<story><title>Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refuses to Pay</title><url>https://ridethelightning.senseient.com/2019/01/insurance-company-says-notpetya-is-an-act-of-war-refuses-to-pay.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>patio11</author><text>The thing you’re buying from an insurance company is “Can you pay me in case of a covered claim?” not “Can you pay me if I need money because something bad happened?” If you buy medical insurance and file a claim because your house burned down, expect not to get money. If you file a claim which falls into the policy exclusions which are briefed at excruciating length and which you had your lawyers review because you are a professional risk manager and know this policy’s value to you is potentially nine figures, expect to not get money.&lt;p&gt;The reason companies with very intelligent risk managers keep paying Zurich money is that &lt;i&gt;Zurich reliably pays out covered claims&lt;/i&gt;, as you would expect from a highly-regulated entity. HN’s incredulity about insurance companies routinely paying out claims staggers the imagination. They’re highly regulated publicly traded companies which denominated claims expenses in (in this case) billions of dollars; that isn’t code for “Psych we actually just bought &lt;i&gt;mountains&lt;/i&gt; of cocaine and would have successfully hoodwinked all counterparties, regulators, and courts but for the diligence of Internet commenters.”</text></item><item><author>tudorconstantin</author><text>I wonder how that insurance company expects to continue business. If they don&amp;#x27;t pay in case of damage, why would anyone buy insurance from them?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>JJMcJ</author><text>Now and then, insurance companies will pull fast ones.  E.g., insured dies of heart attack two years after buying policy, preexisting condition even though preexisting exclusions go away after one year according to policy.&lt;p&gt;Put mostly the dim view of insurance companies comes from health insurance in the US, which is a catastrophe.&lt;p&gt;Or someone gets cut rate car insurance and has trouble with a claim.  How do you think they keep the rates so low?</text></comment>
<story><title>Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refuses to Pay</title><url>https://ridethelightning.senseient.com/2019/01/insurance-company-says-notpetya-is-an-act-of-war-refuses-to-pay.html</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>patio11</author><text>The thing you’re buying from an insurance company is “Can you pay me in case of a covered claim?” not “Can you pay me if I need money because something bad happened?” If you buy medical insurance and file a claim because your house burned down, expect not to get money. If you file a claim which falls into the policy exclusions which are briefed at excruciating length and which you had your lawyers review because you are a professional risk manager and know this policy’s value to you is potentially nine figures, expect to not get money.&lt;p&gt;The reason companies with very intelligent risk managers keep paying Zurich money is that &lt;i&gt;Zurich reliably pays out covered claims&lt;/i&gt;, as you would expect from a highly-regulated entity. HN’s incredulity about insurance companies routinely paying out claims staggers the imagination. They’re highly regulated publicly traded companies which denominated claims expenses in (in this case) billions of dollars; that isn’t code for “Psych we actually just bought &lt;i&gt;mountains&lt;/i&gt; of cocaine and would have successfully hoodwinked all counterparties, regulators, and courts but for the diligence of Internet commenters.”</text></item><item><author>tudorconstantin</author><text>I wonder how that insurance company expects to continue business. If they don&amp;#x27;t pay in case of damage, why would anyone buy insurance from them?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>chiph</author><text>The debate here is whether it was a covered claim or not.&lt;p&gt;A reasonable person would certainly think that a policy sold as cyber insurance would cover a cyber attack.  And presumably a large multinational like Mondelez would have had the policy reviewed by their legal department before signing and paying the premiums.&lt;p&gt;So far as regulations - in the US standard types of policies (such as auto, home, etc.) are regulated by the states not the feds.  A policy that isn&amp;#x27;t one of those likely has very few regulations around it.  In which case the policy language (aka the contract) governs the relationship.&lt;p&gt;If Zurich wanted to limit the total damages, they should have put that in the policy. And then resell some of that risk to a reinsuror.&lt;p&gt;This is going to have to be settled in the courts.  But in the meantime, I would be hesitant to purchase any cyber insurance from Zurich (or any other insuror) because of the uncertainty that a claim would be paid that this action introduces.</text></comment>