We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Insurance Groups Oppose Latest Insurance Data Security Model Draft

    August 30, 2016 by Thomas Harman

    SAN DIEGO – Insurance industry officials panned the latest draft of a National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ insurance data security model law, with some vowing to oppose it should it ultimately be offered as state legislation.

    Various industry representatives voiced their opinions to the NAIC cybersecurity task force during the NAIC Summer National Meeting. Panel Chairman Adam Hamm, North Dakota insurance commissioner and an NAIC past-president, said a Sept. 16 written comment deadline has been set and said a conference call to discuss comments would follow.

    Hamm has said he wants to have the document approved sometime before the NAIC Fall National Meeting in Miami this December. Doing so would allow state lawmakers to begin using it to write model legislation before the 2017 session and would allow states to ask Congress to carve out insurance provisions in any data-breach cybersecurity legislation to come (Best’s News Service, June 24, 2016).

    But insurance industry groups responding to the second attempt at the model opposed it just as they did an initial draft offered earlier this year.

    Roberta Meyer, vice president and associate general counsel at the American Council of Life Insurers, said despite some changes in the first draft, fundamental concerns remain, including the need to create data breach uniformity among states, 47 of which have passed their own laws in that area. “It is our view that unless the model provides for exclusive standards within individual states and uniform standards for security in a breach notification to be consistently enforced, and to provide uniform or level consumer protection from state to state, then respectfully we would submit that we do not see a need to pursue the model,” she said.

    Robert Woody, vice president of policy at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, said while the second draft improved on the original, problems remain. He said uniformity to avoid having companies deal with a patchwork of state laws remains the goal. “If we don’t achieve that with this draft, then we’re not really sure what the point of it is,” he said.

    Woody said the new draft lacks a harm threshold that would trigger breach notices. “We don’t consider that to be consumer friendly because you end up bombarding consumers with a lot of notices about things that don’t really harm them,” he said. PCI members have told its officers the latest draft still contains a too-broad definition of personal information, which Woody said includes “a lot of things that are not very sensitive.”

    Wes Bissett, senior counsel, government affairs for the Independent Insurance Agents & Brokers of America, said the Big I was “incredibly concerned” about the latest draft. Problems pertain to the new third-party service provider provisions and the expanded definition of personal information. Bissett said even if such a document had industry support, it would be a hard sell to state legislatures. “It’s not a slam dunk,” he said. “With this model, what we would be asking state legislatures to do is to alter the existing data security breach statutes that are in place in just about every state and set new rules in place just for one industry — for us — that would be different than any other type of business out there and I suspect that some legislatures would view that with skepticism.”

    “We would be opposing legislation of this nature or something similar to it in state capitols in 2017 and beyond,” he said. “The most recent draft that was released last week continues to have some of the fundamental problems that we have identified in the past.”

    Bissett said the Big I would continue working with regulators on the draft, but urged regulators on the task force to meet with domestic insurance industry representatives, along with agents and brokers, to discuss the impact it might have.

    Karalee Morell, vice president and assistant general counsel at the Reinsurance Association of America, told Best’s News Service the current draft still has of concern. “You wouldn’t want speed to inhibit the completion of a law that actually makes sense and is workable and would benefit industry as well as consumers,” she said.

    (By Thomas Harman, Washington Bureau manager, BestWeek: Tom.Harman@ambest.com)

    BN-NJ-8-29-2016 1628 ET #

    Originally Posted at AM Best on August 29, 2016 by Thomas Harman.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency