraft fees to customers — since fees were excluded from the definition of “damages” in the policy.
Attorneys’ fees and costs totaling $30.3 million, she ruled, were not excluded. She ordered more proceedings on the claims expenses and damages.
Scorecard: Two insurers are responsible to cover up to $30.3 million for attorneys’ fees and costs that were included in settlements of two class-action lawsuits.
Takeaway: The fee exception to damages does not extend to the entirety of settlement costs, particularly attorneys’ fees, costs and incentive awards.
Underwriters Must Pay Recall Costs
When Abbott Laboratories agreed in December 2000 to acquire the global operations of Knoll Pharmaceutical Co., it notified its Lloyd’s of London carriers, in accordance with its product recall insurance coverage. That coverage stated the new entity would automatically be covered, but additional premiums would have to be negotiated.
As part of the negotiation with a group of underwriters led by Beazley and American Specialty Underwriters, Abbott indicated there was no “current situation, fact or circumstance” that would lead to a claim under the Accidental Contamination policy (which would include any government drug recalls).
A premium was eventually paid and accepted in July 2001, even after the company advised the underwriters that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration may pull Knoll’s popular thyroid drug Synthroid from the market.
The company and its underwriters did execute in October 2001 a “tolling agreement … that would allow the parties to preserve their rights with respect to any Synthroid-related claims.”
On March 6, 2002, the Italian Ministry of Health suspended all sales and marketing of sibutramine (manufactured by Knoll as Meridia).
Abbott filed a claim under the policy, and on May 16, 2003, the underwriters informed Abbott the tolling agreement was cancelled because Abbott “had not fully responded to their document and information request.” When it asked what information was needed, Abbott received no response.
On June 2, 2003, the underwriters filed suit to rescind the policy, while Abbott countersued for a declaratory judgment for coverage, breach of contract and “vexatious delay damages.”
A judge rejected the underwriters’ claim for recission, noting that the insurers had accepted the additional premium and that the Synthroid situation had been disclosed in a timely manner.
For damages, the court put the company’s losses at $155.2 million. Minus a deductible and 10 percent coinsurance, the underwriters were told to pay $84.5 million, plus about $2.8 million in costs and interest.
A three-judge panel on the Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District, upheld that decision on appeal on July 28.
Scorecard: The underwriters have to pay $84.5 million plus $2.8 million in costs and interest.
Takeaway: By accepting the premium and failing to pursue issues of due diligence, the underwriters undercut their argument for a “material misrepresentation” by the company.
3 + 3: Theory of Risk
Anthony Valsamakis doesn’t just practice risk management, he wrote a book about it. And he doesn’t just consult with quants, he is one.
“Risk management has been in my blood for so long that I have to stop myself, otherwise I could go into a two-hour monologue,” said Valsamakis, whose career in the discipline goes back almost 35 years, to his first job with the Standard General Insurance Company.
In 1990, the London-based chairman of the Eikos Group received a doctorate in Business Economics. In 1992, “The Theory & Principles of Risk Management” was published, with Valsamakis the principal author, and is now in its 4th edition.
Valsamakis worked first with a carrier, then as a commodities broker, before taking up an academic post. The company he started in 1999, the Eikos Group, has a risk consulting arm, with clients in most industrial sectors, including the food, mining, forestry, industrial paper and packaging and banking industries. The group also includes a transportation risk brokerage and a Bermuda-based carrier.
“I think the idea of having a secure data base that everyone can access and can update at any moment is by far the best innovation that I can see happening in the information game.”
– Anthony Valsamakis, Chairman, Risk Financing Strategy, Eikos Group
For as long as he can remember, Valsamakis sought ways to get better information on the risks he underwrites, brokers or consults on.
“Over many years we’ve tried hard to increase the quality and timeliness of the information that enables us to do just that,” Valsamakis said.
Finally, it looks like Valsamakis has found a risk management information systems platform that enables him to do just that.
For the past year and a half, Valsamakis has been using a system developed by Riskonnect.
“What’s useful for me is that the platform basically resides within the client’s systems,” he said.
The information he needs to prioritize, depends on which client he is working with.
“By definition, depending on where I am working and what I am doing, risk management priorities are very different,” Valsamakis said.
The Riskonnect platform provides the necessary flexibility.
A mine, for example, could be in a location in Africa or South America with a high degree of political risk. A key risk for a furniture maker might be around trade secrets, the possibility that a disgruntled employee would leak a pricing catalogue to competitors. For a packaging manufacturer, their material supply chain is of the utmost importance, and so on.
For each client, Valsamakis can use Riskonnect platform and work with the client to compile the information that is most relevant to that client and its industry and enter that into a secure system.
“All of these are template facts that you can easily put into the Riskonnect system,” Valsamakis said.
The Riskonnect platform is housed within the client’s information technology system, and it is transparent enough, to give Valsamakis and his client access to the same sets of data.
“I think the idea of having a secure data base that everyone can access and can update at any moment is by far the best innovation that I can see happening in the information game,” he said.
Whose System Is It?
Valsamakis has been around long enough to know a few things about data and risk transfer. He’s seen a number of risk information management systems put out by brokers, for example, that he thinks are set up more for the broker’s business model than for the sharing of information.
Generally speaking, information about an insured’s risks come from the broker and the insured. The Riskonnect system works, according to Valsamakis, because it is designed to be adapted to the client, not the broker.
“I have seen efforts by brokers, for example, over the years to produce a type of risk information platform that becomes theirs,” Valsamakis said.
“It’s been a perennial problem in the industry, where depending on which broker you end up with, you’ll end up with system A, B or C,” he said.
The Underwriter Needs to Know
Using Riskonnect, Valsamakis encourages clients to be as transparent as possible, in order to give the most complete information to underwriters.
“For me the question is, ‘What is the volatility around the asset and can there be an impact on the balance sheet of our clients?’” he said.
“We need to describe this exposure in various contexts so that the underwriters know what they are covering,” he said.
It’s basic human psychology. If an underwriter doesn’t feel they are getting enough information about a particular risk, they will take a negative view of that risk.
The more accurate the information Valsamakis has about a client’s exposures, the better the pricing he gets from underwriters.
“If you were an underwriter putting your capital and risk and I gave you little information, you would actually be less inclined to look at the risk in favorable terms. There will be a natural inclination to downgrade it,” he said.
Where Valsamakis sees enormous value is in the Riskonnect system ability to tag which can be revisited at a later stage.
“It’s amazing how clients forget, in the passage of time, that there are profiles that have changed for better or worse.”
A Long-Term Investment
The Eikos Group invested significantly in the Riskonnect product and are taking it to a number of clients. The transparency of the system and the advantage it gives the Eikos Group and its clients with underwriters is in itself a business advantage over the competition.
“We made a decision as a small company, relatively speaking, to invest a lot of money in Riskonnect and be very proactive about it,” Valsamakis said.
“When I talk to executives I say we invested in it because it’s going to save our clients money. Better information will lead to a lower cost of risk,” he said.
“If I’m talking to someone at a high level, that’s fairly easily understood.”
This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Riskonnect. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.