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

Re:Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refus... by benologist on Saturday February 02, 2019 @09:06PM (#19067318)

If California had investigated 100 of Anthem's paying customers' cancelled policies at random, instead of 90, and found 100 were illegally cancelled because of the cost instead of the 90 out of 90 they found to be illegally cancelled because of the cost, would it be stealing then?

What is it if it's not stealing when you take people's money in exchange for a service but illegally close their account and keep the money they paid instead of providing the service?

    In May 2014, Anthem Blue Cross refused to pay for the 
    hospitalization of a Sonoma County, California man for 
    stage four cancers, although he had paid Anthem over 
    $100,000.00 in premiums.[61][62] Anthem ended up paying 
    for coverage following public outcry.[63].

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refus... by jaredklewis on Saturday February 02, 2019 @10:11PM (#19067570)

You are making the following argument:

1. Anthem Insurance stole from policy holders. 2. Ergo, Zurich Insurance stole from Mondelez.

If you are going to make a claim that all insurers are systematically stealing from their customers, I think you are a long way off. So Toyota sometimes ships cars with bad breaks. Ergo all car companies are trying to kill drivers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurance Company Says NotPetya Is an “Act of War”, Refus... by benologist on Saturday February 02, 2019 @10:16PM (#19067587)

Are health insurance companies abnormal or representative of non-health insurance companies? Zurich Insurance doesn't look better at all based on the submitted article -

    specifically covered “all risks of physical loss or 
    damage” and “all risk of physical loss or damage to 
    electronic data, programs or software” due to “the 
    malicious introduction of a machine code or instruction.”

[ Parent | on HN ]