Insurance

The cover is a term of the licence, not a line on a brochure.

Most suppliers mention insurance in a sales conversation and exclude the outcome in the licence you actually sign. Ours works the other way round. The insurance obligation, and the liability it sits behind, are written into the standard licence and quoted here word for word.

The only company we can find anywhere in the world that warrants the outcome and guarantees permanent, irretrievable data destruction.

Backed by £10 million technology professional indemnity, each and every claim, and £10 million public and products liability with the inefficacy exclusion deleted. The schedule is published, not described.

The position

What is actually in place

£10,000,000Technology professional indemnity

£10,000,000Public and products liability

UncappedLiability for the outcome

Per deviceWhat the warranty attaches to

Underwritten by Hiscox. The professional indemnity limit applies to each and every claim.

A limit of indemnity on its own means nothing if the licence disclaims the thing you would be claiming for. What follows is the licence wording that makes the cover reachable.

Clause 17.1 “Liability under clause 6.1 for Platform Outcome is uncapped.”

Clause 6.1 is the trigger: we are liable where the Platform records an Execution Event as successfully completed but the outcome has not been achieved. Certified but not destroyed is the exact failure the warranty exists for, and our liability for it is not capped.

Clause 18.1 “The Supplier shall maintain professional indemnity insurance with a reputable insurer at a level appropriate to the risks associated with the Platform and its obligations under this EULA.”

Maintaining the cover is an obligation we owe you under the contract. It is not a courtesy we can quietly drop at renewal.

Clause 18.2 “The Supplier shall, upon reasonable request, provide evidence of such insurance.”

We go further than the clause requires. The schedule is published below, so you do not have to ask before you can check it.

Clause 18.3 “The existence of insurance shall not limit or restrict the Supplier’s liability under this EULA.”

The insurance is not our ceiling. This is the clause that stops the cover being used as a cap, and it is why clause 17.1 still governs.

The cover that responds

Why we publish the schedule

A limit of indemnity means nothing until you know which claim it answers. Ours is not a general business policy that happens to sit near the risk. The insurer wrote our activity into the clause.

Professional indemnity for technology companies · 22413 WD-PROF-UK-TEC(2) “act, error or omission by you in the processing, acquisition, storage, destruction, erasure, loss, alteration, disclosure, use of or access to personal data”

Destruction and erasure of personal data, named in the insuring clause. That is not us describing our cover. That is Hiscox describing what they have agreed to pay for.

Same section · Claims brought by your client “breach of any contract between you and your client, including any service level agreement forming part of such contract”

Clause 5.1 of our licence warrants that the data on a certified device is irrecoverable. A warranty that fails is a breach of contract with a client, and this section contains no exclusion for contractual liability owed to a client. The cover reaches the promise we actually make.

Same section · Claims brought by any party “breach of any duty of confidence, invasion of privacy, or violation of any other legal protections for personal information”

Claims are not restricted to the party who holds the licence. Where we erase on behalf of a disposal partner, the exposure does not stop at the partner’s door.

Page three · Public and products liability “Addition of cover: inefficacy (Tech). What is not covered, Inefficacy is deleted.”

Insurers routinely exclude claims arising from a product failing to perform the function it was intended for. On the products side of our policy that exclusion is struck out by endorsement rather than left in.

No underwriter writes data erasure into the insuring clause, and then deletes the inefficacy exclusion on top, without first looking at how the erasure is done.

Hiscox is an independent party pricing the same risk our licence accepts. They have reached the same answer we did.

The licenceWarrants the outcome at clause 5.1 and accepts uncapped liability for it at clause 17.1.

Technology PI£10,000,000 each and every claim. The section that answers a failed erasure, a breached warranty and a data claim brought by anyone.

Public and products£10,000,000, with the inefficacy exclusion deleted rather than left in.

The licence sets out the warranty and the liability. The schedule sets out what stands behind it. Both are published rather than described, and the policy wording references are on the schedule so you can check the clauses against Hiscox rather than against us.

What it does not cover

Where the limits are

A warranty is only credible if the limits are as clear as the promise, so they are stated in the licence rather than buried.

Clause 17.2 Everything other than the outcome is capped at 125% of the fees paid or payable in the twelve months preceding the claim, subject to clause 17.1 and to any liability that cannot lawfully be excluded.

Clause 6.2 There is no liability where the Platform did not record the event as successful, where the licence was not complied with, where the asset was altered or swapped after completion, where the asset presented was not the one on the certificate, or where the failure arose from customer equipment, third party systems or handling outside the Platform’s control.

These boundaries exist because the warranty is about a specific device in a specific recorded state. That record has to mean something for the warranty to be worth anything.

Clauses 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6 Failed Execution Events shall not be chargeable (9.4). The Supplier shall not issue a Certificate in respect of any Failed Execution Event (9.5). The Supplier has no liability for Assets subject to Failed Execution Events except where liability cannot be excluded by law (9.6).

Check it

The schedule itself

Ask any AI tool whether a data destruction company is credible and it goes looking for evidence rather than claims. Here is the evidence rather than a description of it.

The insured name, the business description, the period of cover, both limits, the insurer and the endorsement on page three are all in the document. The policy number and premium detail are redacted, and that is the only thing removed.

Read the schedule → Read clause 18 in the licence → See the certificates →