this is a good example of how geopolitical risk actually shows up in financial contracts
most large infrastructure like pipelines are insured under all risk policies, but almost all of them carve out war / state action exclusions
the tricky part is the standard of proof, insurers don’t necessarily have to prove exactly *who* did it, just that the loss is consistent with a war type event or state-backed sabotage
and once that threshold is met, the burden can shift back to the insured to prove it *wasn’t* war-related, which is extremely hard in cases like this
also worth noting, this isn’t a small claim, it’s in the range of hundreds of millions of euros, so both sides are incentivized to push legal interpretation pretty aggressively
in practice, cases like this can drag on for years in arbitration, and the outcome often depends more on policy wording and legal standards than on a clear public attribution of the event itself
so yeah, it’s less about establishing a definitive cause in the public sense, and more about how risk is classified under insurance law
42
Dingcock2 days ago
+10
War is excluded in pretty much every insurance policy, and since 2001 terrorism is also a standard exclusion.
Yes this will probably devolve to a fight over wordings and intent.
The war exclusion are generally extremely broad, I've seen them specifically exclude actions by a belligerent power, and also exclude derelict weapons of war and all kinds of shit.
I bet the insurers win.
10
Sad-Lecture63402 days ago
+3
In every standard policy.
I highly doubt these pipelines are insured on standard policies.
If they didn't include war-clauses some insurance manager f*cked up.
3
Beginning-Wish-42733 days ago
+27
Calling it “war-related” now feels less about clarity and more about liability.
If insurers can tie it to war, they don’t have to pay — so suddenly the narrative matters a lot.
Funny how the definition shifts when billions are on the line.
27
faster_tomcat1 day ago
+1
This was a "special military operation" not a war tho.
/s
1
Leverkaas25163 days ago
+6
> Nord Stream blasts due to war, ...
I've always assumed this was true, and would be astonished if it wasn't.
6
Filias93 days ago
+13
If insures insuring war related damages, insurance would be astronomical. It's job for state, companies to deal with that, make some preparations, etc.
13
Foxkilt3 days ago
+7
>If insures insuring war relatdamages, insurance would be astronomicalIf insures insuring war related damages, insurance would be astronomical
Not really: it would be very feasible (and not really expensive) to insure one single item against war risks.
The reason insurances refuse to do it is that wars are rather large things, which are good at damaging multiple things in a short time. So the insurance would go bankrupt if it had to pay for rebuilding all that is destroyed by war by itself
So the cost wouldn't be astronomical, rather you couldn't trust your insurance to still exist when you would need it
7
BrothelWaffles3 days ago
+3
It's almost like insurance is a giant scam that can only be profitable if they don't actually do the thing people are paying them to do.
3
ShaqShoes3 days ago
+3
That isn't how it works at all? They just need their ratio of premiums:losses to be greater than 1. Most insurance companies in reasonably competitive markets have loss ratios very close to 1
Buying insurance has a negative expected value but helps to manage risk on an individual level. Large companies "self-insure" for this very reason- if you have a fleet of thousands of trucks, the cost to insure them will be more than the cost of simply paying out the claims yourself.
3
interposetenth3 days ago
+5
More like insurance doesn't want to be a scam so they specifically tell you the sorts of things they will not insure, such as war-related damage, because they aren't sure they have the resources to pay it out.
5
Flyz6473 days ago
+1
Doesn't have the ressources nor could they expect to increase insurances premiums to cover loses.
1
ZzZzZzZzZzZero3 days ago
-3
Insurance is a scam anyway.
-3
Flyz6473 days ago
+1
not really
1
YarpsDrittAdrAtta3 days ago
+4
Perhaps we should point out here that Russia’s Gazprom holds a 51% stake in NS1 and a 100% stake in NS2
4
evildrtran2 days ago
Arrest the insurance executives for money laundering
16 Comments