Ransomware isn't just another IT headache. It has become one of the most disruptive business risks of the last decade, with the average ransom demand soaring to $2.7 million in 2024—nearly triple that of the previous year. As attacks escalate, cyber insurance has emerged as both a financial safety net and a source of controversy. Critics argue that guaranteed payouts fuel the ransomware economy, while insurers counter that they provide the expertise and resources companies desperately need to recover. So, is cyber insurance helping or hurting? The answer, as usual, is more complicated than it appears.
One of the biggest misconceptions about cyber insurance is that carriers simply cut a check when ransomware strikes. In reality, insurers are often the calmest (and most experienced) voice in the room. Backed by thousands of claims, they know when paying is the only path forward and when it's a mistake. They bring in seasoned negotiators, navigate legal landmines, and keep the process grounded in facts rather than fear. For a company facing permanent data loss or days of costly downtime, that kind of expertise can be the difference between bouncing back and going under. Insurers also have a vested financial interest in the outcome, but their depth of experience allows them to make rational, non-emotional decisions when clients feel like the sky is falling.
The Strategic Blind Spot in Cyber Insurance
Despite its critical importance, cyber insurance purchasing decisions are often made without the full involvement of those best equipped to understand cyber risk. Too often, financial and legal teams drive procurement with limited input from CISOs and security teams.
This disconnect can leave companies exposed to coverage gaps they only discover after an incident. Common blind spots include social engineering attacks and third-party breaches—threats security leaders know are likely but may not be properly accounted for in policies. If CISOs, finance, and legal teams collaborated earlier in the buying process, companies could align coverage with real-world risk scenarios and avoid costly surprises. One simple but overlooked practice is to run realistic attack scenarios—like a phishing scam or a third-party outage—against your policy to confirm how coverage would actually respond.
Cybercriminals move fast. Insurance carriers, bound by regulatory requirements and the slow process of drafting and approving new policy language, struggle to keep up. While the industry has made strides in adapting to emerging risks, there is always a lag. Threat actors do not need regulatory or internal approval to change tactics. Carriers do.
That doesn't mean insurance is standing still. Carriers are increasingly clarifying how they handle new exposures, from artificial intelligence to evolving ransomware techniques. But the structural lag is unavoidable for most insurance carriers—and it means businesses must recognize that cyber insurance may always be a step behind the threat landscape.
Navigating Exclusions: "Acts of War" and Beyond
Few topics generate as much anxiety as exclusions. "Acts of war" clauses, in particular, leave many companies wondering whether they would be covered if a state-sponsored attack hit their systems. The reality is nuanced. Some carriers have introduced coverage for acts of war, while others continue to exclude them. A similar pattern is now emerging with AI-related risks, with carriers taking divergent approaches.
The best way to evaluate these complexities is by working with a broker who specializes in cyber insurance. Generalist brokers may be able to place a property policy, but cyber requires expertise and constant monitoring of an evolving market. Specialized brokers can help businesses benchmark their coverage, identify gaps, and secure policies that align with their risk profile. Specialized brokers can also pressure-test policies against evolving risks and flag areas where different carriers take very different stances.
Shifting Responsibility Back to Businesses
It's tempting to blame cyber insurers for coverage disputes, but in most cases, the real issue lies in misunderstanding. In fact, most coverage disputes stem not from insurers refusing to pay, but from policyholders assuming protections were included when they never were. Better outcomes come when organizations bring more stakeholders into strategy discussions and lean on specialized brokers to navigate a complex market.
Cyber insurance is neither a silver bullet nor the villain some portray it to be. It is one component of a larger resilience strategy—one that needs to be aligned with security investments, risk appetite, and operational priorities. When used correctly, insurance can reduce chaos, accelerate recovery, and provide much-needed expertise in moments of crisis. When misunderstood or misapplied, it can leave businesses exposed and frustrated.
The future of ransomware defense will require collaboration: between CISOs and CFOs, between insurers and clients, and between the public and private sectors. Only then can cyber insurance fulfill its role as a stabilizer rather than an accelerant in the ransomware economy.
