Russia sues - this should be interesting

Gazprom ownes 51% of Nord Stream AG.

The cause of the explosions, which took place in international waters in September 2022, has not been determined.

Many if not most polices exclude war damage.

The Captain


But is it war damage? Where’s the proof? It will be a civil proceeding and the standard of proof is ‘on the balance of probabilities’. It was probably done as a result of a war, but does this make it a war crime?


1 Like

From 2022:

While a claim has not yet been made for the damage and disruption to the pipeline, two of the sources told Reuters, Nord Stream 1’s underwriters may dispute any submitted on the grounds that the damage was an act of self-sabotage, or of war, neither of which are generally covered by insurance.

Not relevant to the 'suit. A finding supporting the denial of the insurance company does not necessarily meet whatever evidence requirements there would be in some other court for a claim of a war crime.

Additionally, it would be fair to assume that the insurance company simply has to demonstrate that it isn’t one of the specific covered “perils” - not that it was specifically something else. For example, if you have fire insurance and not flood insurance, an insurance company doesn’t have to prove you had a flood to deny a claim. They only have to demonstrate that your damage was not due to a fire.


It could, of course, just be some distraction policy by Russia - I wouldn’t put it past them.

If it does go ahead it will be interesting.

It is a lot of money at stake. Might as well ask.


You think the handlers will know?

Peanuts to Russia when I think of it. I think that Russia is up to something.

It’s not about crime but about how risk is calculated. Normal events in sufficient volume provide actuaries with the data they use to set rates but it does not include war or ‘force majeure.’ If you want to cover these events you have to pay more.

The Captain