Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

shadowrun456 t1_j25mit5 wrote

It wasn't an absurd ruling thought. Do you really think the description "direct physical damage" (which the insurance was for) should apply to damage from hacks and ransomware?


[deleted] t1_j25qxl0 wrote



chrometoucan t1_j25wkow wrote

What is ambiguous here? They excluded digital data by saying physical…


Sorge74 t1_j260uj6 wrote

I mean is digital data physical? I mean yes it's not magic.


GreenAdvance t1_j25w6vc wrote

You didn't answer the question. To add, what is ambiguous about "direct physical damage"?

This is why you have breach insurance that includes a ransomware policy.

The appellate court was the one that made an absurd ruling on the level of "it's a series of tubes". Ransomware or any other loss of data does not constitute physical loss or damage.


devman0 t1_j2695wv wrote

In this case they got it right, this would be like saying your homeowners or renters insurance should cover losses due to a ransomware attack, which is patently absurd..

The case was bad on its merits and the rule is fine. If you want cyber security insurance you should buy an appropriate policy.