Once again, defining cyberattacks as "war" or even "warlike" would have profound implications well beyond the confines of the insurance industry. These definitions are not left open to opinion for some very good reasons.
This insurance company is going to lose. It's simply unbelievable that people here are defending them, even on a site known for turning devil's advocacy into a religion.
We'll see, I don't think it's clear cut how it'll pan out. I agree that this definition is a line that's tiptoed around a lot, with one the one hand them being clearly seen as a tool of the military, and the US administrations making statements that they consider military strikes a possible response to cyber attacks, and on the other hand lots of careful warning about the risks of doing so, the problems with attributions, attacks being handled on a civil level, ..., but the former half could be enough. Especially if the attack is put into context of the existing war/conflict in the region, qualifying it as part of the conflict might come easier than if it were a standalone attack without this context.
It's not like the courts opinion would force a change in the government position, and governments don't necessarily treat all examples of conventional state aggression as war (or at least not as war they want to concern themselves with) either.
This insurance company is going to lose. It's simply unbelievable that people here are defending them, even on a site known for turning devil's advocacy into a religion.