Column: Technology

FDA Medical Device Guidance

By: | November 3, 2014 • 2 min read
Ara Trembly is founder of The Tech Consultant and The Rogue Guru Blog. He can be reached at riskletters@lrp.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has released “long-awaited” guidelines on the cyber security of medical devices.

Obviously, this is a concern for health and life insurers, but it is also relevant to other areas of coverage, such as automobile or any insurance that pays medical claims.

“There is no such thing as a threat-proof medical device,” said Suzanne Schwartz, director of emergency preparedness at the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, in an article in “USA Today” on the release of the guidelines.

“…many device manufacturers and software vendors only learn of vulnerabilities in their products after said products have been hacked.”

“It is important for medical device manufacturers to remain vigilant about cyber-security and to appropriately protect patients from those risks.”

Important indeed. One would think that such statements would be followed by some specific safety requirements, or at least by substantive recommendations.

Advertisement




Instead, the article noted, “The agency is recommending that manufacturers consider cyber security risks as they design and develop medical devices.”

And which particular risks might those be? It seems there is again no specificity.

Once having “considered” those risks, however, the FDA says companies should give the FDA information about the potential risks they found, as well as what controls they put in place to mitigate them.

While this is a nice idea, it ignores certain realities in the world of technology development in general and cyber security in particular.

First, many device manufacturers and software vendors only learn of vulnerabilities in their products after said products have been hacked.

Yes, it would be fair to say that manufacturers and vendors should do a better job of testing in order to ferret out potential problems, but it is also fair to say that the number of ways to crack a product’s code are many and that not all of those ways are likely to be anticipated.

And at some point in the product development process, the testing phase must come to an end — unless the vendor is oblivious to the possibilities for profitably marketing a given product.

“Many devices are poorly secured and do not require a lot to hack. If there is sufficient incentive to do so, it will happen, causing harm to patients,” said Shel Sharma, director of product marketing for Cyphort, a threat-detection company, in the published piece.

But why would anyone want to hack into a medical device, implanted or otherwise? One obvious reason might indeed be to do harm to that individual. If an implant suddenly overheats and loses functionality, who is to say it wasn’t an accident, as opposed to attempted murder?

More ominous, however, is the idea that devices of various kinds must, by design, interface with broader medical systems that contain much more data — including confidential data on health and things like Social Security numbers. It might also be that a compromised device would provide a gateway to an entire enterprise, allowing for mischief and significant data loss, and the liability that would accompany same.

Advertisement




And liability is precisely the point for insurers of nearly any stripe. Of course, this whole risk scenario may represent a new area of insurance coverage to be marketed by our carriers.

Even in that case, however, insurers hardly want device makers to make things easy for criminals, because the carriers must then pay the claims. The FDA held a national workshop on medical devices and cyber security in October. Let’s hope the risks and the solutions that emerge from that gathering are more clearly defined.

Share this article:

The Law

Legal Spotlight

A look at the latest decisions impacting the industry.
By: | November 3, 2014 • 5 min read
You Be the Judge

Court Upholds Reservation of Rights

Wellons Inc. created two thermal oxidation energy systems in 2002 for Langboard Industries in Quitman, Ga., that were designed to generate electricity to be sold to Georgia Power.

11012014_legalspotlight_electricityAfter designing and providing the systems to Langboard, at a cost of $13.7 million, Wellons agreed in 2003 to install them, at a cost of $3 million.

During the construction phase in 2004, a “tube bundle” collapsed, causing extensive property damage, but the system was ultimately placed in service by June 2005, at which time leaks were discovered in the “superheater” portion of the system, according to court documents.

To fix the leaks and seal weld the joints, Wellons hired Hunt Construction, which completed the work in March 2006. The superheater was put back into service even though leaks still occurred. Two weeks later, one of the superheater tubes “completely severed.” Wellons claimed Hunt’s faulty repair work was responsible.

Advertisement




Langboard requested a new superheater, at a cost of $850,000, to be designed and installed as the current system was “not conducive to long term operation.” Wellons agreed, but did not immediately notify Lexington Insurance Co., which had issued a commercial general liability policy, with a per occurrence limit of $1 million. Lexington also had issued an umbrella policy, with a per occurrence limit of liability of $10 million.

Two months later, Hunt filed suit against Wellons for monies owed for its work. Lexington was notified through its agent, referencing the CGL policy and not the umbrella policy. Lexington issued a reservation of rights letter, notifying the company it was “investigating this matter.”

Langboard eventually filed suit against Wellons in 2007. Lexington sent another, similar reservation of rights letter.

After a jury trial in 2010, Langboard was awarded $8.4 million for breach of the purchase and construction agreements. A month later, Lexington advised Wellons it had “no obligation” to defend or indemnify it.

Wellons filed suit seeking a court declaration that the verdict was a covered loss under its CGL or umbrella policy. Both it and Lexington sought summary judgments.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Lexington’s favor. On appeal to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, Wellons argued the reservation of rights notification needed to be more specific to comply with Georgia law.

The appeals court disagreed in May, saying that Lexington’s “defenses of noncoverage were not known …  until it concluded its investigation… .” The court also found that Wellons had never notified the company of a claim under the umbrella policy.

Scorecard: Lexington Insurance did not have to cover an $8 million jury verdict resulting from faulty construction of an energy system.

Takeaway: Insurers “must” give insureds notification of a reservation of rights, but Georgia law only recommends that specific policy terms be part of that notification.

Imitation is Not Disparagement

In 2010, Gary-Michael Dahl, manufacturer of the Multi-Cart, filed a lawsuit against Ultimate Support Systems claiming that Ultimate’s Ulti-Cart infringed on Dahl’s patent and trademark, and damaged its business and reputation, among other issues.

Both the Multi-Cart and Ulti-Cart are collapsible carts designed for the musical industry to transport music, sound and video equipment.

Ultimate sought defense under its commercial liability policy issued by Hartford Casualty Insurance Co., which denied coverage, claiming that “disparagement” was not covered by the personal and advertising injury policy terms.

The insurance company also said the policy did not cover violations of intellectual property rights.

Advertisement




After Ultimate sued for coverage, the California Superior Court dismissed the lawsuit. That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, and on further appeal to the California Supreme Court, Ultimate lost once again.

The state’s high court ruled in June there was no disparagement, either explicit or inferred.

The possible confusion between the two products does not imply inferiority of the Multi-Cart, the court ruled. In addition, Dahl’s claim that Ulti-Cart was a “knock-off” of the Multi-Cart, and thus derogatory of the Multi-Cart, was disputed by Dahl’s own claim that the two products were “nearly identical.”

Scorecard: Hartford did not have to provide a defense to Ultimate Support Systems in a trademark infringement lawsuit.

Takeaway: The ruling limits the scope of an insurer’s duty to defend a policyholder when the allegations involve disparagement.

Court Rules on Additional Insureds

On Sept. 13, 2010, workers of Fast Trek Steel were tightening safety cables on steel beams at Yale University’s Science Area Chilled Water Plant Shell when the unsecured beams dislodged and collapsed. One ironworker, Robert Adrian, fell to his death. Three others were injured by the falling beams.

11012014_legalspotlight_beamsAdrian’s estate and the injured men filed suit alleging negligence against, among others, Shawmut Woodworking & Supply Inc., general contractor of the construction project, and Shepard Steel Co., a steel fabrication subcontractor.

Because of workers’ compensation laws, there were no lawsuits filed against Fast Trek, which, as required by its contract with Shepard, had obtained a general liability policy from First Mercury Insurance Co. with a $1 million per occurrence coverage limitation, and an excess liability policy from National Union Fire Insurance Co., with up to $10 million of coverage.

Both Shepard and Shawmut sought defense and indemnification from First Mercury as “additional insureds” of that Fast Trek policy. Liberty Mutual — which had issued a liability policy to Shepard and is currently providing a defense to Shepard and Shawmut under a reservation of rights — also demanded that First Mercury assume that defense.

First Mercury demurred, contending, among other reasons, that Shawmut was not included in the definition of additional insured, and that even if Shawmut and Shepard were included, there was no coverage because Fast Trek was not named in the underlying lawsuits.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut disagreed.

Advertisement




It ruled that when Shepard hired Fast Trek as its subcontractor — and as Shawmut’s sub-subcontractor — the agreement expressly incorporated the Shawmut-Shepard contract, and that it was “immaterial” that there was not a “direct contractual relationship” between Shawmut and Fast Trek.

In addition, it ruled that the accident was arguably caused by Fast Trek and that the reason Fast Trek was not named in the underlying lawsuits was due to the exclusive remedy rule of workers’ compensation law.

Scorecard: First Mercury must defend and indemnify the general contractor and subcontractor in the workplace death and injury lawsuit.

Takeaway: A sub-subcontractor need not be explicitly included in a contract for coverage to be extended.

Anne Freedman is managing editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at afreedman@lrp.com.
Share this article:

Sponsored: Liberty Mutual Insurance

Passion for the Prize

Managing today’s complex energy risks requires that insurers match the industry’s dedication and expertise.
By: | December 10, 2014 • 6 min read

In his 1990 book, The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power, Pulitzer Prize winning author Daniel Yergin documented the passion that drove oil exploration from the first oil well sunk in Titusville, Penn. by Col. Edwin Drake in 1859, to the multinational crusades that enriched Saudi Arabia 100 years later.

Even with the recent decline in crude oil prices, the quest for oil and its sister substance, natural gas, is as fevered now as it was in 1859.

While lower product prices are causing some upstream oil and gas companies to cut back on exploration and production, they create opportunities for others. In fact, for many midstream oil and gas companies, lower prices create an opportunity to buy low, store product, and then sell high when the crude and gas markets rebound.

The current record supply of domestic crude oil and gas largely results from horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods, which make it practical to extract product in formerly played-out or untapped formations, from the Panhandle to the Bakken.

But these technologies — and the current market they helped create — require underwriters that are as passionate, committed and knowledgeable about energy risk as the oil and gas explorers they insure.

Liability fears and incessant press coverage — from the Denton fracking ban to the Heckmann verdict — may cause some underwriters to regard fracking and horizontal drilling with a suppressed appetite. Other carriers, keen to generate premium revenue despite their limited industry knowledge, may try to buy their way into this high-stakes game with soft pricing.

For Matt Waters, the chief underwriting officer of Liberty Mutual Commercial Insurance Specialty – Energy, this is the time to employ a deep underwriting expertise to embrace the current energy market and extraction methods responsibly and profitably.

“In the oil and gas business right now, you have to have risk solutions for the new market, fracking and horizontal drilling, and it can’t be avoidance,” Waters said.

Matt Waters, chief underwriting officer of Liberty Mutual Commercial Insurance Specialty – Energy, reviews some risk management best practices for fracking and horizontal drilling.

Waters’ group underwrites upstream energy risks — those involved in all phases of onshore exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas from wells sunk into the earth — and midstream energy risks, those that involve the distribution or transportation of oil and gas to processing plants, refineries and consumers.

Risk in Motion

Seven to eight years ago, the technologies to horizontally drill and use fluids to fracture shale formations were barely in play. Now they are well established and have changed the domestic energy market, and consequently risk management for energy companies.

One of those changes is in the area of commercial auto and related coverages.

Fracking and horizontal drilling have dramatically altered oil and gas production, significantly increasing the number of vehicle trips to production and exploration sites. The new technologies require vehicles move water for drilling fluids and fracking, remove these fluids once they are used, bring hundreds of tons of chemicals and proppants, and transport all the specialty equipment required for these extraction methods.

The increase in vehicle use comes at a time when professional drivers, especially those with energy skills, are in short supply. The unfortunate result is more accidents.

SponsoredContent_LM“In the oil and gas business right now, you have to have risk solutions for the new market, fracking and horizontal drilling, and it can’t be avoidance.”
— Matt Waters, chief underwriting officer, Liberty Mutual Commercial Insurance Specialty – Energy

For example, in Pennsylvania, home to the gas-rich Marcellus Shale formation, overall traffic fatalities across the state are down 19 percent, according to a recent analysis by the Associated Press. But in those Pennsylvania counties where natural gas and oil is being sought, the frequency of traffic fatalities is up 4 percent.

Increasing traffic volume and accidents is also driving frequency trends in workers compensation and general liability.

In the assessment and transfer of upstream and midstream energy risks, however, there simply isn’t enough claims history in the Marcellus formation in Pennsylvania or the Bakken formation in North Dakota for underwriters to rely on data to price environmental, general and third-party liability risks.

That’s where Liberty Mutual’s commitment, experience and ability to innovate come in. Liberty Mutual was the first carrier to put together a hydraulic fracking risk assessment that gives companies using this extraction method a blueprint to help protect against litigation down the road.

Liberty Mutual insures both lease operators and the contractors essential to extracting hydrocarbons. As in many underwriting areas, the name of the game is clarity around what the risk is, and who owns it.

When considering fracking contractors, Waters and his team work to make sure that any “down hole” risks, be that potential seismic activity, or the migration of methane into water tables, is born by the lease holder.

For the lease holders, Waters and his team of specialty underwriters recommend their clients hold both “sudden and accidental” pollution coverage — to protect against quick and clear accidental spills — and a stand-alone pollution policy, which covers more gradual exposure that unfolds over a much longer period of time, such as methane leaking into drinking water supplies.

Those are two different distinct coverages, both of which a lease holder needs.

Matt Waters discusses the need for stand-alone environmental coverage.

The Energy Cycle

Domestic oil and gas production has expanded so drastically in the past five years that the United States could now become a significant energy exporter. Billions of dollars are being invested to build pipelines, liquid natural gas processing plants and export terminals along our coasts.

While managing risk for energy companies requires deep expertise, developing insurance programs for pipeline and other energy-related construction projects demands even more experience. Such programs must manage and mitigate both construction and operation risks.

Matt Waters discusses future growth for midstream oil and gas companies.

In the short-term, domestic gas and oil production is being curtailed some as fuel prices have recently plummeted due to oversupply. In the long-term, those domestic prices are likely to go back up again, particularly if legislation allows the fuel harvested in the United States to be exported to energy deficient Europe.

Waters and his underwriting team are in this energy game for the long haul — with some customers being with the operation for more than 25 years — and have industry-leading tools to play in it.

Beyond Liberty Mutual’s hydraulic fracturing risk assessment sheet, Waters’ area created a commercial driver scorecard to help its midstream and upstream clients select and manage drivers, which are in such great demand in the industry. The safety and skill of those drivers play a big part in preventing commercial auto claims, Waters said.

Liberty Mutual’s commitment to the energy market is also seen in Waters sending every member of his underwriting team to the petroleum engineering program at the University of Texas and hiring underwriters that are passionate about this industry.

Matt Waters explains how his area can add value to oil and gas companies and their insurance brokers and agents.

For Waters, politics and the trends of the moment have little place in his long-term thinking.

“We’re committed to this business and to deeply understanding how to best manage its risks, and we have been for a long time,” Waters said.

And that holds true for the latest extraction technologies.

“We’ve had success writing fracking contractors and horizontal drillers, helping them better manage the total cost of risk,” Waters said.

To learn more about how Liberty Mutual Insurance can meet your upstream and midstream energy coverage needs, contact your broker, or Matt Waters at matthew.waters@libertymutual.com.

SponsoredContent

BrandStudioLogo

This article was produced by the R&I Brand Studio, a unit of the advertising department of Risk & Insurance, in collaboration with Liberty Mutual Insurance. The editorial staff of Risk & Insurance had no role in its preparation.


Liberty Mutual Insurance offers a wide range of insurance products and services, including general liability, property, commercial automobile, excess casualty, workers compensation and group benefits.
Share this article: