The insurance company Ace American has to pay for the losses:
On 6th December 2021, the New Jersey Superior Court granted partial summary judgment (attached) in favour of Merck and International Indemnity, declaring that the War or Hostile Acts exclusion was inapplicable to the dispute.
Merck suffered US$1.4 billion in business interruption losses from the Notpetya cyber attack of 2017 which were claimed against “all risks” property re/insurance policies providing coverage for losses resulting from destruction or corruption of computer data and software.
The parties disputed whether the Notpetya malware which affected Merck’s computers in 2017 was an instrument of the Russian government, so that the War or Hostile Acts exclusion would apply to the loss.
The Court noted that Merck was a sophisticated and knowledgeable party, but there was no indication that the exclusion had been negotiated since it was in standard language. The Court, therefore, applied, under New Jersey law, the doctrine of construction of insurance contracts that gives prevalence to the reasonable expectations of the insured, even in exceptional circumstances when the literal meaning of the policy is plain.
Merck argued that the attack was not “an official state action,” which I’m surprised wasn’t successfully disputed.
Slashdot thread.
The insurance company Ace American has to pay for the losses:
On 6th December 2021, the New Jersey Superior Court granted partial summary judgment (attached) in favour of Merck and International Indemnity, declaring that the War or Hostile Acts exclusion was inapplicable to the dispute.
Merck suffered US$1.4 billion in business interruption losses from the Notpetya cyber attack of 2017 which were claimed against “all risks” property re/insurance policies providing coverage for losses resulting from destruction or corruption of computer data and software.
The parties disputed whether the Notpetya malware which affected Merck’s computers in 2017 was an instrument of the Russian government, so that the War or Hostile Acts exclusion would apply to the loss.
The Court noted that Merck was a sophisticated and knowledgeable party, but there was no indication that the exclusion had been negotiated since it was in standard language. The Court, therefore, applied, under New Jersey law, the doctrine of construction of insurance contracts that gives prevalence to the reasonable expectations of the insured, even in exceptional circumstances when the literal meaning of the policy is plain.
Merck argued that the attack was not “an official state action,” which I’m surprised wasn’t successfully disputed.
Slashdot thread.
More Stories
Friday Squid Blogging: Squid Sticker
A sticker for your water bottle. Blog moderation policy. Read More
Italy’s Data Protection Watchdog Issues €15m Fine to OpenAI Over ChatGPT Probe
OpenAI must also initiate a six-month public awareness campaign across Italian media, explaining how it processes personal data for AI...
Ukraine’s Security Service Probes GRU-Linked Cyber-Attack on State Registers
The Security Service of Ukraine has accused Russian-linked actors of perpetrating a cyber-attack against the state registers of Ukraine Read...
LockBit Admins Tease a New Ransomware Version
The LockBitSupp persona said LockBit 4.0 will be launched in February 2025 Read More
Webcams and DVRs Vulnerable to HiatusRAT, FBI Warns
The FBI has issued a warning about the Hiatus RAT malware targeting Xiongmai and Hikvision web cameras and DVRs, urging...
CISA Urges Encrypted Messaging After Salt Typhoon Hack
The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency recommended users turn on phishing-resistant MFA and switch to Signal-like apps for messaging...