Top
210°

Sony Insurer Sues Over Data Breach Defense Payouts

A major insurer is claiming in newly filed court papers that it is not responsible to pay costs related to defending multiple lawsuits surrounding the breaches of Sony's PlayStation and Qriocity servers earlier this year.

Read Full Story >>
gamasutra.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Rush2338d ago

I couldn't even begin to comment on who is in the right here, since I have absolutely no idea what kind of insurance coverage Sony has.

Ducky2338d ago

I'd try to explain it, but unfortunately my understanding of law only goes as far as OBJECTION.

Brosy2338d ago

I don't see how this insurance company could be held responsible with them being hired by sony after the breach took place. If sony had this insurance prior to the breach then maybe so.

solar2338d ago

so Sony is trying to make a claim for "bodily harm, property damage, and advertising" insurance for the security breach?! LMFAO!!!

WTF are they thinking?! ive liked Sony since my PS1, but you gotta be kidding me.

lazertroy2338d ago

For the Love of Money People will Steal from their Brother. For the Love of Money People will rob their Own Mother.

MrBeatdown2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

Nice to see we aren't waiting for things to play out in court before jumping to conclusions about who's doing what. That would take all the fun out of it.

@solar (below)

I didn't say you made them up. I was trying to point out that you are assuming they are true. Huge difference.

You also overlooked this key point...

"Zurich also filed suit against two other insurance companies, seeking assurances that they would share in any payout should Sony's claim be validated."

So even the company making the claims against Sony realize there is a possibility that Sony's claim is valid, which means there is some merit and legitimacy to Sony's claim, meaning isn't as "LMFAO"-worthy as you think it is.

solar2338d ago

quotes from the lawsuit. i didnt make them up

gamingdroid2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

That is to protect and as much as possible insulate Zurich from liability. You would be an idiot not to file that, because you never know what happens in a court, but that doesn't mean that Sony's claim is valid or even has merit.

I don't know Sony's insurance terms, but the second reason, "bodily injury, property damage or personal and advertising injury,", is very clear cut and generally standard lingo in contracts that I have seen and they got an entire underwriting department working on these things especially a large company like Sony.

MrBeatdown2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

@gamingdroid

"you never know what happens in a court, but that doesn't mean that Sony's claim is valid or even has merit"

So, if the court isn't the one that decides if Sony's claim has valid, who is?

You can pick yourself, solar, or Batman for all I care, but Zurich is going with the court's decision and that's all that matters when it comes to determining validity here. You can pretend the court's ruling "doesn't mean that Sony's claim is valid or even has merit" but it's ultimately nothing more than an opinion and it's completely irrelevant to the point I made, that being that Zurich feels they need to protect themselves, because there may be validity (to be decided by the court) to Sony's claim.

And the way I see it, Zurich is the one filing the case. I'm no law expert, but if Zurich believed it was "very clear cut," it seems like they could just deny the claim, and leave Sony with the option to sue if they felt the denial was unjustified. I'm not sure why they feel the burden is on them to go to court to get out of paying someone an erroneous insurance claim, if the policy they sold to Sony was so cut and dry.

tiffac2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

This is nothing new from an Insurance company stand point. If the cost of the damages are above standards to what the insurance company wants to cover they will always find out a way to get out of it. This happens to ordinary people too who has insurance and thought that this and that are insured but when they go and claim for protection they find out it ain't because the wording on paper is too general and non-specific to begin with.

That's why when you going to do anything that is legally binding (insurance or whatever contract) make sure the most important stuff is specified.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2338d ago
radphil2338d ago (Edited 2338d ago )

So basically their insurance was like "hell no", and then say "We have no responsibility towards this".