January 5, 2024 at 11:24AM
A settlement between Merck and its insurers has been reached over the damage caused by NotPetya, an attack attributed to Russia. Merck made a $1.4 billion claim under its ‘all-risks’ coverage, but faced exclusion due to the standard war clause. Legal definition of cyberwar remains unresolved as the case settled.
The meeting notes highlight the settlement between Merck and its insurers over damage caused by the NotPetya malware attack. Despite the lack of cyberinsurance, Merck made a claim under its ‘all-risks’ coverage. This claim was initially disputed based on the standard war exclusion clause. However, the New Jersey Superior Court found in favor of Merck, ruling that the war exclusion clause did not apply to the cyberattack.
Following appeals from the insurers, the New Jersey appellate court upheld the original decision, prompting a settlement between Merck and its insurers. The specifics of the settlement have not been disclosed, but the outcome allows Merck to avoid a New Jersey Supreme Court review that had the potential to impact the cyber insurance market.
This case sheds light on the legal challenges surrounding claims related to cyberwar and the lack of a clear legal definition for cyberwar. The NotPetya attack, attributed to Russia as part of an effort to attack Ukraine, resulted in widespread collateral damage, raising complex questions about the relationship between cyberattacks and traditional warfare. Despite this settlement, the broader issue of a legal definition for cyberwar remains unresolved.