Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refuses to Pay

Re:Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refus... by jaredklewis on Saturday February 02, 2019 @07:45PM (#19066964)

As have been pointed out by others, insurance companies are more than happy to cover acts of war in exchange for higher premiums.

Some insurance policies cover acts of god (extremely rare disasters), some don't. They are priced accordingly. I'm sure it is no different with acts of war or anything else.

Insurance companies pretty consistently report ~5% profit margins. Surely if they were simply stealing, their margins would at least be reaching Google levels?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refus... by lazyasciiart on Saturday February 02, 2019 @08:40PM (#19067223)

I don't think low margins is a good way to define not-theft. Golden goose, you know.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refus... by jaredklewis on Saturday February 02, 2019 @10:22PM (#19067618)

Fair enough. Though I guess I just don't see how the argument that insurance companies are "bad guys" has any legs.

Yes, insurance companies only want to pay out when they are contractually obligated to do so. That is patently obvious. If insurance companies paid out when they weren't, insurance would be much more expensive than it is now.

If an insurance company is unsure a situation is contractually covered, they will not pay, and a court will decide the case. Once such ambitious cases are clarified, all future parties benefit.

I don't see anything shady or underhanded about any of this. Especially since it is all basically part of the definition of what an insurance company is!

[ Parent | on HN ]