Introduction
Did you hear?
A Washington couple is suing Safeco Insurance Co. for refusing to cover $600,000 worth of cryptocurrency stolen by hackers.
Wait…if hackers exploited their crypto-wallet, how is it the insurance company’s fault?
The couple argues that the stolen cryptocurrency should be classified as “personal property” under their homeowners’ policy, which would provide broader coverage. Safeco, however, classifies the cryptocurrency as money, which has a much lower coverage limit of $250.
Therein lies the heated debate.
Both Sides of the Crypto Coin
The couple contends that cryptocurrency should be treated as personal property because it is a digital asset that can be owned, transferred, and used similarly to other personal property. They argue that the policy’s definition of personal property should include digital assets like cryptocurrency, especially given its significant value.
Safeco Insurance Co. maintains that cryptocurrency should be classified differently under the homeowners’ policy. The company’s position is that the policy language is clear and that cryptocurrency, being a form of digital currency, qualifies as money. The policy has a specific limit of $250 for losses related to money, which Safeco argues applies to the stolen cryptocurrency.
Which side are you on?
What This Means for Cryptocurrency and Insurance
If the court sides with the couple, it could lead to more comprehensive coverage for digital assets under homeowners’ policies. Conversely, if Safeco’s position is upheld, it may prompt policyholders to seek specialized insurance policies that explicitly cover digital assets.
No matter whether you agree with the couple or the company, this case highlights the broader issue of how digital assets like cryptocurrency are treated under traditional insurance policies. The outcome could set a precedent for how insurance companies classify and cover cryptocurrency losses in the future.
Conclusion
Regardless of how the case unfolds, it demonstrates why we need clearer and more explicit policy language. This case could even inspire new insurance products that specifically address the unique nature of digital assets. As cryptocurrency becomes more integrated into everyday financial portfolios, the insurance industry may need to adapt to provide adequate coverage for these assets…or at least add more clarifying language about what encompasses money versus personal property.
If courts start recognizing cryptocurrency as personal property, it could boost investor confidence by providing a crucial layer of security against theft and other losses. This, in turn, could lead to increased adoption and investment in the cryptocurrency market. If courts consistently side with insurance companies, however, then it could hinder the growth of the cryptocurrency market as investors grapple with the lack of adequate insurance coverage for their digital assets.
So what do you think? Do they deserve the claim…or is crypto money over property?
The post Is It a Crock to Call Crypto Cash? appeared first on .
