I’m not unsympathetic to the insurance company here. The intent of this language is “We did not sign up to take on Russia. We are willing to do that, but it isn’t free.”
The intent of the language doesn't matter in the least. What matters is the language itself and the meeting of minds that existed when the policy was purchased. Cyberattacks, whether perpetrated by Russians or the script kiddie down the street, do not fall under anyone's legal definition of "war."
If I'm wrong about that, then great -- now we can legitimately bring up the subject of treason charges against those who were complicit in the DNC hack and subsequent email dissemination.
I suspect you'll be a lot more sympathetic when you file a claim and your insurance company interprets your policy on the basis of a dictionary they wrote themselves.
Per the article, the exclusion was "a hostile or warlike action in time of peace or war.", and part of the argument is based on the fact that the US government labeled it as a russian campaign to destabilize other countries (https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-pr...). That's not just the insurance company redefining words there...
Once again, defining cyberattacks as "war" or even "warlike" would have profound implications well beyond the confines of the insurance industry. These definitions are not left open to opinion for some very good reasons.
This insurance company is going to lose. It's simply unbelievable that people here are defending them, even on a site known for turning devil's advocacy into a religion.
We'll see, I don't think it's clear cut how it'll pan out. I agree that this definition is a line that's tiptoed around a lot, with one the one hand them being clearly seen as a tool of the military, and the US administrations making statements that they consider military strikes a possible response to cyber attacks, and on the other hand lots of careful warning about the risks of doing so, the problems with attributions, attacks being handled on a civil level, ..., but the former half could be enough. Especially if the attack is put into context of the existing war/conflict in the region, qualifying it as part of the conflict might come easier than if it were a standalone attack without this context.
It's not like the courts opinion would force a change in the government position, and governments don't necessarily treat all examples of conventional state aggression as war (or at least not as war they want to concern themselves with) either.
The intent of the language doesn't matter in the least. What matters is the language itself and the meeting of minds that existed when the policy was purchased. Cyberattacks, whether perpetrated by Russians or the script kiddie down the street, do not fall under anyone's legal definition of "war."
If I'm wrong about that, then great -- now we can legitimately bring up the subject of treason charges against those who were complicit in the DNC hack and subsequent email dissemination.
I suspect you'll be a lot more sympathetic when you file a claim and your insurance company interprets your policy on the basis of a dictionary they wrote themselves.