Regularly paying out vaguely-calculated $100 million claims wouldn't bode well for their long-term existence either. I'm guessing that Zurich did their own assessment of the losses and came up with a much, much lower number. The article states that they were originally willing to pay $10 million. Before casting aspersions on Zurich, we should take a critical look at how Mondelez calculated $100 million of losses.
Mondelez likely threatened Zurich with extensive lawsuits when they realized the companies were an order of magnitude apart (10 vs 100mm), and Zurich threatened back with their version of Judge Smalls -- you'll get nothing, and like it!
To a commentator below who doubted they could prove Act of War conclusively in court: they will never have to -- this would be a civil case, they only have to achieve "more likely than not," which may not be difficult given the extensive declarations, as mentioned in the article, from FBI, DoD, Pentagon, etc.
US jurisprudence may be different from the Australian law I studied, but as I understand it the "more likely than not" applies to the facts in a civil case not to the legal issue of what constitutes an act of war. That is a question of existing legal precedent and statute law. If there isn't a clear legal definition of cyber war they may indeed have a difficult time proving that cyber attacks are an act of war. But they may think it is worth the effort to try and establish a precedent.
"Mondelez likely threatened Zurich with extensive lawsuits when they realized the companies were an order of magnitude apart (10 vs 100mm), and Zurich threatened back with their version of Judge Smalls -- you'll get nothing, and like it!"
It's easy to grin, when your ship comes in, and you've got the stock market beat ... but the man who's worthwhile, is the man who can smile, when his pants are too tight in the seat!
I hope the courts study this carefully before giving a judgement - ultimately this can open a can of worms if insurance companies were to claim every malware infection as an "act of war".
Mondelez likely threatened Zurich with extensive lawsuits when they realized the companies were an order of magnitude apart (10 vs 100mm), and Zurich threatened back with their version of Judge Smalls -- you'll get nothing, and like it!
To a commentator below who doubted they could prove Act of War conclusively in court: they will never have to -- this would be a civil case, they only have to achieve "more likely than not," which may not be difficult given the extensive declarations, as mentioned in the article, from FBI, DoD, Pentagon, etc.