What are the critera in defining what is "Wear and Tear" to an Insurance Company
Had a client that had a RAID Array failure, which resulted in lost data, that had to be recreated mostly by hand. The HD's did not fail, but the RAID Controller lost connection to 3 drives in cascading fashion on a 4 HD RAID 6 Array. The drives are good as they were put back in to function with the same RAID array for over a year now with zero issues. Including zero issues on the RAID Controller.
The insurance company is denying the claim for loss of use and cost to repair the OS and VM's and restore company functionality. The exclusion is "Wear and Tear".
The question is, what AGE range is considered to qualify for "Wear and Tear" for an Enterprise level server, with enterprise-level HD's? Obviously, a desktop computer would be rated lower than a server that is designed to run non stop and have less of a rate of failure.
The insurance company is denying the claim for loss of use and cost to repair the OS and VM's and restore company functionality. The exclusion is "Wear and Tear".
The question is, what AGE range is considered to qualify for "Wear and Tear" for an Enterprise level server, with enterprise-level HD's? Obviously, a desktop computer would be rated lower than a server that is designed to run non stop and have less of a rate of failure.
ASKER
@andyalder . Thanks, my question is what qualifies as "Wear and Tear". Is a server that is 1-day old qualify as Wear and Tear if it fails?
They have used the wrong term, it is not "wear and tear".
ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Hand this over to your legal department; it's their province, not yours. Then forget the issue entirely. In the meantime don't expect any compensation for at least a year while both sides drag out the "Wobblebottom vs. Dewflap" decision of 1987, in re the Buggywhip Mfg. Ltd. case of 1932, yada yada yada. The insurance company's job is not to pay claims, it is to avoid paying claims, unless pushed to the wall by your legal department. It is medieval trial by champions, only codified.
Wear and Tear is normal usage. It is well known that hard drives fail Some drives fail within a week some last 10 or more years. It is also well known that RAID is not backup.
Like tires and brake pads/calipers are not covered under warranty except for a short period of time. This is not covered on your drivetrain warranty.
As a reasonable person you should have a working backup solution and it should be a 3-2-1 backup solution.
A friend of mine has a computer repair shop in NYC and when Sandy hit it flooded the generating plant that he gets his electricity from and for 3 weeks he had no power. His business insurance denied coverage since it did not cover flood damage and his area of Manhattan was not flooded.
Like tires and brake pads/calipers are not covered under warranty except for a short period of time. This is not covered on your drivetrain warranty.
As a reasonable person you should have a working backup solution and it should be a 3-2-1 backup solution.
A friend of mine has a computer repair shop in NYC and when Sandy hit it flooded the generating plant that he gets his electricity from and for 3 weeks he had no power. His business insurance denied coverage since it did not cover flood damage and his area of Manhattan was not flooded.
Just wanted to put one of my favorite sayings out there: RAID is not backup.
the issue seems that you've not previously experienced a cascading failure.
Often, raid controllers have the option to force devices back online, though the most important part to avoid data loss is to bring the drives in the reverse order to which they were kicked.LOFI
If you push the wrong drive in, the metadata portion it contains will force the reprocessing and would lead to data loss.
As to whether data loss or expense to recover said data is insurance and thus recoverable , I too suggest you leave to legal to contend with.
Often, raid controllers have the option to force devices back online, though the most important part to avoid data loss is to bring the drives in the reverse order to which they were kicked.LOFI
If you push the wrong drive in, the metadata portion it contains will force the reprocessing and would lead to data loss.
As to whether data loss or expense to recover said data is insurance and thus recoverable , I too suggest you leave to legal to contend with.
SOLUTION
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
"The drives are good as they were put back in to function with the same RAID array"
That would probably invalidate any data cover anyway, software recovery could identify which drive "failed" last and recover the data but someone wiped that recoverable data out.