so sony pays?
yeah...not likely. they'll just screw their customers some more.
Sony has been sued by its insurance company, which says the policy it issued doesn't cover a series of high-profile security breaches that exposed personal information associated with more than 100 million accounts. A complaint filed Wednesday by the Zurich American Insurance Company (ZAIC) and the Zurich Insurance Company said …
yeah...not likely. they'll just screw their customers some more.
You obviously have a limited understand of how businesses work. Can you explain to me the difference between Sony paying and their customers paying via the money they give to Sony?
Unless the policy covers loss of privacy in so many terms, it was not drawn to cover this.
They don't mention (assuming they have one (and if not it would also surprise me)) a clause about "gross negligence."
The insurance adjuster icon!
You take out an insurance policy, and when the time to comes to claim against it, you find it isnt worth the paper its written on. Been there, done that, got the patch on the back of the jacket. Couldnt of happened to a nicer company.
Always turn to the end of the policy and read the disclaimers - *only* then will you know what's covered: For example, our current policy says:
Front Page - This policy covers all laptop computers owned by the named policy holder.
Back Page - There is an individual deductible of $7500 per laptop computer.
Surely the normal situation is that you need to sue your insurance company (or at least, threaten to do so) before they will take your case seriously. An insurance company that just gave money to anyone who claimed wouldn't last long, I think.
So why are the insurance company suing Sony, instead of denying the claim on some flimsy grounds and then waiting for Sony's suit? It looks upside-down to me! A legal opinion would be appreciated.
Take note that this is not a criminal but a civil case, so a presumption of innocence does not apply. By suing first, the insurance company has placed itself into the role of plaintiff rather than defendant. This appears to me to be a pre-emptive move on the legal wrangling. Now it's up to Sony to provide proof that their losses are covered by the policy and not exempted by any negligence clauses.
It's the USofA.
Need I say more?
At my last organisation we needed data breach insurance, and this was a separate policy to the normal business insurance. In order to get the cover, we had to complete a security questionnaire, using our weakest security globally. Year 1 was an eye opener, years 2 and 3 improved because our security improved, and the premiums dropped and the cover offered increased.
Had Sony taken out this type of insurance, maybe the breach would not have happened because they would have had to carry out a global risk assessment of the likelihood of a data breach, and there would have been a cost associated with this risk.
Zurich will not be responsible under a standard policy, (unless there are extensions), the standard policies normally cover injury, failure to deliver goods, etc under the public liability section. I expect that Zurich did reject the claim, Sony had a public hissy fit and now Zurich is defending their reputation by starting a legal squabble, but children will be children.
Is there a word for both despising and admiring something at the same time?
"If only both sides could lose".
'Admising' but I prefer 'despiring' which also has a whiff of 'despairing' about it
I haven't had to file a claim, but my parents have, and didn't have any trouble. Insurance man shows up, "Yep, they whacked your car pretty good, the check's in the mail", simple as that. Ditto for the hail damage to the roof.
Maybe it's different in UK, but here in the US there's a couple cut-rate insurance cos that try to weasel out of paying every claim, or try to use high-mileage junkyard parts for car repairs, and so on, but you avoid those few and the rest are just fine. (I'd call these companys "fly by night", but they've been around for decades.... since people don't file insurance claims real often, they usually pay in for years before they file a claim and realize the insurance co is going to screw them over on it.)
Anyway.. the way I see it, 1) If what the insurance co says is true, it really doesn't sound like this is covered. 2) Since it was revealed that Sony laid off a bunch of their security staff before the breaches happened, that sounds like negligence to me so the insurance co shouldn't have to cover it even if Sony had bought hax0r insurance from them.
So all gory details will now come out in court
Oh wait, that still doesn't help.
I dont think companies should be allowed access to so much data if they can't realistically be held accountable for its security, otherwise we may as well all just go onto the national database so it isnt a big deal...
"your data was stolen?!"
"Yes, but its ok, they didn't get anything that isn't already publicly available on the national database"
By boycotting Sony?
I don't, have never, and will never buy anything Sony branded. I also won't use/borrow any Sony device, if I can help it.
How sad, I feel a Nelson Muntz moment coming on.
can you repost this please - I want to give it another thumbs up.
I'm completely not understanding the reason that the insurance company is sueing here.
Step 1. Sony get hacked.
Step 2. Sony submit claim.
Step 3. Zurich says 'You're not covered idiot'
Step 4. We all laugh at Sony.
No need to sue, just all stand around and laugh at Sony.
... make an insurance claim for the legal costs of defending against the insurance company?
My grandfather once had an auto accident injury case where his client got injured by another party - let's call him Mr Smith. He filed a claim against Mr. Smith's insurance. The insurance company offered some pathetic settlement.
My grandfather sued Mr. Smith, and won a decent judgment against him for his client. He then sued Mr. Smith's insurance provider on behalf of Mr. Smith, for not protecting him properly from being sued. He won that case, also. In the end both parties came out with money in hand. The big looser was the greedy insurance company.
As was usual with him, his clients had to insist on paying him. He practised law until the day he died at 86 (broke and penniless). I think most lawyers are scum, but there are a few good ones out there.
... whatever happens seems is systematically the one thing not covered by an insurance policy.
On second thoughts, no you don't.
I've been getting letters in the mail from Citibank dating back to the early 2000's telling me that a "tape was lost/stolen" and that my personal information may be at risk.
Not to worry though they were going to pay for 6 months of credit monitoring (and then i'd be able to renew it and pay citibank through the referral/affiliate program they had setup with the monitoring company).
I got several of these letters through the years. All became pretty evident that either citibank didn't have any security precautions in place and/or this was all a hoax to get people to buy into credit monitoring.
We know the sony stuff happened so with Sony it was simply neglect.
To the children commenting about their parents filing insurance claims in the US there are alot of factors that play into those checks coming in the mail.
It will usually take good credit and several years of no claims for someone to be able to file a claim, get money, and not have their policy go up or in some cases terminated.
Once you have a claim it's almost usually impossible to get insurance somewhere else without paying alot more. Sometimes you can't even go with some companies.
It's a business model designed only to generate revenue. If I continue to pay my current policy as it stands (auto only) I will pay in a little under 200k throughout the rest of my life.
Thus far I don't think i've had any paid out claims. I say I don't think because there was an incident that was never closed but it was only a few grand.
Sony nor insurance companies are anyones friend.
fscked by SHA-1 collision? Not so fast, says Linus Torvalds