Smaller Companies Should Consider Cyber-Liability Insurance

   By Kevin M. LaCroix, Esq., Executive Vice President, OakBridge Insurance Services

Smaller companies increasingly are the subject of data breaches and those smaller companies "are the number-one target of cyber-espionage attackers," according to a recent study detailed in a April 24, 2013 CFO.com article entitled "Should You Consider Cyber Insurance?" (here). Smaller companies increasingly are the subject of cyber attacks due to "inadequate security infrastructure for protecting financial information, customer data and intellectual property."

As the cyber threats "become more pervasive," smaller businesses are "taking out insurance policies designed to bolster their protection form the potentially crippling costs that can accompany data breaches and other cyber attacks." Take up for this product is, according to the article, particularly strong for companies in the high-technology, financial services and health-care industries. As the article explains, these policies may be particularly valuable for smaller companies that lack the resources to undertake as robust of a preventive program as a larger company might.

As the article explains, the policies provide both first-party coverage (such as notification costs) and also protect against third party liability claims (such as lawsuits for damages). In a serious incident, this insurance protection, according to one commentator quoted in the article "can sometimes be a life-or-death issue for smaller companies." The policies also cover forensic IT examinations to determine how a breach occurred and some policies even provide for public relations services to mitigate negative publicity. Again, these services could be particularly valuable for a smaller company that may not have sufficient crisis management resources available.

This type of insurance is of course no substitute for proactive cybersecurity risk management, "such as sound data-protection protocols and employee education." In any event, as part of the application process, the insurance company will want reassurance that these kinds of efforts and protocols are in place. The insurance provides company owners and managers reassurance that the company will be able to weather the storm if problems do emerge.

According to the article, as news about cyber breaches become increasingly common, more and more companies will conclude that the cost-benefit analysis weighs in favor or purchasing this type of insurance.

Read more at The D & O Diary.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site.

View the original article here

Katy Perry Opens Up On Suicidal Thoughts : ‘I Asked Myself If I Should Continue Living’

 Katy Perry may be celebrated for her ever upbeat nature, but she has now revealed her divorce from British comedian Russell Brand forced her to contemplate suicide, revealing this during an interview with Billboard.

An honest Katy below…

An excerpt from the piece reads:

“But it’s not always party time on “PRISM.” Self-help and astrological references abound on tracks like “Spiritual” and “Legendary Lovers,” reflecting Perry’s recent immersion in Transcendental Meditation and mindfulness therapy. Elsewhere, Perry pointedly confronts her turbulent recent history. The line “You sent a text/It’s like the wind changed your mind” from “Ghost” references how Brand delivered the news he wanted a divorce.

“By the Grace of God,” meanwhile, begins with Perry lying on the floor of a bathroom, fighting suicidal thoughts. “That song is evident of how tough it really was at a certain point. I asked myself, ‘Do I want to endure? Should I continue living?’” Perry says. “All the songs are real-life moments. I can only write autobiographically. I put all the evidence in the music. I tell my fans if they want to know the real truth about stuff, just listen to the songs.”

Source.

View the original article here

Chip Kelly: “In hindsight, maybe we should have bled the clock”

Posted by Michael David Smith on September 16, 2013, 10:25 AM EDT Getty Images

Chip Kelly’s hurry-up offense has caused everyone who follows the NFL to take notice in the first two weeks of the season. But while Kelly’s strengths as an offensive schemer are easily apparent, we’re also starting to see some of the weaknesses of his approach.

One of those weaknesses is that Kelly’s offense is always hurrying, even in situations when it would be strategically smarter to take some time off the clock. Kelly acknowledged after Sunday’s loss to the Chargers that on the Eagles’ last offensive drive, it might have made more sense to try to take some time off the clock with a slower, more methodical drive than to kick the game-tying field goal with 1:51 remaining, which gave San Diego enough time to drive down the field for their own game-winning field goal.

“I was trying to score; that’s all on me, that’s my call,” Kelly said on WIP, via Philly.com. “I didn’t want it to leave it in the hands of, it’s a tie ballgame. If you score, you’re up four. You got to drive a length of the field to try to score a touchdown. When you look at it in hindsight, maybe we should have bled the clock and not giving them enough time to come down and do it. You learn from those situations. But we were trying to score seven, not three. We felt like we had three, and just thought we had the opportunity to put one in there, and we didn’t get it. We didn’t capitalize.”

Obviously, Kelly is right that playing for a touchdown is better than playing for a field goal. But the Eagles could have played for a touchdown while also managing the clock better than they did. Whether the Eagles were going to score a field goal or a touchdown, they should have tried to do so with as little time remaining as possible, to give the Chargers as little time as possible on their subsequent possession. Instead, the Eagles stayed in hurry-up mode even after they got to the Chargers’ 14-yard line with two and a half minutes to play. At the very least, the Eagles should have let the clock run to force the Chargers to use their timeouts. But they didn’t, and the Chargers had two timeouts and plenty of time for their final drive.

So far, it looks like Kelly’s offensive schemes from Oregon translate to the NFL. But Kelly rarely had to worry about clock management in close games at Oregon, because his Oregon teams usually won by large margins. Clock management is a skill Kelly still needs to learn.

Tweet Email

View the original article here

Officials should have thrown flag for hit on Floyd

Posted by Mike Florio on September 15, 2013, 8:16 PM EDT

Getty Images

Chargers receiver Malcom Floyd exited Sunday’s win over the Eagles with a potentially serious injury.  It happened on a play during which the officials should have thrown a flag.

Per a league source, Floyd was still in a defenseless posture when he was hit in the head by Eagles linebacker DeMeco Ryans.  An easy rule of thumb in this regard is that, if the pass the player drops after the contact is deemed to be incomplete, it means the player didn’t have the ball long enough to finish the catch.  Which means that he didn’t have the time to protect himself against a blow to the head or neck.

Even though Floyd dipped his head into the contact, it’s strict liability.  If a player in a defenseless posture is struck in the head, a flag should be thrown.

Floyd’s role in putting himself in harm’s way could help Ryans avoid a fine.  But the failure to throw the flag won’t keep the officials involved from having their performance for the day downgraded.

Peter King reported during Football Night in America that Floyd was cleared to fly back to San Diego with the Chargers.  His status otherwise is unknown.

Tweet Email

View the original article here