Tag Archives: insurance services office

5 Steps for Covering Data Breaches

Target’s $19 million settlement with MasterCard[1] underscores very significant sources of potential exposure that often follow a data breach that involves payment cards. Retailers and other organizations that accept those cards are likely to face—in addition to a slew of claims from consumers and investors— claims from financial institutions that seek to recover losses associated with issuing replacement credit and debit cards, among other losses. The financial institution card issuers typically allege, among other things, negligence, breach of data-protection statutes and non-compliance with Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS). Likewise, as Target’s recent settlement illustrates, organizations can expect to face claims from the payment brands, such as MasterCard, VISA and Discover, seeking substantial fines, penalties and assessments for purported PCI DSS non-compliance.

These potential sources of liability can eclipse others. While consumer lawsuits often get dismissed for lack of Article III standing,[2] for example, or may settle for relatively modest amounts,[3] the Target financial institution litigation survived a motion to dismiss[4] and involved a relatively high settlement amount as compared with the consumer litigation settlement. So did TJZ’s prior $24 million settlement with card issuers.[5] The current settlement involves only MasterCard,[6] moreover, and the Target financial institution litigation will proceed with any issuer of MasterCard-branded cards that declines to partake of the $19 million settlement offer. The amended class action in the Target cases alleges that the financial institutions’ losses “could eventually exceed $18 billion.”[7]

Organizations should be aware that these significant potential sources of data breach and payment brand liability may be covered by insurance, including commercial general liability insurance (CGL), which most companies have in place, and specialty cybersecurity/data privacy insurance.

Here are five steps for securing coverage for data breach and PCI DSS-related liability:

Step 1:            Look to CGL Coverage

                        Coverage A: “Property Damage” Coverage

Payment card issuers typically seek damages because of the necessity to replace cards and, often, also specifically allege damages because of the loss of use of those payment cards, including lost interest, transaction fees and the like. By way of illustration, the amended class action complaint in the Target litigation alleges:

The financial institutions that issued the debit and credit cards involved in Target’s data breach have suffered substantial losses as a result of Target’s failure to adequately protect its sensitive payment data. This includes sums associated with notifying customers of the data breach, reissuing debit and credit cards, reimbursing customers for fraudulent transactions, monitoring customer accounts to prevent fraudulent charges, addressing customer confusion and complaints, changing or canceling accounts and facing the decrease or suspension of their customers’ use of affected cards during the busiest shopping season of the year.[8]

The litigation further alleges that “plaintiffs and the FI [financial institution] class also lost interest and transaction fees (including interchange fees) as a result of decreased, or ceased, card usage in the wake of the Target data breach.”[9]

These allegations fall squarely within the standard-form definition of covered “property” damage under CGL Coverage A. Under Coverage A, the insurer commits to “pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of … ‘property damage’… caused by an ‘occurrence’”[10] that “occurs during the policy period.”[11] The insurer also has “the right and duty to defend the insured against any … civil proceeding in which damages because of … ‘property damage’ … are alleged.”[12]

Importantly, the key term “property damage” is defined to include not just “physical injury to tangible property” but also “loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured.” The key definition in the current standard-form CGL insurance policy states as follows:

  1. “Property damage” means:
  2. Physical injury to tangible property, including all resulting loss of use of that property. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the physical injury that caused it; or
  3. Loss of use of tangible property that is not physically injured. All such loss of use shall be deemed to occur at the time of the “occurrence” that caused it.

For the purposes of this insurance, electronic data is not tangible property.

In this definition, “electronic data” means information, facts or programs stored as or on, created or used on or transmitted to or from computer software, including systems and applications software, hard or floppy disks, CD-ROMs, tapes, drives, cells, data processing devices or any other media that are used with electronically controlled equipment.[13]

Although the current definition states that “electronic data is not tangible property,” to the extent this standard-form language may be present in the specific policy at issue (coverage terms should not be assumed; rather the specific policy language at issue should always be carefully reviewed),[14] the limitation is largely, perhaps entirely, irrelevant in this context because card issuer complaints, like the amended class action complaint in the Target litigation, typically allege damages because of the need to replace physical, tangible payment cards.[15] The complaints further often expressly allege that the issuers have suffered damages because of a decrease or cessation in the card usage.

These types of allegations are squarely within the “property damage” coverage offered by CGL Coverage A, and courts have properly upheld coverage in privacy-related cases where allegations of loss of use of property are present.[16]

            Coverage B: “Personal and Advertising Injury” Coverage

There is significant potential coverage for data breach-related liability, including card issuer litigation, under CGL Coverage B. Under Coverage B, the insurer commits to “pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘personal and advertising injury,’”[17] which is “caused by an offense arising out of [the insured’s] business … during the policy period.”[18] Similar to Coverage A, the policy further states that the insurer “will have the right and duty to defend the insured against any … civil proceeding in which damages because of … ‘personal and advertising injury’ to which this insurance applies are alleged.”[19]

The key term “personal and advertising injury” is defined to include a list of specifically enumerated offenses, which include “oral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.”[20]

Considering this key language, courts have upheld coverage under CGL Coverage B for claims arising out of data breaches and for a wide variety of other claims alleging violations of privacy rights.[21] It warrants mention that, although the trial court in the Sony PlayStation data breach litigation recently ruled against coverage, the trial court’s decision — which turned on the court’s finding that, essentially, Coverage B is triggered only by purposeful actions by the insured (Sony) and not by the actions of the third parties who hacked into its network — that decision is currently on appeal to the New York Appellate Division and may soon be reversed. Nowhere in the insuring agreement or its key definition does the CGL policy require any action by the insured. As the coverage’s name “Commercial General Liability” indicates, the coverage does not require intentional action by the insured, as argued by the insurers in the Sony case, but rather is triggered by the insured’s liability, i.e., the insurer commits to pay sums that the insured “becomes legally obligated to pay” that “arise out of” the covered “offenses.” The broad insuring language, moreover, extends to the insured’s liability for publication “in any manner,” i.e., via a hacking attack or otherwise. The cases cited by the insurer in the Sony case are factually inapposite and interpret entirely different policy language. Indeed, Sony’s insurer, Zurich, itself acknowledged in 2009 that CGL policies may provide coverage for data breaches via hacking, which by definition involves third-party actions.[22]

Organizations also should be aware that the Insurance Services Office (ISO), the insurance industry organization responsible for drafting standard-form CGL language, recently promulgated a series of data breach exclusionary endorsements.[23] ISO acknowledged that there currently is data breach coverage for hacking activities under CGL policies. In particular, ISO stated that the new exclusions may be a “reduction in personal and advertising injury coverage”—the implication being that there is coverage in the absence of the new exclusions.

At the time the ISO CGL and CLU policies were developed, certain hacking activities or data breaches were not prevalent and, therefore, coverages related to the access to or disclosure of personal or confidential information and associated with such events were not necessarily contemplated under the policy. As the exposures to data breaches increased over time, stand-alone policies started to become available in the marketplace to provide certain coverage with respect to data breach and access to or disclosure of confidential or personal information.

To the extent that any access or disclosure of confidential or personal information results in an oral or written publication that violates a person’s right of privacy, this revision may be considered a reduction in personal and advertising injury coverage.[24]

Other than the trial court’s decision in the Sony case, no decision has held that an insured must itself publish information to obtain CGL Coverage B coverage, and a number of decisions have appropriately upheld coverage for liability that the insured has resulting from third-party publications.[25]

The bottom line: There may be very significant coverage under CGL policies, including for data breaches that result in the disclosure of personally identifiable information and other claims alleging violation of a right to privacy, including claims brought by card issuers.

Step 2:           Look to “Cyber” Coverage

Organizations are increasingly purchasing so-called “cyber” insurance, and a major component of the coverage offered under most “cyber” insurance policies is coverage for the spectrum of issues that an organization typically confronts in the wake of a data breach incident. This usually includes, not only defense and indemnity coverage in connection with consumer litigation and regulatory investigation, but also defense and indemnity coverage in connection with card issuer litigation. By way of example, one specimen policy insuring agreement states that the insurer will “pay … all loss” that the “insured is legally obligated to pay resulting from a claim alleging a security failure or a privacy event.” The key term “privacy event” includes “any failure to protect confidential information,” a term that is broadly defined to include “information from which an individual may be uniquely and reliably identified or contacted, including, without limitation, an individual’s name, address, telephone number, Social Security number, account relationships, account numbers, account balances, account histories and passwords.” “Loss” includes “compensatory damages, judgments, settlements, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and defense costs.” Litigation brought by card issuers is squarely within the coverage afforded by the insuring agreement and its key definitions.

Importantly, a number of “cyber” insurance policies also expressly cover PCI DSS-related liability. By way of example, the specimen policy quoted above expressly defines covered “loss” to include “amounts payable in connection with a PCI-DSS Assessment,” which is defined as follows:

“PCI-DSS assessment” means any written demand received by an insured from a payment card association (e.g., MasterCard, Visa, American Express) or bank processing payment card transactions (i.e., an “acquiring bank”) for a monetary assessment (including a contractual fine or penalty) in connection with an insured’s non-compliance with PCI Data Security Standards that resulted in a security failure or privacy event.

This can be a very important coverage, given that, as the recent Target settlement illustrates, organizations face substantial liability arising out of the card brand and association claims for fines, penalties and assessments for purported non-compliance with PCI DSS. The payment card brands routinely claim that an organization was not PCI DSS-compliant and that the PCI forensic investigator assigned to investigate compliance routinely determines that the organization was not compliant at the time of a breach. As the payment industry has stated, “no compromised entity has yet been found to be in compliance with PCI DSS at the time of a breach.”[26]

The bottom line: “Cyber” insurance policies may provide broad, solid coverage for the costs and expenses that organizations may incur in connection with card-issuer litigation and payment brand claims alleging PCI non-compliance.

Step 3:            Look to Other Potential Coverage

It is important not to overlook other types of insurance policies that may respond to cover various types of exposure flowing from a breach. For example, there may be coverage under directors’ and officers’ (D&O) policies, professional liability or errors and omissions (E&O) policies and commercial crime policies. After a data breach, companies are advised to provide prompt notice under all potentially implicated policies, excepting in particular circumstances that may justify refraining to do so, and to carefully evaluate all potentially applicable coverages.

Step 4:            Don’t Take “No” For an Answer

Unfortunately, even where there is a legitimate claim for coverage under the policy language and applicable law, an insurer may deny a claim. Indeed, insurers can be expected to argue, as Sony’s insurers argued, that data breaches are not covered under CGL insurance policies. Nevertheless, insureds that refuse to take “no” for an answer may be able to secure valuable coverage.

If, for example, an insurer reflexively raises the “electronic data” exclusion in response to a claim under CGL Coverage A, which purports to exclude, under the standard form, “[d]amages arising out of the loss of, loss of use of, damage to, corruption of, inability to access or inability to manipulate electronic data,”[27] insureds are encouraged to point out that the damages alleged by card issuers for replacing physical cards and for lost interest and transaction fees, etc., resulting from loss of use of those cards, are clearly outside the purview of the exclusion. Likewise, if an insurer raises the standard “Recording And Distribution Of Material Or Information In Violation Of Law” exclusion, insureds are encouraged to point out that the exclusion has been narrowly interpreted, does not address common-law claims and has been held inapplicable where the law at issue fashions relief for common law rights.[28]

Importantly, exclusions and other limitations to coverage are construed narrowly against the insurer and in favor of coverage under well-established rules of insurance policy interpretation,[29] and the burden is on the insurer to demonstrate an exclusion’s applicability.[30]

Step 5:            Maximize Cover Across the Entire Insurance Portfolio

Various types of insurance policies may be triggered by a data breach, and the various triggered policies may carry different insurance limits, deductibles, retentions and other self-insurance features, together with various different and potentially conflicting provisions addressing, for example, other insurance, erosion of self-insurance and stacking of limits. For this reason, in addition to considering the scope of substantive coverage under an insured’s different policies, it is important to carefully consider the best strategy for pursing coverage in a manner that will maximize the potentially available coverage across the insured’s entire insurance portfolio. By way of example, if there is potentially overlapping CGL and “cyber” insurance coverage, remember that defense costs often do not erode CGL policy limits, and structure the coverage strategy accordingly.

When facing a data breach, companies should carefully consider the insurance coverage that may be available. Insurance is a valuable asset. Before a breach, companies should take the opportunity to carefully evaluate and address their risk profile, potential exposure, risk tolerance, sufficiency of their existing insurance coverage and the role of specialized cyber coverage. In considering that coverage, please note that there are many specialty “cyber” products on the market. Although many, if not most, of these policies purport to cover many of the same basic risks, including data breaches and other types of “cyber” and data privacy-related risk, the policies vary dramatically. It is important to carefully review policies for appropriate coverage prior to purchase and, in the event of a claim, to carefully review the scope of all potentially available coverage.

This article was first published in Law360.

 

[1] Target Strikes $19M Deal With MasterCard Over Data Breach, Law360 (April 15, 2015). The settlement is contingent upon at least 90% of the eligible MasterCard issuers accepting their alternative recovery offers by May 20.

[2] See, e.g., No Data Misuse? No Standing For Data Breach Plaintiffs, Law360 (April 24, 2014).

[3] Target Will Pay Consumers $10M To End Data Breach MDL, Law360, New York (March 19, 2015).

[4] See, e.g., Target Loses Bid to KO Banks’ Data Breach Litigation, Law360 (April 15, 2015).

[5] TJX Reaches $24M Deal With MasterCard Issuers, Law360 (April 2, 2008).

[6] The company is reported to be in similar negotiations with Visa.

[7] In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL No. 14-2522 (PAM/JJK) (D. Minn), at ¶ 87 (filed August 1, 2014).

[8] Id., ¶ 2 (emphasis added).

[9] Id., ¶ 86 (emphasis added).

[10] ISO Form CG 00 01 04 13 (2012), Section I, Coverage A, §1.a., §1.b.(1).

[11] Id., Section I, Coverage A, §1.b.(2).

[12] Id., Section I, Coverage A, §1.a.; Section V, §18.

[13] ISO Form CG 00 01 04 13 (2012), Section V, §17 (emphasis added).

[14] In the absence of such language, a number of courts have held that damaged or corrupted software or data is “tangible property” that can suffer “physical injury.” See, e.g., Retail Sys., Inc. v. CNA Ins. Co., 469 N.W.2d 735 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991); Centennial Ins. Co. v. Applied Health Care Sys., Inc., 710 F.2d 1288 (7th Cir. 1983) (California law); Computer Corner, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., No. CV97-10380 (2d Dist. Ct. N.M. May 24, 2000).

[15] See also Eyeblaster, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 613 F.3d 797 (8th Cir. 2010).

[16] See, e.g., District of Illinois in Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v DISH Network, LLC, 2014 WL 1217668 (C.D, Ill. Mar. 24, 2014); Columbia Cas. Co. v. HIAR Holding, L.L.C., 411 S.W.3d 258 (Mo. 2013).

[17] ISO Form CG 00 01 04 13 (2012), Section I, Coverage B, §1.a.

[18] Id., Section I, Coverage B, §1.b..

[19] Id.. Section I, Coverage B, §1.a.; Section V, §18.

[20] Id.. Section V, §14.e.

[21] See, e.g., Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Corcino & Assocs,. 2013 WL 5687527 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2013).

[22] Zurich, Data security: A growing liability threat (2009), available at http://www.zurichna.com/NR/rdonlyres/23D619DB-AC59-42FF-9589-C0D6B160BE11/0/DOCold2DataSecurity082609.pdf (emphasis added).

[23] These new exclusions became effective in most states last May 2014. One of the exclusionary endorsements, titled “Exclusion – Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information,” adds the following exclusion to the standard form policy:

This insurance does not apply to:

Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information

“Personal and advertising injury” arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person’s or organization’s confidential or personal information, including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer lists, financial information, credit card information, health information or any other type of non public information.

CG 21 08 05 14 (2013). See also Coming To A CGL Policy Near You: Data Breach Exclusions, Law360 (April 23, 2014).

[24] ISO Commercial Lines Forms Filing CL-2013-0DBFR, at pp. 3, 7-8 (emphasis added).

[25] See, e.g., Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Corcino & Assocs,. 2013 WL 5687527 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2013).

[26] Visa: Post-breach criticism of PCI standard misplaced (March 20, 2009), available at http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/296278/visa_post-breach_criticism_pci_standard_misplaced/

[27] CG 00 01 04 13 (2012), Section I, Coverage A, §2.p.

[28] See, e.g., Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Corcino & Assocs,. 2013 WL 5687527 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2013). For example, in the Corcino case, the court upheld coverage for statutory damages arising out hospital data breach that compromised the confidential medical records of nearly 20,000 patients, notwithstanding an express exclusion for “personal and advertising Injury …. [a]rising out of the violation of a person’s right to privacy created by any state or federal act.” Corcino and numerous other decisions underscore that, notwithstanding a growing prevalence of exclusions purporting to limit coverage for data breach and other privacy related claims, there may yet be valuable privacy and data breach coverage under “traditional” or “legacy” policies that should not be overlooked.

[29] See, e.g., 2 Couch on Insurance § 22:31 (“the rule is that, such terms are strictly construed against the insurer where they are of uncertain import or reasonably susceptible of a double construction, or negate coverage provided elsewhere in the policy”).

[30] See, e.g., 17A Couch on Insurance § 254:12 (“The insurer bears the burden of proving the applicability of policy exclusions and limitations or other types of affirmative defenses”).

Another Reason to Consider Cyber Insurance

Here a breach, there a breach, everywhere a data breach.

Verizon’s most recent 2013 Data Breach Investigations Report remarks that “[p]erhaps more so than any other year, the large scale and diverse nature of data breaches and other network attacks took center stage” this year.1 And no organization is immune from a breach. The last two years have seen some of the world’s most sophisticated corporate giants fall victim to some of the largest data breaches in history. It is clear that cyber attacks — including data breaches — are on the rise with unprecedented frequency, sophistication and scale. They are pervasive across industries and geographical boundaries. And they represent “an ever-increasing threat.”2 The problem of cyber risks is exacerbated, not only by increasingly sophisticated cyber criminals and evolving malware, but also by the trend in outsourcing of data handling, processing and storage to third-party vendors, including “cloud” providers, and by the simple reality of the modern business world, which is full of portable devices such as cellphones, laptops, iPads, USB drives, jump drives, media cards, tablets and other devices that may facilitate the loss of sensitive information.

While data breaches and other types of cyber risks are increasing, laws and regulations governing data security and privacy are proliferating. In its most recent 2013 Cost of Data Breach Study, the Ponemon Institute reports that U.S. organizations spend on average $565,020 on post-breach notification alone.3 Companies may also face lawsuits seeking damages for invasion of privacy, as well as governmental and regulatory investigations, fines and penalties, damage to brand and reputation and other negative repercussions from a data breach, including those resulting from breaches of Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards. The Ponemon Institute’s recent study reports that the average organizational cost of a data breach in 2012 was $188 per record for U.S. organizations ($277 in the case of malicious attacks) and that the average number of breached records was 28,765, for a total of $5.4 milion.4 The study does not “include organizations that had data breaches in excess of 100,000” records,5 although large-scale breaches clearly are on the rise. In the face of these daunting facts and figures, it is abundantly clear that network security alone cannot entirely address the issue; no firewall is unbreachable, no security system impenetrable.

Insurance can play a vital role in a company’s efforts to mitigate cyber risk. This fact has the attention of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In the wake of “more frequent and severe cyber incidents,” the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance has issued guidance on cybersecurity disclosures under the federal securities laws. The guidance advises that companies “should review, on an ongoing basis, the adequacy of their disclosure relating to cybersecurity risks and cyber incidents” and that “appropriate disclosures may include” a “[d]escription of relevant insurance coverage.”6

While some companies carry policies that are specifically designed to afford coverage for cyber risk, most companies have various forms of traditional insurance that may cover cyber risks, including Insurance Services Office (ISO)7 standard-form commercial general liability (CGL) policies. There may be significant coverage under CGL policies, including for data breaches that result in disclosure of personally identifiable information (commonly termed “PII”) and other claims alleging violation of a right to privacy. For example, there is significant potential coverage under the “Personal and Advertising Injury Liability” coverage section (Coverage B) of the standard-form ISO CGL policy, which currently states that the insurer “will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘personal and advertising injury.’”8 “Personal and advertising injury” is defined to include a list of specifically enumerated offenses, which include “[o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy.”9 Coverage disputes generally focus on whether there has been a “publication” that violates the claimant’s “right of privacy”—both terms are left undefined in standard-form ISO policies, and courts generally have construed the language favorably to insureds and have found coverage for a wide variety of claims alleging misuse of customer information and breach of privacy laws and regulations.10 There may also be coverage under the “Bodily Injury and Property Damage” section of the standard CGL form (Coverage A), which states that the insurer “will pay those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of ‘bodily injury’” that “occurs during the policy period.”11

As courts have found coverage for various types of cyber risks, however, ISO has added limitations and exclusions purporting to cut off CGL lines of coverage. For example, in response to a number of cases upholding coverage for breach of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act and other privacy laws, the current ISO standard form contains the following exclusion, which is applicable to both Coverage A and Coverage B:

This insurance does not apply to:

Recording And Distribution Of Material Or Information In Violation Of Law

“Personal and advertising injury” arising directly or indirectly out of any action or omission that violates or is alleged to violate:

  1. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), including any amendment of or addition to such law;
  2. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, including any amendment of or addition to such law;
  3. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), and any amendment of or addition to such law, including the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA); or
  4. Any federal, state or local statute, ordinance or regulation, other than the TCPA, CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 or FCRA and their amendments and additions, that addresses, prohibits or limits the printing, dissemination, disposal, collecting, recording, sending, transmitting, communicating or distribution of material or information.12

Insurers have raised this exclusion, among others, in recent privacy-breach cases.13

More sweepingly, as part of its April 2013 revisions to the CGL policy forms, ISO introduced an endorsement, titled “Amendment Of Personal And Advertising Injury Definition,” which entirely eliminates the key “offense” of “[o]ral or written publication, in any manner, of material that violates a person’s right of privacy” (found at Paragraph 14.e of the Definitions section of Coverage B):

With respect to Coverage B Personal And Advertising Injury Liability, Paragraph 14.e. of the Definitions section does not apply.14

And the latest: ISO has just filed a number of data-breach exclusionary endorsements for use with its standard-form primary, excess and umbrella CGL policies. These are to become effective in May 2014. By way of example, one of the endorsements, titled “Exclusion – Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information And Data-Related Liability – Limited Bodily Injury Exception Not Included,” adds the following exclusion to Coverage A:

This insurance does not apply to:

Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information And Data-related Liability

Damages arising out of:

(1) Any access to or disclosure of any person's or organization's confidential or personal information, including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer lists, financial information, credit card information, health information or any other type of nonpublic information; or

(2) The loss of, loss of use of, damage to, corruption of, inability to access or inability to manipulate electronic data.

This exclusion applies even if damages are claimed for notification costs, credit-monitoring expenses, forensic expenses, public relations expenses or any other loss, cost or expense incurred by you or others arising out of that which is described in Paragraph (1) or (2) above.15

The endorsement also adds the following exclusion to Coverage B: This insurance does not apply to:

Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information

“Personal and advertising injury” arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person’s or organization's confidential or personal information, including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer lists, financial information, credit-card information, health information or any other type of nonpublic information.

This exclusion applies even if damages are claimed for notification costs, credit-monitoring expenses, forensic expenses, public relations expenses or any other loss, cost or expense incurred by you or others arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person's or organization's confidential or personal information.16

ISO states that “when this endorsement is attached, it will result in a reduction of coverage due to the deletion of an exception with respect to damages because of bodily injury arising out of loss of, loss of use of, damage to, corruption of, inability to access, or inability to manipulate electronic data” and that “[t]o the extent that any access or disclosure of confidential or personal information results in an oral or written publication that violates a person's right of privacy, this revision may be considered a reduction in personal and advertising injury coverage.”17 While acknowledging that coverage for data breaches is currently available under its standard forms, ISO explains that “[a]t the time the ISO CGL and [umbrella] policies were developed, certain hacking activities or data breaches were not prevalent and, therefore, coverages related to the access to or disclosure of personal or confidential information and associated with such events were not necessarily contemplated under the policy.”18 The scope of this exclusion ultimately will be determined by judicial review.

Although it may take some time for the new (or similar) exclusions to make their way into general liability policies, and the full reach of the exclusions remains unclear, they provide another reason for companies to carefully consider specialty cyber insurance products. Even where insurance policies do not contain the newer limitations or exclusions, insurers may argue that cyber risks are not covered under traditional policies. The legal dispute between Sony and its insurers concerning the PlayStation Network data breach highlights the challenges that companies can face in getting insurance companies to cover losses arising from cyber risks under CGL policies. Sony argues that there is data breach coverage because “[t]he MDL Amended Complaint… alleges that plaintiffs suffered the ‘loss of privacy’ as the result of the improper disclosure of their ‘Personal Information’ [which] has been held to constitute ‘material that violates a person’s right of privacy’.”19 However, the insurers seek a declaration that there is no coverage under the CGL policies at issue, among other reasons, on the basis that the underlying lawsuits “do not assert claims for … ‘personal and advertising injury’.”20 The Sony coverage suit does not represent the first time that insurers have refused to voluntarily pay claims resulting from a network security breach or other cyber-related liability under CGL policies. Nor will it be the last. Even where there is a good claim for coverage, insurers can be expected to continue to argue that cyber risks are not covered under CGL or other traditional policies.

As far as data breaches are concerned, cyber policies usually provide some form of “privacy” coverage. This coverage would typically provide defense and indemnity coverage for claims arising out of a data breach that actually or potentially compromises PII. By way of example, the AIG Specialty Risk Protector specimen policy21 states that the insurer will “pay … all Loss” that the “Insured is legally obligated to pay resulting from a Claim alleging … a Privacy Event.” “Privacy Event”22 includes:

  1. any failure to protect Confidential Information (whether by “phishing,” other social engineering technique or otherwise) including, without limitation, that which results in an identity theft or other wrongful emulation of the identity of an individual or corporation;
  2. failure to disclose an event referenced in Sub-paragraph (1) above in violation of any Security Breach Notice Law; or
  3. violation of any federal, state, foreign or local privacy statute alleged in connection with a Claim for compensatory damages, judgments, settlements, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest from Sub-paragraphs (1) or (2) above.23

“Confidential Information” is defined as follows:

“Confidential Information” means any of the following in a Company’s or Information Holder’s care, custody and control or for which a Company or Information Holder is legally responsible:

  1. information from which an individual may be uniquely and reliably identified or contacted, including, without limitation, an individual’s name, address, telephone number, Social Security number, account relationships, account numbers, account balances, account histories and passwords;
  2. information concerning an individual that would be considered “nonpublic personal information” within the meaning of Title V of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338) (as amended) and its implementing regulations;
  3. information concerning an individual that would be considered “protected health information” within Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (as amended) and its implementing regulations;
  4. information used for authenticating customers for normal business transactions;
  5. any third party’s trade secrets, data, designs, interpretations, forecasts, formulas, methods, practices, processes, records, reports or other item of information that is not available to the general public[.] 

There are numerous specialty cyber products on the market that generally respond to data breaches. A policy offering the privacy coverage will often offer coverage for civil, administrative and regulatory investigations, fines and penalties and, importantly, will commonly offer “remediation coverage” (sometimes termed “crisis management” or “notification” coverage) to address costs associated with a security breach, including:

•     costs associated with post-data breach notification

•     credit-monitoring services

•     forensic investigation to determine cause and scope of a breach

•     public relations efforts and other “crisis management” expenses

  • legal services to determine an insured’s indemnification rights where a third party’s error or omission has caused the problem.

Cyber insurance policies offer other types coverages, as well, including media liability coverage (for claims for alleging, for example, infringement of copyright and other intellectual property rights and misappropriation of ideas or media content), first party property and network interruption coverage, and cyber extortion coverage. The cyber policies can be extremely valuable. But selecting and negotiating the right cyber insurance product presents a real and significant challenge. There is a dizzying array of cyber products on the marketplace, each with their own insurer-drafted terms and conditions, which vary dramatically from insurer to insurer—even from policy to policy underwritten by the same insurer. Because of the nature of the product and the risks that it is intended to cover, successful placement requires the involvement and input, not only of a capable risk management department and a knowledgeable insurance broker, but also of in-house legal counsel and IT professionals, resources and compliance personnel—and experienced insurance coverage counsel.

How to Purchase Cyber Insurance

Cyber insurance can be an extremely valuable asset in an organization’s strategy to address and mitigate cyber security, data privacy and other risks. But selecting and negotiating the right insurance product can present a significant challenge, given, among other things, the lack of standardized policy language and the fact that many “off the shelf” policies do not adequately match the organization’s risk profile. The following five tips will help to facilitate a successful cyber policy placement.

#1. Get a Grasp on Risk Profile and Tolerance

A successful cyber placement is facilitated by having a thorough understanding of an organization’s risk profile, including the scope and type of personally identifiable information and confidential corporate data maintained by the company and the manner in which (and by whom) such data is used, transmitted and stored. A complete understanding of the risk profile also entails evaluation of the organization’s IT infrastructure and practices and assessment of potential threats to the organization’s (and its vendors’) network security. An organization should also consider the pervasiveness and manner of use of unencrypted mobile and other portable devices. There are many other factors that may warrant consideration. An organization should also assess its potential exposure in the event of a data breach or network security incident. When an organization has a grasp on its risk profile, potential exposure and risk tolerance, it is well-positioned to consider the type and amount of insurance coverage that it needs to adequately respond to identified risks and exposure.

#2. Look at Existing Coverage

The California federal district court’s recent decision in Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Corcino & Associates et al. 1 — upholding coverage under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy for a data breach that compromised the confidential medical records of nearly 20,000 patients — underscores that there may be valuable privacy and data breach coverage under “traditional” insurance policies, including under the “Personal And Advertising Injury Liability” (Coverage B) of a typical CGL policy. There may also be valuable coverage for data breach and network security liability and network security failures under an organization’s commercial property, D&O, E&O, professional liability, fiduciary, crime and other coverages.

#3. Purchase Cyber Insurance As Needed

As recently described in Law360,  2 in response to decisions upholding coverage for data breach, privacy, network security and other cyber risks, the insurance industry has added various limitations and exclusions purporting to cut off the “traditional” lines of coverage. By way of example, Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) 3 recently filed a number of data breach exclusionary endorsements for use with its standard-form primary, excess and umbrella CGL policies. These are to become effective in May 2014. By way of example, one of the endorsements, titled “Exclusion – Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information And Data-Related Liability – Limited Bodily Injury Exception Not Included,” adds the following exclusion to Coverage B:

This insurance does not apply to:

Access Or Disclosure Of Confidential Or Personal Information

“Personal and advertising injury” arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person’s or organization's confidential or personal information, including patents, trade secrets, processing methods, customer lists, financial information, credit card information, health information or any other type of non public information.

This exclusion applies even if damages are claimed for notification costs, credit monitoring expenses, forensic expenses, public relations expenses or any other loss, cost or expense incurred by you or others arising out of any access to or disclosure of any person's or organization's confidential or personal information. 4

Although the full reach of the new exclusions ultimately will be determined by judicial review, and it may take some time for the new (or similar) exclusions to make their way into CGL policies, the exclusions provide another reason for companies to carefully consider specialty cyber insurance products. Even where insurance policies do not contain the newer limitations or exclusions, insurers may argue that cyber risks are not covered under traditional policies.

As far as data breaches are concerned, cyber policies usually provide some form of privacy coverage. This coverage would typically provide defense and indemnity coverage for claims arising out of a data breach that actually or potentially compromises confidential personally identifiable information. By way of example, the AIG Specialty Risk Protector® specimen policy 5 states that the insurer will “pay … all Loss” that the “Insured is legally obligated to pay resulting from a Claim alleging … a Privacy Event.” 6 “Privacy Event” includes:

  1. any failure to protect Confidential Information (whether by “phishing,” other social engineering technique or otherwise) including, without limitation, that which results in an identity theft or other wrongful emulation of the identity of an individual or corporation;
  2. failure to disclose an event referenced in Sub-paragraph (1) above in violation of any Security Breach Notice Law; or
  3. violation of any federal, state, foreign or local privacy statute alleged in connection with a Claim for compensatory damages, judgments, settlements, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest from Sub-paragraphs (1) or (2) above.7

“Confidential Information” is defined as follows:

“Confidential Information” means any of the following in a Company’s or Information Holder’s care, custody and control or for which a Company or Information Holder is legally responsible:

  1. information from which an individual may be uniquely and reliably identified or contacted, including, without limitation, an individual’s name, address, telephone number, Social Security number, account relationships, account numbers, account balances, account histories and passwords;
  2. information concerning an individual that would be considered “nonpublic personal information” within the meaning of Title V of the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338) (as amended) and its implementing regulations;
  3. information concerning an individual that would be considered “protected health information” within Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (as amended) and its implementing regulations;
  4. information used for authenticating customers for normal business transactions;
  5. any third party’s trade secrets, data, designs, interpretations, forecasts, formulas, methods, practices, processes, records, reports or other item of information that is not available to the general public[.] 

A policy offering the privacy coverage will often offer coverage for civil, administrative and regulatory investigations, fines and penalties and, importantly, will commonly offer “remediation” coverage (sometimes termed “crisis management” or “notification” coverage) to address costs associated with a security breach, including:

  • costs associated with post-data breach notification
  • credit monitoring services
  • forensic investigation to determine cause and scope of a breach
  • public relations efforts and other “crisis management” expenses
  • legal services to determine an insured’s indemnification rights where a third party’s error or omission has caused the problem. 

The sublimits typically associated with remediation coverage warrant careful attention. Cyber insurance policies often offer other types of coverages, including:

  • network security coverage (often in the same coverage grant as the “privacy” coverage discussed above), which generally covers liability arising out of security threats to networks, including, for example, transmission of malicious code and DDoS attacks;
  • media liability coverage, which generally covers liability arising out of, for example, infringement of copyright and other intellectual property rights and misappropriation of ideas or media content;
  • information asset coverage, which generally covers an insured for the cost of recreating, restoring or repairing the insured’s own data or computer systems;
  • network interruption coverage, which generally covers an insured for its lost revenue due to network interruption or disruptions resulting from a DDoS attack, malicious code or other security threats to networks; and
  • extortion coverage, which generally covers an insured for the costs of responding to “e-extortion” threats to prevent a threatened cyber attack.

In addition to the main coverages, insurers increasingly offer complimentary pre- and post-loss risk management services, which can be valuable in preventing as well as mitigating attacks.

#4. Spotlight the “Cloud”

Cyber risk is intensified by the trend in outsourcing of data handling, processing and storage to third-party vendors, including “cloud” providers. The Ponemon Institute’s 2011 Cost of Data Breach Study, published in March 2012, found that more than 41% of U.S. data breaches are caused by third-party errors, including “when protected data is in the hands of outsourcers, cloud providers and business partners.” 8 Many “off the shelf” cyber policies, however, purport to limit the scope of coverage to the insured’s own acts and omissions (not the acts and omissions of third parties) and to network security threats to the insured’s own network or computer system — not the networks / computer systems of third parties. This may result in illusory coverage. As recently described in Law360, 9 the recent high-profile attack on the New York Times homepage, during which users who tried to access  www.nytimes.com were directed to a website apparently maintained by a group called the Syrian Electronic Army, may not be covered under many “off the shelf” policies because the attack was not on the New York Times “system” as defined in many policies, but rather on the system of a third-party domain name registrar.

#5. Remember the Cyber Misnomer

Keep in mind that many data breaches are not electronic — they often result from non-electronic sources. Data privacy laws do not distinguish between a breach resulting from a network security failure or a breach on account of stolen paper records from a closet. Neither should a cyber insurance policy. A solid policy will cover non-electronic data, such as paper records. 10 Likewise, a policy should also provide coverage for physical breaches resulting from, for example, the theft of a laptop or loss of a USB drive.

There are many other considerations and points to focus on. There is a dizzying array of cyber products on the marketplace, each with their own insurer-drafted terms and conditions, which vary dramatically from insurer to insurer—even from policy to policy underwritten by the same insurer. Because of the nature of the product and the risks that it is intended to cover, successful placement requires the involvement and input, not only of a capable risk management department and a knowledgeable insurance broker, but also of in-house legal counsel and IT professionals, resources and compliance personnel—and experienced insurance coverage counsel.

This article first appeared in FC&S Legal, The National Underwriter Company on October 17, 2013.

1 No. CV 13-3728 GAF (JCx), Minutes (In Chambers) Order Re: Motion To Dismiss (Oct. 7, 2013). The two underlying class action lawsuits alleged that Stanford Hospital and Clinics and the insured, medical consulting firm Corcino & Associates, violated the privacy rights of numerous patients by providing confidential personally identifiable medical information to an individual who posted the information on a public website. In particular, the claimants alleged that “the private, confidential, and sensitive medical and/or psychiatric information of almost 20,000 patients of Stanford’s Emergency Department appeared on a public website and remained publicly available online for almost one full year.” Id. at 2 (quoting the Second Amended Class Action Complaint in Springer, et al. v. Stanford Hosp. and Clinics, et al., No. BC470S22 (Cal. Super. Ct., filed May 12, 2012)). The underlying complaints contained causes of action for violations of the claimants’ constitutional right of privacy, common law privacy rights, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA) and the California Lanterman Petris Short (LPS) Act. The suits sought, among other things, statutory damages of $1000 per person under CMIA and statutory damages of up to $10,000 per person under LPS.

2See Roberta D. Anderson, ISO's Newly-Filed Data Breach Exclusions Provide Yet Another Reason To Consider “Cyber” Insurance, Law360 (Sept. 23, 2013).

3ISO is an insurance industry organization whose role is to develop standard insurance policy forms and to have those forms approved by state insurance commissioners.

4CG 21 07 05 14 (2013). “Electronic data” is defined as “information, facts or programs stored as or on, created or used on, or transmitted to or from computer software, including systems and applications software, hard or floppy disks, CD-ROMS, tapes, drives, cells, data processing devices or any other media which are used with electronically controlled

equipment.” Id.

5See AIG Specialty Risk Protector® Specimen Policy Form 101014 (11/09), Security and Privacy Coverage Section.

6Id. Section 1. 

7 Id. Section 2.(d). “Security Breach Notice Law” includes “any statute or regulation that requires an entity storing Confidential Information on its Computer System, or any entity that has provided Confidential Information to an Information Holder, to provide notice of any actual or potential unauthorized access by others to Confidential Information stored on such Computer System, including but not limited to, the statute known as California SB 1386 (§1798.82, et. al. of the California Civil Code).” Id. Section 2.(m).

82011 Global Cost Of Data Breach Study, Ponemon Institute LLC, at 6 (Mar. 2012).

9See Lon Berk, Takeaways From Recent Cyberattack On New York Times, Law360 (Sept. 17, 2013)

10  See Richard S. Betterley, The Betterley Report, Cyber/Privacy Insurance Market Survey, at 18 (June 2013).

Sinkhole Peril: Reducing Exposure And Managing Risk

The sensational news of Jeff Bush, swallowed by the earth while he slept, has been widely reported by the media.1 Such dramatic incidents receive a great deal of attention, likely because they are so rare. Sinkholes, however, are not rare. They do not usually threaten lives, but in Florida they have often threatened insurance companies' balance sheets, endangering their profitability and — in at least one case — their solvency.

First we must distinguish between how the terms “sinkhole” and “catastrophic ground collapse” are used in insurance in Florida. According to Florida statutes, “'Sinkhole' means a landform created by subsidence of soil, sediment, or rock as underlying strata are dissolved by groundwater.” A “catastrophic ground collapse,” by comparison, exists when all of the following four criteria are met:

  1. The abrupt collapse of the ground cover;
  2. A depression in the ground cover clearly visible to the naked eye;
  3. Structural damage to the covered building, including the foundation; and
  4. The insured structure being condemned and ordered to be vacated by the governmental agency authorized by law to issue such an order for that structure.2

Sinkholes are fairly common in Florida and even ubiquitous in some areas. But what happened to Jeff Bush was a catastrophic ground collapse, and that's rare, even in Florida.

Much of the subsurface geology in Florida consists of limestone or dolomite and both are susceptible to gradual erosion when exposed to acidic water, which arises from a chemical reaction between rainwater percolating through the soil and decaying vegetation. This erosion can produce underground voids that are not visible on the surface and these voids will expand, usually very slowly. This slow expansion leads to a subsiding surface, which can cause cracking and other damage to structures. Very occasionally, a large void will lead to sudden collapse of the surface above it.3 A well-known historical example of this is the Winter Park sinkhole.4 A more recent example is the sinkhole into which Jeff Bush's house collapsed.

Although the process that produces sinkholes occurs naturally over tens of thousands of years, it can be accelerated by human-induced depletion of underground aquifers. In Tampa, the problem has become so significant that one of the first desalination plants in the United States has been built to reduce the use of underground water supplies.5 The groundwater depletion that has resulted from increased water use has in part contributed to extremely frequent sinkholes in Pasco and Hernando counties.6

Initial Legislative Efforts
In 1981, Florida passed a law mandating that insurance companies cover the sinkhole peril as part of home insurance.7 By 2006, the sinkhole loss ratio in Hernando County for Citizens Property Insurance Corporation, an insurer created by the state for those who cannot acquire coverage elsewhere, had reached 242%. The average sinkhole claim for Citizens was about $139,000.8 Claims were often not for catastrophic ground collapse or even damage that affected the load-bearing capacity of the structure, but were cosmetic in nature. There came to be a widespread perception in the industry that marginal claims were being paid out, partially as a result of aggressive solicitation of insureds by public adjusters.

In response, Florida lawmakers passed legislation that still required insurers to offer sinkhole coverage, but allowed policyholders to exclude it. The territories that Citizens used for rating the sinkhole peril were the same as it used for other perils — generally counties divided into a coastal region and an inland region. This method did not adequately capture the differentiation in sinkhole risk and once policyholders were allowed to exclude sinkhole coverage, those who believed they were at lower risk chose to do so.

The losses for the remaining, higher-risk insureds had to be spread over a smaller amount of premium, pushing the loss ratio up, and causing Citizens to file for rate increases. Those rate increases encouraged more low-risk insureds to opt out of sinkhole coverage, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of adverse selection. The sinkhole loss ratio, especially in the area of the state susceptible to sinkholes, increased. By 2009, it had reached 683% in Hernando County. The number of sinkhole claims for Citizens in Hernando county alone had increased from 186 in 2006 to 520 in 2009 — nearly tripled — while premiums to cover them had decreased from about $9.2 million to about $6.0 million.

Private insurers began withdrawing from the market in Pasco and Hernando counties entirely, and the share of the market for Citizens increased rapidly. Between 2008 and 2010, the number of policies Citizens wrote in Hernando County increased by 50%.9 HomeWise Insurance Company was forced into liquidation in 2011, despite no hurricanes affecting Florida since 2005, because of sinkhole claims.10 The insurance of damage from sinkholes led to an insurance crisis in Florida.

Bill SB408
Although there had been several previous rounds of legislation to address the crisis in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2009, the crisis only worsened.11 Another bill, SB408, was passed in 2011. An analysis performed by Insurance Services Office (ISO) on behalf of Citizens estimated that this bill would reduce losses by about 54.7% based on several changes:12

  • The majority of the expected savings came from a change in definition; instead of covering “physical damage,” sinkhole coverage would now cover “structural damage.” The report estimated the impact of this change in definition by reviewing a random sample of closed claims and estimating what the loss would have been under the new definition.
  • Previously, many policyholders did not use the proceeds they received from their sinkhole claims to repair damage, but instead used it to pay off their mortgages or for some other purpose. In a sample of claims from HomeWise, for example, only 27% of insureds used the money to make repairs.13 SB408 requires that loss payments be used to repair sinkhole damage based on the specifications of an engineer's report.
  • When the insured uses a public adjuster, claims for which a sinkhole is not confirmed have much higher losses than when the insured does not use a public adjuster. In the analysis performed by ISO, it was determined that the losses for claims of Citizens with no confirmed sinkhole activity were 140% higher when a public adjuster was involved. SB408 limits public adjuster compensation to reduce the incentive to inflate sinkhole claims.14
  • SB408 excludes sinkhole damage to appurtenant structures, such as driveways, sidewalks, decks, or patios.
  • Policyholders with a previously denied sinkhole claim were granted the right to sinkhole testing at the expense of the insurance company. Under SB408, the policyholder must pay part of the cost of this testing, which is reimbursed if the testing demonstrates that a sinkhole exists.

In addition to these provisions, companies can exclude sinkhole coverage until an inspection is performed. If there is evidence of prior sinkhole activity, they can exclude the sinkhole peril from coverage. They can also now require a sinkhole deductible equal to 10% of coverage A for HO-3 policies.15

The cumulative impact of these reforms and improvements in underwriting is unclear. Although the reaction in the industry has been positive, it has been less than two years since SB408 was implemented and it will take time to see if it results in a real decrease in costs. In 2006, SB1980, another sinkhole reform bill, was passed and was expected to produce up to 14.4% savings, according to a report from Deloitte commissioned by the Florida Office of Insurance Regulation.16 As it turned out, this was just before a rapid escalation in sinkhole costs. It is very difficult to predict the impact of legislation, and while there is a lot of favorable anecdotal evidence, it is probably too soon to say for certain whether the Florida sinkhole crisis is over.

What Insurers Can Do To Manage Their Risk
Excluding sinkhole coverage and offering it as a buyback with a 10% mandatory sinkhole deductible after an inspection is one of the most important tools that insurers currently have. However, the dramatic example of adverse selection that occurred in recent years in Pasco and Hernando counties should serve as a reminder of the importance of risk differentiation. Adverse selection occurs because policyholders or competitors have more information about an insured risk. Insurers can reduce this risk by adopting granular rating plans that align the premium charged as closely as possible with the expected loss.

Because insurers based their calculations on territories designed for wind risk — consisting of a coastal and inland region — they failed to adequately differentiate risk within these counties based on underlying geology, changes in underground aquifers, and claim patterns. Further, since sinkhole claims are relatively uncommon, albeit very severe, companies often lack credible data, which encourages them to utilize territories that are not homogenous.

SB408 has diminished the sense of crisis in the industry and creates an opportunity for insurers to get ahead of the risks they face. Companies are now able to charge a separate premium for the sinkhole peril and they should begin utilizing territories that better reflect the variation in the underlying risk from that peril. Doing so, coupled with other important risk management strategies, will decrease the likelihood that they will have the sort of unfavorable experience that has been so damaging to the industry in recent years.

Although Florida has by far the highest rate of sinkholes in the United States, they also occur in many other parts of the country, such as Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas — anywhere, in fact, where acidity erodes subsurface limestone. About 20% of the United States is susceptible to sinkholes.17 Less than two months after Jeff Bush was swallowed by the earth, a sinkhole in Chicago devoured three cars.18 Insurers would be wise to review their policy language and the law in all states where they have potential sinkhole exposure and consider steps to address this exposure. The most dangerous peril for any insurer is the one they did not realize they were covering.

Notes

1 New York Times (March 2, 2013). Crews halt effort to find man lost in Florida sinkhole that swallowed his room. Associated Press. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/us/florida-sinkhole-growing-as-engineers-investigate.html.

2 Section 627.706(2)(a), Florida Statutes.

3 Beck, B.F. & Sinclair, W.C. (1986). Sinkholes in Florida. Florida Sinkhole Research Institute, Universityi of Central Florida. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/FGS/FGS_Publications/FGS Library Documents/SinkholesInFlaAnIntroBeck1986a.pdf.

4 In May 1981, the Winter Park sinkhole in Central Florida swallowed a house, five Porsches, and part of the city's swimming pool. The sinkhole eventually measured 350 feet wide, 75 feet deep and had caused $4 million dollar in damage. Orlando Sentinel (November 13, 2013). Looking back at Winter Park's famous sinkhole. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-11-13/news/os-fla360-looking-back-at-winter-parks-famous-sinkhole-20121113_1_sinkhole-orlando-sentinel-winter-park

5 U.S. Geological Survey (November 2003). Ground-Water Depletion Across the Nation. Fact Sheet 103-03. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-103-03/.

6 U.S. Geological Survey (January 2013). Groundwater Depletion. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html.

7 Florida Senate (December 2010). Issues Relating to Sinkhole Insurance. Interim Report 2011-104. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://publicfiles.dep.state.fl.us/FGS/WEB/sinkholes/FlaSenateSinkholeIssues.pdf.

8 Florida Senate, ibid., p. 18.

9 Florida Senate, ibid., p. 26.

10 Florida Dept. of Financial Services (November 18, 2011). Notice of Liquidation of HomeWise Insurance Company. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://www.myfloridacfo.com/agents/industry/news/hwicliq.htm.

11 Florida Senate, ibid.

12 Ericksen, P. (July 19, 2012). Citizens Property Insurance Corporation: Senate Bill 408 Sinkhole Analysis. Insurance Services Office. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from https://www.citizensfla.com/about/mDetails_boardmtgs.cfm?show=PDF&link=/bnc_meet/docs/419/07AH_Citizens_SB408__Sinkhole__Analysis.pdf.

13 Florida Senate, ibid.

14 Ericksen, ibid.

15 Section 627.706 (1)(b), Florida Statutes. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0600-0699/0627/Sections/0627.706.html.

16 Florida Office of Insurance Regulation (September 7, 2006). Press release: Sinkhole factor adoption will lead to consumer savings. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://www.floir.com/PressReleases/viewmediarelease.aspx?id=1480.

17 U.S. Geological Survey (March 11, 2013). The Science of Sinkholes. Science Feature. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/usgs_top_story/the-science-of-sinkholes/.

18 Jamieson, A. (April 18, 2013). Sinkhole swallows three cars on Chicago's South Side. NBC News. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/18/17810648-sinkhole-swallows-three-cars-on-chicagos-south-side.