Unbelievable based on the below article excerpt! Here we have a bunch of lawyers who obviously failed to read or comprehend the "fine print" of their insurance policy? I guess the law suit is about whether computer virus damage can be legally classified as "property damage at the business." My legal take on this is the court will rule that the max. payout limit for computer viruses overrides any payout claims from the business loss provisions of the insurance policy. Insurance companies hire the best attorneys money can buy to make sure their policies are "bullet proof" against such claims. Interestingly if the law firm never bought the computer virus policy rider and the insurance policy property damage and income loss provisions didn't not specifically exclude computer virus damage, the plaintiff would have a much stronger case. -EDIT- Appears this law group thought they were buying ransomware payment protection from the insurer. If they bothered to read the policy, they didn't understand that what they actually bought was malware/virus protection. Let me guess. The outfit's office manager was the one who bought the insurance rider and not a single lawyer in the group understood the difference in coverage. Any ransomware payment protection rider most certainly would have included a client "due diligence" clause that would have specified that off line file backups were required. Which if done, would have allowed the firm to recover from the ransomware attack with minimal business disruption.
