CheithS t1_j25pa0c wrote on December 29, 2022 at 9:12 PM

Looks like a pretty sensible ruling based on what was published.

If you want coverage for something then buy that type of coverage!

Seems to me the company was negligent, if anything, by not getting themselves appropriate coverage - no doubt to pinch a few more dollars - and them blames someone else.

Killerbean83 t1_j26dzb7 wrote on December 29, 2022 at 11:58 PM

Over here the problem is not the cost of the insurance. The problem is renegotiating the price for the new one if you claimed it.

Funny thing is that almost everyone has a fire insurance, the change is like 1 out of 10.000 or something that it happens to you. Cybercrime attacks are around 1 out of 8 these days.

YnotBbrave t1_j28rwoj wrote on December 30, 2022 at 1:51 PM

If there is a high likelihood of cyber attack then real premiums will be sky high

StephBGreat t1_j28wb9s wrote on December 30, 2022 at 2:27 PM

It’s most definitely a hard market.

danielisbored t1_j29klve wrote on December 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM

Cyberinsurance is hella high, and to qualify you have to pass a strict security audit. So they cover themselves on both ends, high premiums and enforcing policies that reduce the chance of a payout. Most mom and pops won't be able to buy into such plans and just have to absorb the risk.

YnotBbrave t1_j2d28by wrote on December 31, 2022 at 9:52 AM

That’s the world we created by tolerating cyber crime

I would like to see crack cia assassin teams finding hackers and shooting them all around the world, as a way to stop the legitimacy of cyber crime, but instead we get crimes criminals getting probation. Well we get what we pay for/vote for

lookmeat t1_j26qbla wrote on December 30, 2022 at 1:27 AM

This was, to the company, a reasonable risk. They already had a loss, large enough that it was worth it to get lawyers and try to argue as hard as they could. Sometimes you do the math and spending thousands for a 1% shot at recovering millions of worth it.

Negligence is the correct assessment, but more often than not it's lack of understanding, but penny pinching. At least you wouldn't see them spending this much on lawyers. People get experts to make certain things are safe, but many don't understand that IT person is not a cyber security expert. For all we know this court theater was to argue they were legitimately lead to believe they were covered for this situation and therefore can point at someone else.

That said this is based on generalisms, and I've seen a lot of companies with serious mismanagement. This specific case could certainly be the case of someone who would not listen to reason or advise. All I'm stating here is, as far as I can tell, there's not enough info to be reasonably certain.

Mr_ToDo t1_j29tguv wrote on December 30, 2022 at 6:08 PM

Not that I disagree, but did they know it was available?

How many different options exist? I know I didn't know that house to curb utility insurance existed as an option for years, but it does. Does having something, purely as an option that's not disclosed make it enough of a defence to not pay out? how many other options do I not know about?

clickwir t1_j26vccz wrote on December 30, 2022 at 2:04 AM

That just seems like a quick way to spiral out of covering anything and coming up with little policies to cover lots of little things.

That's just more expensive and seems like a way for insurance companies to weasel out of their job while at the same time blaming the customer and trying to pull in more money.