This needs a diagram to figure it out, but wouldn’t this kinda be like a contractor where you require a certain amount of insurance if you want to contract business? (In this case you need prob 10 million? in crime coverage)
I think the finding of the Dallas court makes sense. This was not a first-party loss, so a first-party crime policy shouldn’t respond. This is a third-party ‘care, custody, and control’ issue. This coverage is available from some cyber liability policies as Wrongful Transfer or Misdirected Payment liability, but sub-limited with good reason.
Betting there will be an appeal on this one – if not, maybe one very painful E&O claim.
This needs a diagram to figure it out, but wouldn’t this kinda be like a contractor where you require a certain amount of insurance if you want to contract business? (In this case you need prob 10 million? in crime coverage)
What’s with the apostrophes in the title of the article?
I think the finding of the Dallas court makes sense. This was not a first-party loss, so a first-party crime policy shouldn’t respond. This is a third-party ‘care, custody, and control’ issue. This coverage is available from some cyber liability policies as Wrongful Transfer or Misdirected Payment liability, but sub-limited with good reason.