[cabfpub] Denial of all insurance coverage for Diginotar

Phillip Hallam-Baker philliph at comodo.com
Mon May 5 18:32:50 UTC 2014


Probably a very complicated business as DigiNotar was declared bankrupt

There is a big difference between an insurance policy that indemnifies the insured against claims by third parties and a policy that indemnifies the losses of third parties. Once bankrupt, the insured no longer exists and does not need protection against claims.


On May 5, 2014, at 1:44 PM, Ben Wilson <ben at digicert.com> wrote:

> So, had Diginotar been more responsive on the breach, taking action early on, there would have been insurance coverage?
>  
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of Richard at WoSign
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 6:37 PM
> To: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com; Adriano Santoni; CABFPub (public at cabforum.org)
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Denial of all insurance coverage for Diginotar
>  
> Yes, when I consult my insurance broker the each type cert warranty amount, my insurance broker told me that the reparation never happen, so you can write any amount in your website since it the lost really happen it should go to the court and the insurance company will have 100 reason to deny the claim.
>  
> Why WoSign  endorse this ballot is NOT for reason that WoSign can’t afford it, we think it don’t bring any benefit to end user and waste the money.
>  
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Richard
>  
> From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On Behalf Of kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 12:49 AM
> To: Adriano Santoni; CABFPub (public at cabforum.org)
> Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Denial of all insurance coverage for Diginotar
>  
> I don’t know.  I do know that (in the US and Canada) all policies have “cooperation,” “duty to report incidents,” and “bad acts” clauses which are conditions to providing any coverage.  If the insured (Diginotar) fails to comply with those contractual provisions, it makes things harder for the insurer to handle any claims (and remember, the first duty of the insurer is to defend the insured and try to defeat the claims, not to pay the claims…  claims are only paid after litigation, etc., so the insurance is not there to help the public or injured customers).
>  
> Here, it’s my understanding that the insurer walked away, with the court’s approval, maybe because Diginotar failed to take action early on.
>  
> From: Adriano Santoni [mailto:adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 11:34 PM
> To: Kirk Hall (RD-US); CABFPub (public at cabforum.org)
> Subject: R: [cabfpub] Denial of all insurance coverage for Diginotar
>  
> This automatic translation is rather difficult to understand, to me. Who was the Insurer in this case? 
>  
>  
> Inviato da Samsung Mobile.
>  
> 
> -------- Messaggio originale --------
> Da: kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
> Data:03/05/2014 23:02 (GMT+01:00)
> A: "CABFPub (public at cabforum.org)"
> Oggetto: [cabfpub] Denial of all insurance coverage for Diginotar
>  
> Jeremy, in response to your question below -- it was Bob Relyea who found the link during our last CABF meeting stating (in translation) that Diginotar’s insurer denied all coverage, so there was no possibility of any recovery for claims by the public or customers.  See link.  That’s why it makes sense to delete the current coverage requirements.
>  
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: Bob Relyea <bob at relyea.com>
> To: Robert Relyea <rrelyea at redhat.com>
> Sent: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 15:29:26 -0500 (EST)
> Subject: Diginotar
>  
> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://webwereld.nl/beveiliging/77898-curator-diginotar-haalt-bakzeil-in-zaak-tegen-opta&prev=/search%3Fq%3Ddiginotar%2Bcurator%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D775
>  
>  
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy Rowley [mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:00 AM
> To: Kirk Hall (RD-US); 'Gervase Markham'; public at cabforum.org
> Subject: RE: [cabfpub] Ballot 121 - EVGL Insurance Requirements
>  
> Can you please send a link to the info about DigiNotar.  This is the first I've heard that the insurance company didn't have to pay anything to damaged end users and would like to investigate further.  My guess is that the claims were not being brought by the right party. 
>  
>  
>  
> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential
> and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection.
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or
> disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
> telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
>  
>  
> TREND MICRO EMAIL NOTICE
> The information contained in this email and any attachments is confidential 
> and may be subject to copyright or other intellectual property protection. 
> If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to use or 
> disclose this information, and we request that you notify us by reply mail or
> telephone and delete the original message from your mail system.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140505/2092a5c0/attachment-0003.html>


More information about the Public mailing list