The Plaintiff filed an insurance claim following incursions of malware. The Defendant denied the claim under the rarely-used war exclusion, arguing that the malware that infected the computer systems was a “hostile or warlike action” by a “government,” “military,” or agent of the Russian government.
October 2, 2023
The Restaurant Law Center filed a brief in support of the plaintiffs arguing that the Appellate Division properly held that the War Exclusion clause does not apply to the cyber losses in this case, as firmly supported by New Jersey rules of insurance policy interpretation. Those well-established principles –– including the rules that policy provisions are construed according to their plain meaning, with exclusionary terms interpreted narrowly –– provide clarity and predictability to courts and litigants alike.