Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. The module states that an industrial cyber loss is routed by consequence and not by cause. What is therefore the first question to ask?
Was an asset physically impaired?
Physical impairment is the dividing line between the two contracts, and it is observed on assets, not on the network. The entry route matters for remediation and future underwriting, it decides no cover. State or criminal origin is an exclusion question, arising only once the line of business is chosen, and asking it first loses the thread. That is the file's natural error: the cause is cyber, spectacular, and it draws attention, whereas it is the consequences that were drafted to split between the two policies.
Glossary entry →2. In the worked case, physical damage is 0.4 million and business interruption 14 million, over nineteen days of shutdown. What does the split between the two policies actually turn on?
On whether the plant would have stayed down nineteen days from the SCADA outage alone, or whether the pump's lead time was the critical path
The same 14 million is claimable under two contracts, on two different theories, and what settles it is not legal at all: it is an industrial fact. If the plant could have restarted in three days and the pump imposed sixteen, then three days are cyber and sixteen are property. The whole file rests on a manufacturing lead time, and no clause says so. The answer deferring to an agreement between insurers describes what sometimes ends up happening and confuses the settlement with the rule: the agreement will be negotiated on that question of fact, not in its place.
Glossary entry →3. The module speaks of a seam between the cyber exclusion of a property policy and the physical damage exclusion of a cyber policy. What does living on it mean?
That industrial cyber sits exactly where each policy points to the other, and an express write-back is needed for either to respond
Each exclusion is reasonable taken alone and refers the risk to the neighboring contract, and industrial cyber sits exactly at the intersection of the two referrals. That is the purpose of the write-back for consequential physical damage, which expressly reopens what the cyber exclusion had closed. Without it, the insured is covered by two policies and indemnified by neither, which no schedule of covers shows. Believing in complete overlap, that is, double indemnity, takes the problem backwards: the indemnity principle would forbid being paid twice for the same damage in any case, but the difficulty here is being paid once.
Glossary entry →4. The module notes that a single industrial attack aggregates in two portfolios at once. What is the consequence for reinsurers?
Each sees only a fraction of one event, and neither aggregation study looks at the other half
The physical damage goes into the property portfolio, the cyber business interruption into the cyber portfolio, and the two treaties apply different aggregation clauses. No reinsurer therefore sees the whole event, and real exposure is understated exactly where it was thought to be measured. The answer speaking of double counting names the symmetrical, reassuring flaw: overstating would be a question of prudence, understating is a question of solvency, and it is the second that occurs here. Believing in a single cession assumes one contract pays, which the module has just refuted.
Glossary entry →5. The module concludes that allocation is decided in the incident response plan and not in the contract. Why?
Because proof of physical impairment is destroyed by restarting, and a clause can only settle what one is still able to establish
The clause says what would be covered if you knew what happened; you still have to establish it, and a team restarting a line erases the physical state of the affected components within hours. Photographing, recording, dating and keeping the removed parts costs little and is decided before the incident, because in the moment nobody will have the time or the reflex. The answer making the plan override the clauses inverts the hierarchy: the plan changes no contract, it merely preserves the facts the contracts will be applied to.
Glossary entry →