Hacked Company Loses Insurance Battle Over Customer Payment Scam

2

The company, holding a management liability insurance policy, sought to claim under its third-party crime coverage to recover the outstanding bills from the customers. However, AIG Australia denied the claim, stating that the policy only addressed "direct financial loss" from theft or fraud by a third party, and argued that since the stolen money belonged to customers, the business itself did not suffer a direct loss.

The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) reviewed the case and acknowledged the company's loss. However, it determined that the loss did not align with the policy's specific terms. The ruling emphasized that only the company's customers faced direct financial loss, whereas the company experienced an indirect one due to subsequent non-payments.

The AFCA explained that the hack did not meet the company's policy definition of theft, as the stolen funds belonged to the customers, not the business. This discrepancy meant that the policy's electronic and computer crime coverage was not applicable. Additionally, the policy's criteria for "fraudulent act," which required acts of forgery or counterfeiting the insured had acted upon, were not met since the company was unaware of the false invoices.

This case highlights the critical distinction between direct and indirect financial losses in insurance claims, emphasizing the importance of understanding policy terms. For businesses, particularly those prone to cyber threats, it underscores the significance of having insurance coverage that appropriately addresses loss scenarios stemming from such events. It also serves as a cautionary tale of the complexities involved in recovering from cybercrime attacks without adequate protection.

Moving forward, businesses should ensure robust cybersecurity measures to prevent similar email hacks, coupled with clarifying insurance policies for adequate coverage against indirect financial losses as a result of customer fraud. This scenario may lead insurance providers to reevaluate their product offerings, potentially driving the development of more comprehensive cybercrime coverages. Additionally, the financial sector might witness increased discussions on how to formulate clearer policy definitions that align with the evolving nature of cyber threats.

Published:Tuesday, 11th Mar 2025
Source: Paige Estritori

Share this news item:

Insurance News

Clear

ClearView Names New Underwriting Head Amidst Strategic Changes 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori ASX-listed life insurer ClearView has announced the appointment of Peter Tilocca as Head of Underwriting, coinciding with key updates to its underwriting standards and definitions. Tilocca's extensive two-decade career in Australian underwriting includes leadership roles at Zurich, Noble Oak, One Path Life, and RGA Australia. His new role with ClearView commenced on 30 June. - read more

Ombudsman Supports Theft Claimant in Home Business Coverage Dispute 30 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent case has seen a policyholder triumph over her insurer after the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) ruled in her favour following a contentious dispute regarding home business operations. The controversy arose when the woman's theft claim was denied by her insurance provider, IAG, over allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation about the use of her rental property. - read more

AFCA Upholds Insurance Fraud Ruling Over Disputed Possum Accident 26 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A motorist's claim that he crashed into a tree to avoid a possum has been denied by the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), which supported the insurer's fraud decision. The incident involved the driver crashing his Jeep—insured for over $20,000—on a dimly-lit street, purportedly avoiding the rain-soaked motorway en route to the store. - read more

Code Watchdog Criticises Insurer for Misleading Rejection Letters 24 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori The Life Code Compliance Committee has recently reprimanded a life insurance provider for issuing misleading rejection letters to policy applicants. These letters were deemed 'ambiguous and contradictory' and failed to clearly inform applicants of their review options after being denied coverage. - read more

Insurer Ordered to Pay Full Claim for Confusing Patio Coverage 23 Jun 2025: Paige Estritori A recent ruling mandates that an insurer must fully honor a storm-related claim due to ambiguous policy wording regarding items in open areas. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) determined that the insurer's restriction on coverage for items in a patio area was unfounded, as the policy's phrasing was not clear. - read more