[cabfpub] Denial of all insurance coverage for Diginotar

Mon May 5 19:58:35 UTC 2014

But if the policy insures the entity itself, as has been argued, then the
policy and proceeds therefrom are property of the estate, and assuming there
are proceeds from the policy (except in the case of Diginotar nobody
litigated it on behalf of the estate), then the trustee of the estate is
entitled to distribute them to creditors and/or use them to determine
solvency.

From: public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of Phillip Hallam-Baker
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:33 PM
To: ben at digicert.com
Cc: public at cabforum.org
Subject: Re: [cabfpub] Denial of all insurance coverage for Diginotar

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:  <mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> public-bounces at cabforum.org [
<mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org> mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org] On
Behalf Of  <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 12:49 AM
To: Adriano Santoni; CABFPub ( <mailto:public at cabforum.org>
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>
mailto:adriano.santoni at staff.aruba.it] 
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 11:34 PM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US); CABFPub ( <mailto:public at cabforum.org>
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:  <mailto:kirk_hall at trendmicro.com> kirk_hall at trendmicro.com

Data:03/05/2014 23:02 (GMT+01:00)

A: "CABFPub ( <mailto:public at cabforum.org> 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 < <mailto:bob at relyea.com> bob at relyea.com>

To: Robert Relyea < <mailto:rrelyea at redhat.com> 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/bev
eiliging/77898-curator-diginotar-haalt-bakzeil-in-zaak-tegen-opta&prev=/sear
ch%3Fq%3Ddiginotar%2Bcurator%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D775>
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=nl&u=http://webwereld.nl/beve
iliging/77898-curator-diginotar-haalt-bakzeil-in-zaak-tegen-opta&prev=/searc
h%3Fq%3Ddiginotar%2Bcurator%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D775

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Rowley [ <mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com>
mailto:jeremy.rowley at digicert.com] 
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:00 AM
To: Kirk Hall (RD-US); 'Gervase Markham';  <mailto:public at cabforum.org>
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/20140505/47f02ecf/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20140505/47f02ecf/attachment-0001.p7s>