Privacy, as it relates to an individual’s personally identifiable information, such as Social Security numbers, credit card and healthcare data, has become a cause célèbre of federal and state regulators. Increases in the scope of privacy laws continue to fuel a rise in publicly reported corporate data breach incidents. A company that suffers a significant data breach not only confronts the possibility of great financial loss, it may also suffer irreversible reputational damage—fueling a need for privacy insurance. Data breach incidents typically arise from the theft or loss of customers’ and employees’ personally identifiable information, either in an organization’s care and custody or in the custody of its third-party affiliates, vendors or business partners. For the past 15 years, insurance carriers have marketed privacy insurance (also called network security or cyber insurance) to cover the financial losses arising from a data breach. In addition to this risk transfer is a hidden treasure in some privacy policies—access to expert advice and services. Not all privacy insurance products are created equal, however. While most policies and endorsements address both first-party and third-party exposures, there are often wide differences in coverage terms, conditions, exclusions and financial limits.
As patterns of business and trade continue to globalise, shift and grow in complexity, risk managers of international companies are increasingly seeking risk management and insurance solutions that respond to their changing multinational business activities.
Traditionally, demand for multinational insurance solutions has focused on property and casualty risks. However, as the risk environment grows ever more complex, companies are now seeking more robust solutions in respect of emerging risks as well, including environmental risks.
When global companies and private equity firms engage in mergers and acquisitions, they often confront obligations to provide collateral that are associated with the target entity’s insurance programs. These obligations specifically involve past and ongoing financial risks emanating from the deductibles or self-insured retentions that arise under the target entity’s workers compensation, automobile liability and general liability policies. These liabilities, in some cases, may be absorbed by the target entity’s wholly-owned captive insurance facility. Different state regulatory requirements can further complicate the treatment of these obligations to provide collateral.
Similar liabilities affect the acquirer in instances where the target entity has substantial surety bond requirements, which now become the acquirer’s obligation to fulfill and collateralize. How best to address such collateral responsibilities from an efficient risk transfer standpoint is the subject of this ACE Progress Report. The paper builds upon a series of other ACE Progress Reports assessing M&A risks.
Infrastructure investment will need to rise dramatically in the coming decades if countries are to keep pace with the world’s growing population and an increasing need for energy, transport and public services.
Insatiable demand for infrastructure will require the investment of tens – if not hundreds – of trillions of dollars over the next four decades, according to KPMG’s Infrastructure Investment report. Asia alone will require $11 trillion in basic infrastructure investment between now and 2030, with Brazil, Africa, India and China likely to be the markets to watch in the coming years1.
A multinational business travel insurance program can help companies provide comprehensive and consistent protection to all traveling employees in one centrally controlled, compliant solution.