Is the idea to create affirmative TRIA coverage even when all the other prongs and conditions needed for the backstop are not fufilled? Because cyber will be covered the way TRIA is now as long as it falls under the right coverage part (i.e. property and certain kinds of casualty).
Or is the idea to include professional liability under TRIA, but only for Cyber?
Why would Cyber not be covered? Unless a policy has a specific exclusion, which excludes a cause of loss that falls under what we would consider as a “cyber” event, it should be covered under TRIA, as long as it meets the other requirements of TRIA.
I think it will depend on the breadth and scope of the attack. If it is a devasting event, I think there is no question the government will have to get involved. More reason to get out there and sell your clients cyber coverage. We’ve had great success with it.
Don’t disagree, Libby. Not really my point though. I don’t believe a cyber attack on a bank will fit the definition of a Certified Act of Terrorism. Now a cyber attack on a power plant that brings down the grid, yes, as it would be included in the definition (harm to infrastructure).
It just seemed apples and oranges to me. While criminal, and maybe even launched due to some inate hatred of US or Americans, this is a criminal money/fruad issue.
Also, when would state-backed attack be considered terroism vs. an act of war? Just food for thought.
True, but I think they would create some other kind of TRIA-like backstop if the cyber attack were bad enough. Not necessarily use what’s in place now.
Would you want TRIA or the Feds to cover a bank hack that stole $1B, $2B or $5B (whatever that line might be)? Wouldn’t that equate back to another taxpayer bailout? ‘Cause you know there wouldn’t be enough given away for it to trickle down to your savings account? Nope, just the Chase’s, JPMorgans, etc of the world.
I don’t know if theft is the thing I’d worry about. More the entire crashing of the electronic financial system. Everything is so computerized, we’d never be able to function.
It would be impossible to get to your cash if it’s in the bank and their computer system has crashed. Time to take it all out and stuff it under the mattress!
A cash business is a tough business. you have to physically move cash – no checks, wire transfers, etc. Ask how the pot dealers in Colorado are making out – it’s a major pain where a pill won’t reach, not to mention the inherent dangers of large cash stockpiles.
Is the idea to create affirmative TRIA coverage even when all the other prongs and conditions needed for the backstop are not fufilled? Because cyber will be covered the way TRIA is now as long as it falls under the right coverage part (i.e. property and certain kinds of casualty).
Or is the idea to include professional liability under TRIA, but only for Cyber?
What is the IDEA?
to create a debate, not necessarily to DO something about it.
Sammy, you sound confident that Cyber will be considered within the definition of TRIA? I, on the other hand am not so sure.
Why would Cyber not be covered? Unless a policy has a specific exclusion, which excludes a cause of loss that falls under what we would consider as a “cyber” event, it should be covered under TRIA, as long as it meets the other requirements of TRIA.
Why are you not “sure?”
I think it will depend on the breadth and scope of the attack. If it is a devasting event, I think there is no question the government will have to get involved. More reason to get out there and sell your clients cyber coverage. We’ve had great success with it.
Don’t disagree, Libby. Not really my point though. I don’t believe a cyber attack on a bank will fit the definition of a Certified Act of Terrorism. Now a cyber attack on a power plant that brings down the grid, yes, as it would be included in the definition (harm to infrastructure).
It just seemed apples and oranges to me. While criminal, and maybe even launched due to some inate hatred of US or Americans, this is a criminal money/fruad issue.
Also, when would state-backed attack be considered terroism vs. an act of war? Just food for thought.
True, but I think they would create some other kind of TRIA-like backstop if the cyber attack were bad enough. Not necessarily use what’s in place now.
Also more tidbits for the nibbling…
Would you want TRIA or the Feds to cover a bank hack that stole $1B, $2B or $5B (whatever that line might be)? Wouldn’t that equate back to another taxpayer bailout? ‘Cause you know there wouldn’t be enough given away for it to trickle down to your savings account? Nope, just the Chase’s, JPMorgans, etc of the world.
I don’t know if theft is the thing I’d worry about. More the entire crashing of the electronic financial system. Everything is so computerized, we’d never be able to function.
What is wrong to going back to cash?
It would be impossible to get to your cash if it’s in the bank and their computer system has crashed. Time to take it all out and stuff it under the mattress!
A cash business is a tough business. you have to physically move cash – no checks, wire transfers, etc. Ask how the pot dealers in Colorado are making out – it’s a major pain where a pill won’t reach, not to mention the inherent dangers of large cash stockpiles.