If the tail-end of 2013 wasn’t rocky enough for data security, 2014 thus far has offered no reprieve—ominous and regular reports of massive data breaches affecting all industries and all types of information holders fill the news.

As technological innovation continues to unfold at a torrid clip, the challenges of protecting against theft and fraud have never been greater. Commercial shipping, for example, faces a new and daunting set of technological exposures that can take the form of hacking of a vessel's navigational systems, email-induced surrenders of cargo, and the computer-enabled falsification of shipping documents, just to name a few.

We would like to share the following idea from our captive insurance advisory practice.

Insurance companies often invoke a policy’s cooperation clause to compel a policyholder to share privileged defense information even after the insurance company has reserved the right to deny coverage at a later date.

Recent changes in national case law suggest that a major shift is under way for CGL coverage of property damage to an insured contractor’s own work. Contractors of all tiers, property and project owners and developers, risk managers, and concerned others should watch this development closely.

In the legal industry, the trend in recent years has been toward consolidation, driven by two business goals.

Burd v. Sussex Mutual Insurance Company, 56 N.J. 383 (1970) has flown high over New Jersey insurance law for many years, denying policyholders the defense for which they have contracted.

Credit Default Swaps ("CDS") are part of a $62 trillion market, that have gone from obscure to infamous in a matter of months, if not weeks.

Choosing a domicile for a captive insurance company is a process of elimination.

When health reform took effect on September 23, 2010, in the form of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Reconciliation Act (collectively PPACA), the ground rules changed immediately for the process of appealing claims denials by employer-run health plans.

As corporations deal with continuing "nancial challenges and budget pressures, maximizing insurance coverage and e$ectively transferring risk have never been more critical.

Insurance brokers are among the most important suppliers that any company deals with. Yet, often the arrangement between brokers and their clients consists of nothing more than a broker of record letter, or even a verbal authorization to present insurance proposals.

In the August 2008 issue of Risk Management, we wrote that the U.S. tax treatment of rent-a-captives (aka "cell captives") had been demystified by Revenue Ruling 2008-8 ("Rent-a-Captive Taxes Demystified").

Recent Supreme Court decisions have dramatically revamped the pleading standards that have applied for decades to complaints filed in federal courts.

In our December 2010 "Employment Law Insider Alert", we highlighted the prosecution by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) of a Connecticut ambulance service that had terminated an employee for posting negative comments about her supervisor and employer on Facebook from her home computer.

When reading the fine print of almost any insurance policy, one will see a host of often daunting insurance policy conditions.

Risk distribution, a defining characteristic of an insurance company, continues to be a topic of US tax controversy for captives.

Over the last several years, excess level insurance companies have increasingly disputed and denied insurance coverage to their policyholders when the policyholder settles for less than full policy limits with one of its underlying insurance companies, including the primary level insurance company.

Directors and officers liability insurance is one of the few types of insurance that interests a company’s senior management.

On November 16, 2016, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a law designed to provide better protection for non-employee, freelance workers.