About a month ago, Zug-based Nord Stream AG filed a lawsuit against its insurers. Nord Stream AG wanted to be compensated for the damage to the insured pipeline. The amount in dispute is more than 400 million US dollars.
However, the insurers Lloyd’s and Arch refuse to pay. Their reasoning: There is a government behind the explosion of Nord Stream 2 in September 2022.
“The defendants rely, among other things, on the fact that the explosion damage could only have been caused (or at least was highly likely to have been caused) by a government or on its orders,” reports the Scheer Post.
Damage caused by military conflicts is not covered
The sabotage was therefore directly or indirectly related to the military conflict between Russia and Ukraine. However, Lloyd’s and Arch argue that the consequences of armed conflict are excluded from insurance liability.
The insurers thus contradict the version reported by the Washington Post and other media: that the attack on the pipeline was carried out by a private Ukrainian demolition squad.
“Desperate attempt” to wriggle out of it
“Scheer Post quotes Swedish engineer Erik Anderson, who led the first private expedition to the explosion sites. He believes that the insurers’ justification is their “desperate attempt to find an excuse to avoid having to meet their compensation obligations”.
According to the Scheer Post, the damage to the Nord Stream pipelines caused by the Nord Stream 2 explosion is estimated at between $1.2 billion and $1.35 billion. Lloyd’s and Arch go on to argue that even if insurers had to pay for part of this, they would not be allowed to do so. This is because Western sanctions against Russia would prohibit them from doing so.
Kowtowing to the U.S. government – and putting your reputation on the line
After the US government threatened the insurers Lloyds and Arch with sanctions, the two withdrew their promise to insure the damage to Nord Stream 2. However, they would still have to cover damage to the Nord Stream 1 pipeline. Nord Stream 1 was not affected by the threat of sanctions, “but of course the sanctions could now work retroactively in favor of the insurers,” Andersson told the Scheer Post.
From the point of view of the independent US online newspaper, a court decision in favor of the insurers would probably be “a double-edged sword. By submitting to US sanctions and no longer insuring ships carrying Iranian oil, “Western insurers (like their counterparts in the banking sector) are increasingly at risk of losing their global reputation for relative independence from the state. If the West ultimately loses its grip on the global insurance market – or its reputation as a safe haven for foreign assets – €400 million is unlikely to buy that reputation back.”
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
