On October 17, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued a much-anticipated decision addressing the scope of “Advertising Injury” (“AI”) coverage for patent infringement claims.  Dish Network Corp. v. Arch Specialty Ins. Co., No. 10-1445, __ F.3d __ , 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20955 (10th Cir. 2011), rev’g, 734 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (D. Colo. 2010).  The court, applying Colorado law, reversed a decision from the District of Colorado in which that court granted summary judgment to the insurers.  In the underlying action, the plaintiff alleged that Dish Network Corp. (“Dish”) had infringed one or more of twenty-three patents by “making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling . . . automated telephone systems, including . . . the Dish Network customer service telephone system, that allow[s] Dish’s customers to perform pay-per-view ordering and customer service functions over the telephone.”  The Tenth Circuit concluded that the record was unclear about how Dish actually used the technologies at issue, but that some of the patent-holder’s most well-known innovations involved interactive call processing. 

Read the rest of this entry »

I. Overview

Canada’s privacy regime can be described as a web of legislation at both the federal and provincial/territorial level. Some commentators express concern that this web has become tangled, lacks uniformity and actually undermines the predictability and consistency that, in their view, would exist under a single (federal) privacy regime. Canada has two primary privacy statutes: the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”). The Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21 (Can.), took effect on July 1, 1983, and imposed certain privacy rights obligations on approximately 250 federal government departments and agencies by limiting the use and disclosure of personal information. The Privacy Act also gives individuals the right to access and, if necessary, correct personal information held by governmental organizations subject to the Act.

Read the rest of this entry »

I.                    Introduction

The Internet facilitates the widespread and instantaneous flow of information across international borders.  While the advent of this method of transnational communication has truly created a “global economy,” at the same time, it has engendered problems for companies and their insurers which seek to assess risk and implement information safeguards, particularly in the face of divergent data privacy laws which vary from region to region or may not even exist in certain jurisdictions.  The Asia-Pacific region typifies such a lack of uniformity.  At the same time, the emerging economies in this rapidly growing part of the world have generated promising targets for computer hackers. 

75% of Asia-Pacific enterprises have experienced cyber attacks in the past 12 months.  Perhaps not surprisingly, a 2010 study by Symantec reported that almost half of all Asia-Pacific-based businesses (and 67% in Singapore) ranked cyber risk and information security as their top concern—more so than natural disasters, terrorism, and traditional crime combined.  Cyber attacks and data breaches are on the radar of CEOs and risk managers for good reason: the average cost for a large company to remediate a data breach in Australia increased to nearly $2 million in 2010, which is slightly up from 2009.  See Ponemon Institute/Symantec 2010 Annual Study: Australian Cost of a Data Breach (May 2011).  Notwithstanding the prevalence of such attacks, it is far more likely that a cyber security program is managed as a part of a company’s traditional business risks, with traditional coverages being contorted to cover various components of cyber risk (i.e. property loss, liability to third-parties, business interruption, etc.), rather than by way of a dedicated cyber-specific insurance program.  Still, in light of recent developments, it is virtually certain that companies soon will begin looking to transfer such risk via more efficient and targeted technology insurance forms and policies.   

Read the rest of this entry »

Computer hacking is a constantly evolving and growing threat.  While recent high-profile network security breaches at companies such as Epsilon and Sony (with crisis management and other costs estimated to range from $1 billion to multiples thereof in the case of Sony) have helped raise awareness about the need to adequately protect personal identifiable information, the problem has existed for decades. 

Yet the situation has only recently begun to receive proper attention from the media, government officials, businesses, and certain segments of the insurance industry.  Of course, the cost of a security breach may have something to do with that.  According to a study from Marsh and the Ponemon Institute, the typical data breach in FY 2010 resulted in companies and their insurers have to pay an average of $7.2 million to deal with and remedy the situation. 

One particularly alluring target for hackers has been educational institutions.  While schools and universities may not immediately appear to be obvious targets, the statistics confirm that attacks against educational institutions are on the rise. 

In 2007, educational institutions accounted for 25% of all reported data breaches.  This number jumped to 33% in 2008.  See Sarah Stephens & Shannan Fort, Cyber Liability & Higher Education, Aon Professional Risk Solutions White Paper (December 2008) Read the rest of this entry »