Kibernetsko zavarovanje predstavlja relativno nov produkt, katerega razvoj je bil, zaradi vseprisotnega razvoja tehnike in pametnih naprav, neizbežen. Zaradi inherentnih lastnosti kibernetskega tveganja, ki ga s kibernetskim zavarovanjem zavarujemo (njegove sistemskosti, korelacije, neopredmetenosti in dinamičnosti), zavarovalnice niso naklonjene zagotavljanju širokega kritja. Prav tako nadaljnji razvoj trga kibernetskih zavarovanj preprečujeta odsotnost standardizacije ter enotnih definicij pojmov v zavarovalnih pogodbah. To velja tako za samostojno kibernetsko zavarovanje, kot za pasivna kibernetska zavarovanja, med katerimi je najpogostejše zavarovanje splošne odgovornosti. Predstavljeni izbrani primeri iz ameriške sodne prakse potrjujejo zmedo na trgu kibernetskih zavarovanj in kažejo na to, da je obseg kritja v največji meri odvisen od vsakokratnih konkretnih okoliščin primera in besedila zavarovalne pogodbe, predvsem izključitvenih klavzul. Za nadaljnji razvoj kibernetskega zavarovanja je pomembno sodelovanje med državo in zavarovalnicami, ki bi morale družno delovati v smeri čim večjega sklepanja kibernetskih zavarovanj s širokim kritjem, saj preventivni ukrepi, ki jih ob sklenitvi zavarovanja od zavarovalca zahtevajo zavarovalnice, pozitivno vplivajo na kibernetsko varnost kot javno dobrino.Cyber insurance is a relatively new product whose development was inevitable due to the omnipresent development of technology and smart devices. Because of the inherent characteristics of cyber risk, which is insured with cyber insurance (it is systemic, correlated, intangible and dynamic), the insurance companies are not inclined to providing a wide coverage. Lack of standardization and uniform definitions of terms in insurance contracts prevent further development of cyber insurance market. This is the case in both, stand alone cyber insurance contracts and non-affirmative insurance contracts, among which commercial general liability contracts are the most common. The selected cases from the US case law confirm confusion in the cyber insurance market and show that, to a large extent, the coverage depends on the particular circumstances of each case and the wording of insurance contract, especially exclusion clauses. For further development of cyber insurance, cooperation between states and insurance companies is important. They should work together to maximize the number of cyber insurance contracts with broader coverage, because the preventive measures, which the insurance company imposes on the insured when concluding the contract, have a positive impact on cyber security as a public good
