As I stated downthread, this claim hitting the exclusion feels very plausible to me. Hostile acts by a foreign government are excluded. The US national security apparatus is so convinced that they have Russia dead to rights on this that they’ve publicized their accusation and evidence. Their accusation is that Russia destabilized core infrastructure in several countries as cyber aircover for the conventional war in eastern Ukraine that no intellectually serious person disputes is happening.
I think Zurich is very plausibly right by the letter and spirit of the bespoke contract which they struck with a sophisticated counterparty who had competent legal advice.
You should certainly price in the risk that, if you have an uncovered loss that you wish your insurance company would cover, your insurance company will point to the contract and say “Uncovered loss; no.”
I think Zurich is very plausibly right by the letter and spirit of the bespoke contract which they struck with a sophisticated counterparty who had competent legal advice.
You should certainly price in the risk that, if you have an uncovered loss that you wish your insurance company would cover, your insurance company will point to the contract and say “Uncovered loss; no.”