by consumers and one that insures the debtor against claims by officers and directors. In either case, the insurance policies protect against diminution of the value of the estate.”); In re CyberMedica, Inc., 280 B.R. 12, 17 (Bankr.D.Mass.2002) (“There is a fundamental test that has been used in determining whether or not property belongs to the estate and that test is whether ‘the debtor’s estate is worth more with them then without them.’ ” citing Minoco, supra at 519); In re Jasmine, Ltd., 258 B.R. 119, 128 (D.N.J.2000) (“This Court finds [ ] that the trustee’s a B.R. 752, 755 (N.D.Ca.1991) (following Louisiana World Exposition in distinguishing ownership of policy versus ownership of proceeds); In re Youngstown Osteopathic Hosp. Ass’n, 271 B.R. 544, 550-51 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 2002) (<HOLDING>); First Central Financial, supra, 238 B.R. at
holding that the proceeds of a liability insurance policy were not property of the estate holding that where the policy includes indemnification coverage to the corporation proceeds are not property of the estate where there is no proof of payments by corporation of payments holding that the action on the part of the corporation in making payments for so long a period without objection constituted a ratification of the agreement by the corporation holding directors and officers liability policy was property of the estate because the estate was worth more with indemnification coverage than without the coverage holding that where the policy names only the directors or officers as insured the proceeds are not property of the estate