Wildlife collisions are in the sights of Canadian insurers, particularly between March and June, when wildlife collisions are most frequent.
“The most costly result of these collisions is injury or even death of both the wildlife and the driver,” Aviva Canada notes on its website. “They’re more common than you’d think — a report from Transport Canada found that between four to eight large animal vehicle collisions take place every hour in Canada.”
The Wildlife Collision Prevention Program, an initiative led by the B.C. Conservation Foundation, has a website dedicated to education and prevention of wildlife collisions. It cites statistics showing that about one out of every 25 crashes in 2007 were wildlife crashes, costing B.C.’s public insurer more than $30 million.
Five B.C. drivers were killed in wildlife crashes in 2007 and another 449 were injured.
In addition to paying attention to the road and wildlife signs, Aviva Canada offers the following tips to reduce change of being involved in a wildlife collision:
• Stay in control of the vehicle: Never swerve abruptly, because hitting a tree or moving into oncoming traffic can result in significantly more harm than hitting the animal. Brake firmly if an animal is standing on, or crossing, the road.
• React: If you can’t avoid striking the large animal, be ready to duck inside your car. Big animals weighing well in access of 100 kilograms can come through your windshield and cause severe injuries.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Corporate board directors need to be aware of risk of data breaches in light of regulatory guidance on disclosing cyber threats
U.S. board directors need to be acutely aware of the risk of data breaches at their companies in light of recent regulatory guidance on disclosing cyber threats, according to speakers at a Willis-hosted cyber liability conference in London.
The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance on disclosing cyberthreats in October 2011.
“The SEC guidance is a useful wake-up call to the risks of data breaches for boards everywhere but [boards] now have a delicate balancing act,” Francis Kean of Willis Group Holdings told the audience on Mar. 13. “The problem with exposing cyber breaches is you don’t want to provide a route map to hackers or potential plaintiffs down the road, but you also don’t want to expose yourself to a shareholder class action.”
Kean stressed the need for boards to better understand emerging cyber threats.
“There is a whole universe of potential cyber risk not understood at a board level,” he said. “Their fiduciary duties require them to gain some understanding of the cyber threat faced by their companies and to ensure adequate and proportionate procedures are adopted to mitigate the consequences of a serious data breach.”
The SEC guidance was issued to address concerns that investors could not assess security risks properly if companies failed to disclose data breaches in their public findings.
Some of the SEC’s expectations about disclosure call for specifics: “A registrant may need to disclose known or threatened cyber incidents to place the discussion of cybersecurity risks in context,” the SEC guidance says.
“For example, if a registrant experienced a material cyber attack in which malware was embedded in its systems and customer data was compromised, it likely would not be sufficient for the registrant to disclose that there is a risk that such an attack may occur.
“Instead, as part of a broader discussion of malware or other similar attacks that pose a particular risk, the registrant may need to discuss the occurrence of the specific attack and its known and potential costs and other consequences.”
At another panel at the event, Jeremy Smith, Willis’ cyber liabilities practice leader, discussed the development of cyber liability insurance.
“The convergence of cyber coverage in recent years was largely due to a lack of sophisticated claims data and significant increases in cyber crime,” Smith said.
Now, however, Smith observed that brokers are now pushing for further innovation from the market and have managed to secure additional coverage for PCI fines, third party vendors and terrorism.
Also, advanced persistent threats (APTs), such as the Aurora virus and Nightdragon, are the next challenge for the insurance industry according to Smith. “APTs are sustained attacks designed to steal intellectual property over a number of years. The insurance industry hasn’t fully tackled this threat yet, but I hope that brokers and insurers will find a solution together in the future.” he said.
The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued guidance on disclosing cyberthreats in October 2011.
“The SEC guidance is a useful wake-up call to the risks of data breaches for boards everywhere but [boards] now have a delicate balancing act,” Francis Kean of Willis Group Holdings told the audience on Mar. 13. “The problem with exposing cyber breaches is you don’t want to provide a route map to hackers or potential plaintiffs down the road, but you also don’t want to expose yourself to a shareholder class action.”
Kean stressed the need for boards to better understand emerging cyber threats.
“There is a whole universe of potential cyber risk not understood at a board level,” he said. “Their fiduciary duties require them to gain some understanding of the cyber threat faced by their companies and to ensure adequate and proportionate procedures are adopted to mitigate the consequences of a serious data breach.”
The SEC guidance was issued to address concerns that investors could not assess security risks properly if companies failed to disclose data breaches in their public findings.
Some of the SEC’s expectations about disclosure call for specifics: “A registrant may need to disclose known or threatened cyber incidents to place the discussion of cybersecurity risks in context,” the SEC guidance says.
“For example, if a registrant experienced a material cyber attack in which malware was embedded in its systems and customer data was compromised, it likely would not be sufficient for the registrant to disclose that there is a risk that such an attack may occur.
“Instead, as part of a broader discussion of malware or other similar attacks that pose a particular risk, the registrant may need to discuss the occurrence of the specific attack and its known and potential costs and other consequences.”
At another panel at the event, Jeremy Smith, Willis’ cyber liabilities practice leader, discussed the development of cyber liability insurance.
“The convergence of cyber coverage in recent years was largely due to a lack of sophisticated claims data and significant increases in cyber crime,” Smith said.
Now, however, Smith observed that brokers are now pushing for further innovation from the market and have managed to secure additional coverage for PCI fines, third party vendors and terrorism.
Also, advanced persistent threats (APTs), such as the Aurora virus and Nightdragon, are the next challenge for the insurance industry according to Smith. “APTs are sustained attacks designed to steal intellectual property over a number of years. The insurance industry hasn’t fully tackled this threat yet, but I hope that brokers and insurers will find a solution together in the future.” he said.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Drivers aged 56-60 pay less for auto insurance than 41-45 age group - unless they live in Ontario
Canadian drivers in the 56-60 age category can pay an average of up to $15 per month less for car insurance premiums than younger drivers in the 41-45 age bracket — unless you live in Ontario.
InsureEye Inc., a Canadian company providing independent online services to help consumers better understand and manage their insurance, found that Ontario drivers in the 56-60 age group pays roughly the same ($144 per month) as the 41-45 group ($146 per month).
“Interestingly, Ontario premiums are stuck in the past,” InsureEye Inc. said in its analysis. “The 56-60 group in Ontario hardly saves in comparison with the 41-45 crowd, and still pays around $144/month.”
Overall, Canadians’ average auto insurance premiums decrease by approximately 15% during a lifetime.
InsurEye’s study showed an average Canadian in the 25-30 age bracket pays $130 per month for auto insurance, with men paying $140 and women spending $123 monthly. Costs vary across provinces, and in Ontario the average premium for this youth segment was as high as $163 per month.
As might be expected, as drivers become more experienced, their premiums decrease. The study found drivers in the 41-45 age bracket paid an average of $115 per month for auto insurance, with the men paying $117 per month and the women paying $113 per month.
In the 56-60 age category, premiums across Canada averaged $108 monthly — $109 for men and $108 for women
InsureEye Inc., a Canadian company providing independent online services to help consumers better understand and manage their insurance, found that Ontario drivers in the 56-60 age group pays roughly the same ($144 per month) as the 41-45 group ($146 per month).
“Interestingly, Ontario premiums are stuck in the past,” InsureEye Inc. said in its analysis. “The 56-60 group in Ontario hardly saves in comparison with the 41-45 crowd, and still pays around $144/month.”
Overall, Canadians’ average auto insurance premiums decrease by approximately 15% during a lifetime.
InsurEye’s study showed an average Canadian in the 25-30 age bracket pays $130 per month for auto insurance, with men paying $140 and women spending $123 monthly. Costs vary across provinces, and in Ontario the average premium for this youth segment was as high as $163 per month.
As might be expected, as drivers become more experienced, their premiums decrease. The study found drivers in the 41-45 age bracket paid an average of $115 per month for auto insurance, with the men paying $117 per month and the women paying $113 per month.
In the 56-60 age category, premiums across Canada averaged $108 monthly — $109 for men and $108 for women
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)