Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

homothebrave OP t1_j25kjlx wrote

As a judge I would have focused on the intent behind the policy not just the wording. Showing that the insurance issuer acted in bad faith


hamlet9000 t1_j25um00 wrote

"I think you should owe money you don't actually owe because I say so."

Probably a good thing you're not a judge.


CPargermer t1_j25vqdm wrote

Cyber insurance has been around for years though to specifically cover damage from cyber crimes. Like homeowner's insurance covers many things that can happen to your home, but some forms of loss/damage require specific coverage. It's no-more bad faith than than.

Cyber insurance may be priced differently by company based on the specific digital risk and whatever mitigating factors the company have in place (software, hardware, security policies), like physical insurance may be priced differently for physical mitigating factors (fences, locking mechanisms, cameras, security personnel).


OCGHand t1_j290g7n wrote

Cyber Insurance premiums are high now, asking businesses questions, provide proof of their IT process, and sometimes deny their claim when businesses are hit with ransomware because of business negligence in their IT process.


KaliGracious t1_j26418n wrote

There is no bad faith here but the intent of a property policy is not to cover cyber claims. There is no “cyber” in Basic 1 or 2, Broad, or Special. Most property policies have a cyber exclusion on them by this point.


GreenAdvance t1_j25wxd7 wrote

I'm glad you're not a Judge as they made the correct ruling here. The company did not have breach insurance.