3 ms·

This seems like an overly snarky and patronizing response which mostly dances around the point at hand. You’ve effectively sidestepped the discussion to talk do

This seems like an overly snarky and patronizing response which mostly dances around the point at hand. You’ve effectively sidestepped the discussion to talk down to HN commenters as a whole because you think they’re ignorant of The Way Things Work in risk management and insurance. That’s likely true; it’s also dismissive. Thank you for explaining to us all how insurance works, but to be honest I don’t think that resolves whether or not this claim should be paid. All we’re talking about is whether or not they are right to not pay out this specific claim. Do you have any justification for this being an act of war? What is your position on that particular issue? Your comment portrays a world in which lawyers don’t disagree because they all meticulously defined and agreed to a contract. I think it’s very fair to conjecture neither side thought of this particular scenario, and that as a result, there is a legitimate problem about which reasonable people (and lawyers) disagree. Moreover, I think it’s fair to have the orthogonal - but related - debate about whether or not “acts of war” should be covered, even if they ultimately prove not to be in this scenario. I think it’s okay if we debate this even if we’re not all experts in law, insurance and risk pooling. We’re not directing policy here, we’re commenting on a message board. Note that I’m not crusading against insurance, nor am I saying lawyers are dumb or malicious. But I am trying to convey the very even-handed position that people are fallible. Your comment strikes me as more of a lecture than a substantive response to whether or not fallible people could be making a mistake in rejecting a claim. Consider the spirit of the comment to which you replied - yes, this may turn out to be by the book for this insurance firm. But if that’s the case, it can still be true that potential customers will not want to purchase coverage from them because “act of war” hacking is a risk they want to (quantifiably) share.

patio11 8y ago
As I stated downthread, this claim hitting the exclusion feels very plausible to me. Hostile acts by a foreign government are excluded. The US national security apparatus is so convinced that they have Russia dead to rights on this that they’ve publicized their accusation and evidence. Their accusation is that Russia destabilized core infrastructure in several countries as cyber aircover for the conventional war in eastern Ukraine that no intellectually serious person disputes is happening. I think Zurich is very plausibly right by the letter and spirit of the bespoke contract which they struck with a sophisticated counterparty who had competent legal advice. You should certainly price in the risk that, if you have an uncovered loss that you wish your insurance company would cover, your insurance company will point to the contract and say “Uncovered loss; no.”
jaredklewis 8y ago
> All we’re talking about is whether or not they are right to not pay out this specific claim. Do you have any justification for this being an act of war? What is your position on that particular issue? Not the parent, but the if the hackers are employees of the Russian government and the ransom money was collected by the Russian government, that seems pretty "act of war"-ish to me. If a Russian military submarine held up an American freighter, boarded, commandeered the vessel and took the goods back to Russia, wouldn't that be an act of war? Of course this case is different, but I think it is similar enough that taking this case to court is not at all unreasonable.

patio11 8y ago

As I stated downthread, this claim hitting the exclusion feels very plausible to me. Hostile acts by a foreign government are excluded. The US national security apparatus is so convinced that they have Russia dead to rights on this that they’ve publicized their accusation and evidence. Their accusation is that Russia destabilized core infrastructure in several countries as cyber aircover for the conventional war in eastern Ukraine that no intellectually serious person disputes is happening. I think Zurich is very plausibly right by the letter and spirit of the bespoke contract which they struck with a sophisticated counterparty who had competent legal advice. You should certainly price in the risk that, if you have an uncovered loss that you wish your insurance company would cover, your insurance company will point to the contract and say “Uncovered loss; no.”

jaredklewis 8y ago

> All we’re talking about is whether or not they are right to not pay out this specific claim. Do you have any justification for this being an act of war? What is your position on that particular issue? Not the parent, but the if the hackers are employees of the Russian government and the ransom money was collected by the Russian government, that seems pretty "act of war"-ish to me. If a Russian military submarine held up an American freighter, boarded, commandeered the vessel and took the goods back to Russia, wouldn't that be an act of war? Of course this case is different, but I think it is similar enough that taking this case to court is not at all unreasonable.