ARTICLE
30 November 2017

Harmonising Cyber

HF
Holman Fenwick Willan

Contributor

HFW's origins trace back to the early 19th century with the Holman family's maritime ventures in Topsham, England. They established key marine insurance and protection associations from 1832 to 1870. In 1883, Frank Holman began practicing law in London, founding what would become HFW.

The firm evolved through several partnerships and relocations, adopting the name Holman Fenwick & Willan in 1916. HFW expanded to meet clients' needs, diversifying into aerospace, commodities, construction, energy, insurance, and shipping. Today, it operates 21 offices across the Americas, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia Pacific, making it a leading global law firm.

HFW was among the first UK firms to internationalize, opening offices in Paris (1977) and Hong Kong (1978). Subsequent expansions included Singapore, Piraeus, Shanghai, Dubai, Melbourne, Brussels, Sydney, Geneva, Perth, Houston, Abu Dhabi, Monaco, the BVI, and Shenzhen. HFW also collaborates with Brazil’s top insurance and aviation law firm, CAR.

The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) issued a report last week on the "Commonality of risk assessment language in cyber insurance".
UK Insurance
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

The European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA) issued a report last week on the "Commonality of risk assessment language in cyber insurance". The aim of the report is to encourage and facilitate harmonisation in the cyber insurance market. Its findings and recommendations are valuable reading for those who have an interest in what is probably the fastest growing sector of the insurance industry.

A notable finding of the report is that despite the diversity of cyber insurance products on offer (and consequent buyer confusion) there is considerable consistency between the coverage offered, if one looks past the varying terminology.

In contrast, however, there is lack of uniformity of underwriting practices (as well as policy wordings). This flows from lack of consensus as to which security standards underwriting questionnaires should be based on.

It is of course true that certain cyber threats may pose a higher risk for some sectors than for others, depending on the nature of their business. However, whilst recognising this, the ENISA report makes a strong argument that, notwithstanding valid concerns about competitive advantages, the cyber insurance industry and its future clientele would benefit from greater consistency of both policy wordings and risk assessment. Consistent language in policies would ease product comparison and so make the prospect of buying cyber insurance less bewildering, particularly for small enterprises without dedicated risk managers. At the same time, by progressing towards consensus on the appropriate standards, it is suggested that the sector can move away from underwriting based on value judgement towards a more quantitative approach. This could in turn facilitate better analysis of aggregation or accumulation scenarios, thereby enabling better management of capital and enticing reinsurance capacity.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More