Reply to post: Re: As expected

Lloyd's of London suggests insurers should not cover 'retaliatory cyber operations' between nation states

steelpillow Silver badge

Re: As expected

"Any excuse to avoid a payout for insurance companies, par for the course."

Fat lot you know about it, then. Lloyds of London has historically been about the only insurance company to offer unlimited insurance. For most of its life it has been a collective, with private individuals or "names" joining insurance syndicates within Lloyds, and being personally liable for any losses. It was the syndicate who cut the deal, and shared out reinsurance among many other syndicates. Lloyds thus became one of the very few places willing to take on the risk of insuring say a merchant ship in the 1700s or a spacecraft in the 1900s.

That all went titsup a few decades ago in one of the great financial crashes (US mortgage scam?) and several syndicates went bankrupt. The names had to cough up the difference and many likewise lost their shirts as well as their livelihoods.

As a matter of survival, Lloyds had to reform itself along somewhat more conventional lines, with its payout terms no longer unlimited among other things. But it still has a reputation second to none.

Acts of war are traditionally excluded from insurance policies; if you are a home or car owner, that clause is surely in there. The above background gives you some clue as to why. It is high time Lloyds brought its cyber Ts&Cs in line with sanity. And that is pretty much what this is.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022