shadowrun456 t1_j25mit5 wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Ohio Supreme Court says insurance policy does not cover ransomware attack on software by homothebrave
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
[deleted]
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments