Spain’s transport minister on Friday rejected calls for his resignation over the second train accident on his watch to cause mass casualties this year, as authorities worked to identify the victims from a crash that left at least 69 dead.

Lawmakers from across the political spectrum this week condemned Transport Minister Oscar Puente for attributing Wednesday’s crash to a break in protocol by control centre operators rather than accepting responsibility, with rail workers’ unions calling for his immediate dismissal.

The crash, which happened near the town of Urda in central Spain, followed another accident involving the same rail companies on the same line that left 46 dead in January.

It has reopened a debate about safety and maintenance on Spain’s high-speed rail network, the most extensive in Europe, as the country prepares for an election that left-leaning Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has called for November 29.

“My duty now is not to focus on discussing whether I will remain in office, but on solving the problem, determining exactly what happened and providing clear explanations,” Puente said at a press conference on Friday.

The train that smashed into a second stationary one was travelling at a speed between 160 and 200 kph when the collision occurred, according to a preliminary report released on Thursday by the Independent Authority for the Technical Investigation of Accidents and Incidents (AITAT).

“The sequence of malfunctions, instructions, and actions eventually led to the collision, in the absence of the necessary mitigating barriers,” AITAT said in the report.

AITAT said it would not be able to confirm the exact speed of the train until it extracted information from the train’s black box.

At the scene of the crash, large cranes were lifting the mangled wreckage as the Civil Guard listed 64 people as missing in what is already Spain’s deadliest train accident since 2013.

Authorities have carried out 49 autopsies so far and formally identified five people — three women and two men — Esther Padilla, spokesperson for the Castilla-La Mancha regional government, said on state television network TVE.

“Testing is proceeding slowly, although families will be contacted throughout the day so that they can come and collect their results,” Padilla said on Friday.

It was unclear if all those missing were accounted for in the death toll.

Authorities can’t rule out more fatalities

No additional bodies were found when rescue teams overturned a train carriage on Thursday, Castilla-La Mancha regional leader Emiliano Garcia-Page said on TVE.

Identifying the bodies was proving difficult because many were in pieces, he said. On Thursday, rescue teams had placed partial remains in 31 bags.

“The truth is that we cannot rule out the possibility that there may be more fatalities,” Garcia-Page said.

As identification of the dead continued, the debate about who was at fault intensified, with unions saying it was unfair to lay the blame on human error.

Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez on Friday vowed to find out what caused the accident.

“It is unacceptable for a country like Spain, with such a strong high-speed rail system, to suffer two accidents of this nature and magnitude in a single year,” he said.

The collision occurred after several trains were automatically stopped due to the failure of a signalling system, after which the central control centre in Madrid took over. A train operated by state-owned Renfe was authorised to proceed, even though there was a stationary Iryo-operated train ahead, according to Puente.

Audio of communications between the control centre and the train drivers obtained by El Pais showed how a controller authorised the Renfe train to continue on its journey at a normal speed, which Puente said disregarded a protocol to travel at no more than 40 kph in such circumstances.

The audio also showed the controller authorised the Renfe train, carrying 379 passengers and seven crew, to resume its journey even though the Iryo train, carrying 147 passengers and five crew, should have proceeded first according to protocol.

Controllers say focus should be on failed signal system

Raquel Ayllón, a union leader for state-owned infrastructure operator Adif, said controllers were having to operate under difficult working conditions.

“Human error is being criticised and questioned very quickly, while people are not really focusing on the central issue: the failure of the safety system,” Ayllón said on TVE.

The LZB system which failed, triggering the sequence of events that led to Wednesday’s crash, was behind schedule for an upgrade, public documents show.

In September 2021, Adif awarded a contract to Thales Espana, the Spanish arm of the French equipment maker, to complete the installation of a new, standardised European system called ERTMS by early 2026 for 93.8 million euros ($105m), according to press releases on the tender.

The system has been installed across most of Spanish high-speed rail, according to a factsheet by European rail association UNIFE, which developed the new ERTMS standard. But the Madrid-Seville line, site of two fatal crashes, had fallen behind, according to the tender contract.

The contract was passed to Hitachi Rail in 2024, according to Thales, which declined to provide comment on the delay of the rollout.

Hackers stole $6.3 billion from Binance in the world’s biggest crypto heist, putting a spotlight on how cryptocurrency exchanges insure their digital assets against theft and cyberattacks.

But insurance protection is far from uniform. Coverage depends on how assets are stored, how hackers gain access and the specific terms of the policy.

Limited regulation and volatile crypto prices have long made insurers wary of the sector, despite growing demand for protection against digital asset theft and claims against company executives.

While both crime and demand for protection have tracked cryptocurrencies’ meteoric rise, underwriting such risks remains a niche business offered largely by specialist insurers in the Lloyd’s market and in Bermuda.

What is digital asset insurance?

Digital asset insurance is a range of policies designed to protect cryptocurrency exchanges, custodians and other companies operating in the sector against financial losses arising from the theft of digital assets, cyberattacks, technology failures and other business risks.

Unlike traditional insurance, these policies are tailored to risks associated with blockchain technology, including the theft or loss of private keys, wallet security breaches, smart contract vulnerabilities and failures in digital asset custody.

The global crypto insurance market was valued at $9.37bn in 2025 and is projected to reach $184.98 billion by 2033, according to Data Bridge Market Research.

The research firm cited growing institutional adoption of cryptocurrencies and rising incidents of cyberattacks and digital asset theft among the factors driving demand.

Coverage can include several types of policies: crime insurance for theft, social engineering and scams; cyber liability for breaches, hacks and regulatory response; errors and omissions insurance for software bugs; smart contract failures; directors and officers insurance for lawsuits targeting executives; and technology liability for infrastructure providers.

How are losses covered?

When a crypto exchange suffers a hack, losses can be covered through a combination of insurance payouts, the company’s own capital and emergency funds set aside to compensate customers.

The extent of insurance coverage depends on the policies held by the exchange, including their limits, deductibles and exclusions. Where losses exceed the insured amount, the company must rely on its own financial resources or other recovery arrangements to meet its obligations.

Some exchanges also maintain reserve funds to reimburse customers following security breaches. Binance established the Secure Asset Fund for Users (SAFU) in July 2018 as an emergency reserve to protect users in extreme cases, such as security breaches or platform-level incidents.

As of 2026, the SAFU fund holds crypto assets worth roughly $1bn, entirely in bitcoin, according to Binance’s website. The company did not immediately respond to Reuters’ request for comment on its insurance coverage.

What can prevent an insurance payout?

Exclusions that let insurers deny certain claims are common in policies covering digital assets and the personal liabilities of directors and officers at cryptocurrency companies. These can limit the scope of protection available to companies and make it harder for them to secure coverage.

Common exclusions in these policies include value fluctuations, fraudulent acts by the policyholder and unsecured or negligent key management.

Do traditional crime and cyber insurance policies cover crypto?

Most standard crime insurance policies do not cover cryptocurrency losses, as they were originally designed to protect physical property such as cash, securities and precious metals.

Traditional cyber liability policies also do not always cover the value of digital assets stolen in a hack. While cyber policies can cover both first-party losses and third-party liabilities, including forensic investigations, customer notifications and legal expenses, they generally exclude the loss or transfer of funds.

As a result, standalone cyber policies typically do not cover the full value of stolen cryptocurrency unless specific digital asset coverage has been added.

How do insurers assess crypto theft claims?

Insurers examine how a breach occurred, which systems were compromised and whether the resulting loss falls within the policy’s coverage.

They may also assess whether the exchange followed required security procedures, including controls over private keys, wallet access and transaction approvals.

The distinction between an external hacker stealing credentials and an employee deliberately transferring assets can determine whether a crime or cyber insurance policy covers the loss.