Tag Archives: insurance

Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

What Proposed Changes to U.K. Counter-Terror Laws Mean for Your K&R Policy

Posted on by

With insurers facing increased scrutiny over indemnity payments from the U.K. government, there could be consequences for companies who regularly put their employees into harm’s way.

When she announced plans for new laws in the Counter Terrorism and Security Bill, Home Secretary Theresa May cited UN estimates that ransom payments have raised up to £28 million ($42 million) for militant group ISIS in the past 12 months.

Observers often ask if the existence of kidnap and ransom (K&R) insurance itself encourages kidnapping for ransom. But for corporate risk managers, the debate is immaterial. They must protect employees and ensure that jobs in danger zones remain attractive to new recruits.

May’s bill amendments, which will be inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 if passed, do present a potential challenge to the established order and highlight the pivotal role of response consultants (AKA hostage negotiators).

How does K&R actually work?

K&R insurance typically covers against losses related to kidnap incidents, particularly ransoms, lost earnings and the costs for an outsourced expert agency whose job is to handle the case and advise the policyholder on the negotiations. However, the indemnification is only paid out to the policyholders retrospectively, after the hostage situation is over. With such an approach, insurers on the one hand prevent ransom payments spiraling out of control and, on the other hand, remain in the grey area of section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2000.

The new amendments

Under May’s new section 17A, it is now clear that the insurer commits an offense if “it knows or has reasonable cause to suspect” that payments will be handed over in response to a demand made for the benefit of a proscribed organization.

The question for their response consultants will therefore be how much notice they can give their assureds as to whom they are dealing with. Historically, negotiations for release could be made without resorting to identifying the culprit, but now the insurer will have to make sure that they are not engaging with a terrorist on Whitehall’s blacklist.

As of Nov. 28, 2014, there were 74 international terrorist organizations listed under the Terrorism Act 2000. However, a large number of organizations associated with kidnappings are not on the list, which, with a few exceptions, focuses on organizations from Northern Ireland and those operating in the MENASA Region (Middle East, North Africa and South Asia). Of course, kidnappings have increased in the Middle East in recent years, but most kidnappings worldwide are still taking place in Central and South America and Central and Southern Africa. Although the new law only targets proscribed organizations from the MENASA region, insurers have to remain attentive since the home secretary may add organizations to the list at any time.

One thing which hopefully will remain protected are the fees and costs that hostage negotiators charge; this is a critical part of the industry’s service to a market believed to include at least 80% of the Fortune 500 as its clientele.

K&R still valid

From a company’s perspective, K&R is certainly still a valid class of business. There should not be any effect on pricing as the underlying risk has not changed.

However, if your policy is led by insurers domiciled in the U.K., those insurers may be less likely to indemnify kidnappings where the culprits may be loosely associated with a proscribed group. Equivalent insurers in other territories may be less restrained, so some insureds may elect to have their business placed outside the U.K., particularly if they have workers who are frequently operating in the MENASA region.

It is important to understand that corporations are also not allowed to fund payments. From a risk management perspective, where companies do wish to ensure they are able to lawfully pay ransom demands to release their employees, they need to consider in which jurisdictions they should be located so as to lawfully pay ransoms. On a practical level, they need to review with their response companies what protocols they use to identify or qualify the identity of kidnappers who allege, possibly incorrectly, that they are affiliated to terror groups.

The proposed offence aimed at insurers provides:

17A Insurance against payments made in response to terrorist demands

(1) The insurer under an insurance contract commits an offence if –

(A) the insurer makes a payment under the contract or purportedly under it,

(B) the payment is made in respect of any money or other property that has been or is to be, handed over in response to a demand made wholly or partly for the purposes of terrorism, and

(C) the insurer or the person authorising the payment on the insurer’s behalf knows or has reasonably cause to suspect that the money or other property has been, or is to be, handed over in response to such a demand.

This article was originally posted at Airmic.com

The Impact of Collaboration in Cyber Risk Insurance

Posted on by

Former FBI Director Robert Mueller once said, “There are only two types of companies: those that have been hacked and those that will be. Even that is merging into one category: those that have been hacked and will be again.” This is the environment in which risk managers must protect their businesses, and it isn’t easy.

Cyber risk is not an IT issue; it’s a business problem. As such, risk management strategies must include cyber risk insurance protection. Until recently, cyber insurance was considered a nice-to-have supplement to existing insurance coverage. However, following in the wake of numerous, high-profile data breaches, cyber coverage is fast becoming a must-have. In fact, new data from The Ponemon Institute indicates that policy purchases have more than doubled in the past year, and insiders estimate U.S. premiums at around $1 billion today and rising.

But is a cyber policy really necessary? In short, yes. As P.F. Chang’s China Bistro recently discovered, commercial general liability (CGL) policies generally do not include liability coverage to protect against cyber-related losses. CGL policies are intended to provide broad coverage, not necessarily deep coverage. Considering the complexity of cyber risks, there is a real and legitimate need for specialized policies that indemnify the insured against cyber-related loss and liability.

The fact is, cyber risk is a problem all its own.

buy rybelsus online thecifhw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/rybelsus.html no prescription pharmacy

The cyber threat is pervasive, and attacks are increasing exponentially. Cyberattack trends are also shifting constantly. An attack can come from multiple directions and in multiple forms, targeting different information and outcomes: an attack launched by a hacker group intent on making a political statement, malware that enters the network through a third-party service provider to steal credit card information, or a data breach perpetrated by a trusted insider seeking competitive intellectual property (IP).

In this complex, dynamic threat landscape, the ability to accurately assess risk becomes a monumental undertaking. If we accept that every organization has been hacked or will be again, it’s clear that prior incidents are no longer relevant or legitimate indicators of a company’s risk. Similarly, stagnant security checklists required by many insurers are hardly representative of actual, ever-changing cyber risk. Traditional risk assessment methodologies that rely on these elements to determine pre-binding risk simply have no place in today’s world.

Risk Assessment for the Cyber Era

The industry needs assessment methods consistent with the changing threat landscape. That means real-time, active assessment of an entity’s entire business ecosystem including upstream and downstream threats, as well as the often overlooked insider threat. What this provides is a holistic understanding of an entity’s vulnerabilities, high priority risks and security maturity.

In the current cyber environment, it’s implicit that every organization will be the victim of a cyberattack and that there will be some cyber loss as a result. Thus, savvy underwriters are looking beyond mere ticks on a checklist to determine insurability; rather, they’re looking for security maturity and cyber resilience.

The more cyber resilient an organization, the faster it can identify a cyberattack, stop it and recover from the impact. Data loss is expected. It’s the severity of the data loss that will impact the company’s business, damage its brand and customer loyalty and erode investor confidence.

buy advair online thecifhw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/advair.html no prescription pharmacy

Those organizations that can quickly and effectively minimize the risk and get back to business are generally considered a safer bet.

buy paxil online thecifhw.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/paxil.html no prescription pharmacy

This is where organizations can realize the benefits of holistic cyber insurance assessment. All too often, critical data is uncovered after a breach occurs. By implementing a proactive risk assessment before an attack occurs, the organization can gain in-depth intelligence about its highest priority risks before an incident, not years later when it’s too late to do anything about it. A pre-binding assessment provides the right data at the right time to inform risk management decisions and align resources with an organization’s highest priority risks.

Additionally, organizations that adopt continuous proactive assessment and ongoing risk mitigation demonstrate mature security practices, which indicate an organization’s ability to return to regular operations faster following a cyber incident.

Partners Against Cybercrime

Historically, there has been an antagonistic relationship between the insurer and client, but in the wake of catastrophic data breaches, these two sides are now finding common ground. For instance, several insurance brokers today are requiring a holistic, pre-binding risk assessment before a company can receive a policy. This benefits both the insurer and the pre-insured by providing invaluable insights about the company’s security, often revealing unexpected weaknesses and new priorities. Some policies also tie risk assessment to financial incentive to encourage ongoing risk mitigation. This becomes a virtuous circle situation for the insured, as it gets the benefit of reduced premiums after risk maturity has been measured, which allows the company greater insight and the ability to be proactive about reducing security risks.

For decades, the bargaining power has been with the insurer. With a revised approach, and in keeping with the demands of today’s cyber landscape, the relationship between insurer and insured has become collaborative as both sides work together to identify and mitigate risk. In this way, cyber insurance becomes an avenue for companies to improve cybersecurity, not to simply offset risk.

Reputational Risk in Their Own Words

Posted on by

Many risk managers are struggling to get their arms around reputation risk. One challenge is that risk, a threat to valued asset or desired outcome, is hard to discuss in modern terms without statistics. Statistics, on the other hand, can be mind-numbing.

First, the accountancies. Eisner & Amper reports that reputation risk has been the number one board concern for each of the past four years. Deloitte concurs on the ranking but emphasizes the strategic nature of reputation risk. E&Y finds reputation risk in international tax matters; PwC finds reputation risk in bribery, corruption and money laundering. Oliver Wyman, a human resource and strategy consultancy, reports that reputation risk is a rising C-suite imperative ranking fourth this year (and third among risk professionals). Reputation risk was fourth in Aon’s 2013 survey. Willis shared data showing that 95% of major companies experienced at least one major reputation event in the past 20 years.

Ace in 2013 reported that 81% of companies told the insurer that reputation was their most important asset. Allianz’s 2014 global survey ranked the risk sixth of the top 10. Rounding out the professions, the 2014 study written by the Economist Intelligence Unit and published by the law firm, Clifford Chance, reported that 74% of U.K. board members see reputation damage as the most worrying consequence of an incident or scandal, ranking it as more serious than the potential direct financial costs, loss of business contracts and even impact on share price.

Anecdotes provide context that can personalize statistics. They can help transform a cerebral conversation about reputation risk to an action plan for managing enterprise reputation risk, protecting long-term enterprise value, and protecting the personal reputations of a company’s leadership.

This week’s anecdotes are exemplary. Goldman Sachs issued a company-wide directive banning its investment bankers from trading individual stocks for their own accounts. The Financial Times reported that “…Goldman told employees it was stopping bankers buying and shorting individual stocks and bonds to ‘help mitigate potential conflicts between firm personnel and clients . . . while helping the firm better manage reputational risk.’”

Across the pond after settling with U.S. and U.K. regulators, Lloyd’s Banking Group dismissed eight employees and clawed back bonuses for the rigging of the London interbank offered rate and related benchmarks. “Significant reputational damage and financial cost to the group are fully and fairly reflected in the options considered in relation to other staff bonus payments,” is how Chairman Norman Blackwell explained the personnel actions, according to Bloomberg.

The Daily Mail finds worrisome the loss of market share from 30.2% to 28.8% for Tesco, which currently reports annual sales of £65 billion ($105 billion). But given that the losses may have been intentionally contrived by senior management is mind boggling. “Most disturbingly of all is the reputational damage, which could linger for years.”

In contrast, Nishit Madlani, an analyst at S&P, is finding encouraging signs at General Motors. “The company’s performance over recent months has shown that recalls haven’t impacted sales. Reputational damage did not transpire, for the most part,” Bloomberg reported.

The statistics affirm reputation is top of mind. To make reputation risk actionable for a risk manager means understanding from the anecdotes that it is a going-forward risk affecting all stakeholder behaviors. Reputation damage will impact sales, credit ratings, regulatory scrutiny and executive compensation. Managing risk to reputation requires an enterprise-level strategic solution that, were it to think about it, senior management would demand today.

Are Drone Cargo Ships the Next Step in Supply Chain Automation?

Posted on by

Rolls Royce Drone Ships

Ahoy, robots!

The $375 billion shipping industry, which carries 90% of world trade, is next in line for drones to take over—at least, that’s what Rolls-Royce Holdings is betting on. The London-based engine manufacturer’s Blue Ocean development team has already set up a virtual-reality prototype in its Norwegian office that simulates 360-degree views from a vessel’s bridge.

buy suhagra online rxbio.com/images/milestones/jpg/suhagra.html no prescription pharmacy

The company hopes these advanced camera systems will eventually allow captains in control centers on land to direct crewless ships. The E.U. is funding a $4.8 million study on the technology, and researchers are preparing a prototype for simulated sea trials next year.

“A growing number of vessels are already equipped with cameras that can see at night and through fog and snow—better than the human eye, and more ships are fitted with systems to transmit large volumes of data,” said one Rolls-Royce spokesperson. “Given that the technology is in place, is now the time to move some operations ashore? Is it better to have a crew of 20 sailing in a gale in the North Sea, or say five people in a control room on shore?”

Crew costs of $3,299 a day account for about 44% of total operating expenses for a large container ship, industry accountant and consultant Moore Stephens LLP told Bloomberg News. By loading more cargo and replacing the bridge and other systems that support the crew, such as electricity, air conditioning, water and sewage, ships can cut costs and boost revenue, claims Oskar Levander, Rolls-Royce’s vice president of innovation in marine engineering and technology. The ships would be 5% lighter before loading cargo and would burn 12% to 15% less fuel, he reported.

buy lipitor online rxbio.com/images/milestones/jpg/lipitor.html no prescription pharmacy

Unmanned ships would require captains to operate them remotely and people to repair and unload them in port, but the lack of crew at sea could change the landscape of piracy. Without people to take hostage, the risks would greatly reduce—as would the need for for kidnap and ransom insurance premiums. The material being transported, however, could be even more vulnerable without a human line of defense.

buy nolvadex online rxbio.com/images/milestones/jpg/nolvadex.html no prescription pharmacy

Further, the remote operating system opens the door to digital hijacking from hackers or cybercriminals.

Currently, human error—most notably tied to fatigue—causes most maritime accidents, according to Allianz. But, as the 600,000-member International Transport Workers’ Federation is quick to point out, humans are also the first line of defense in a field plagued by unpredictable conditions. “The human element is one of the first lines of defense in the event of machinery failure and the kind of unexpected and sudden changes of conditions in which the world’s seas specialize,” Dave Heindel, chairman of the ITF’s seafarers’ section, told Bloomberg Businessweek.

Drone cargo ships would represent the latest part of a rapidly automating supply chain. As Wired pointed out, as customers’ desire for ever-more-instant gratification mounts and companies like Amazon find ways to drastically cut shipping costs with technology, consumer pressure may make this too tempting a development to pass up.