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: Protecting Cephalopods in Medical Research
From Nature: Cephalopods such as octopuses and squid could soon receive the same legal protection as mice and monkeys do...
Russian Company Offers $20M For Non-NATO Mobile Exploits
Operation Zero will pay $20m for exploits like RCE, LPE and SBX, integral to a full-chain attack Read More
Microsoft’s Bing AI Faces Malware Threat From Deceptive Ads
Malwarebytes said the goal of these tactics is to lure victims into downloading malicious software Read More
Phishing, Smishing Surge Targets US Postal Service
The surge in these attacks has prompted DomainTools to delve into their origins and implications Read More
Three men found guilty of laundering $2.5 million in Target gift card tech support scam
Three Californian residents have been convicted of laundering millions of dollars tricked out of older adults who had fallen victim...
ZeroFont trick makes users think that message has been scanned for threats
Attackers are using the "ZeroFont" technique to manipulate the preview of a message to suggest it had already been scanned...