Thread by @Erkperk

BREAKING: The "defense" of Nord Stream AG's insurance companies has been filed.

LLoyds and Arch argue that the damage was inflicted by, or under order of, a GOVERNMENT , and therefore they don't need pay. -->

I have requested the documents from the court and I'm making them available here. The defense filing has a lot of references to the claim doc so I publish download links to both:


dropbox.com/scl/fi/bwzuufs…
dropbox.com/scl/fi/y8ezf3p…

Paragraph 22.3 : "It's customary in the energy market for cover for war risks to be confined to floating assets (which can be moved away from hostilities) "

How would we know that hostilities were coming to the Baltic? Because Biden told us?

The insurance companies are very clear that the Nord Stream bombing was a "single event , namely the decision of a person(s) to plant and/or detonate explosive devices on the NS1 pipelines"

If they have to pay, they don't want to pay separately for the two damaged NS1 pipes.

In a way I find it sobering that the insurance companies are focusing on the government who ordered the attack.

I hope that makes it more difficult for the guilty government and the German investigation to scapegoat and charge some lower level individuals.

The last paragraph brings up sanctions. Even if the court decides in favor of Nord Stream, Lloyds and Arch open up for the possibility that new sanctions can prevent the payment. -->

Below is news from 2021 where companies Lloyds and Arch were listed among those who bailed out of insuring Nord Stream 2 because of sanctions. Nord Stream 1 was not affected by those sanctions, but apparently sanctions might work retroactively to the benefit of insurers. Hmmm.

Nord Stream seems to argue that the insurers have the burden to prove it was a government. The insurers disagree with this interpretation. -->

This passage from the claimant's document affirms that Nord Stream expects a responsibility from the insurers to prove government culpability if that particular exception is used by the insurers to escape liability.

The full text of the insurance policy is not made public, but claimants and defendants are both quoting the excerpts they find relevant. Both parties agree that the "War&Terror" exclusion below and therefore "Section II" applies. But Sec II only covers "terror", not "war".

Legal scholars have explained to me that as a general rule, the insured claimant must prove that the policy applies.

BUT, if governments deny, the face value of their denial becomes a possible interpretation to the benefit of the insured, so that interpretation should prevail.

Both parties acknowledge that the perpetrator is not known. Lloyds&Arch are just saying that it was "most likely a government that ordered it", and expects Nord Stream to prove that it wasn't.

But all suspected governments are denying involvement in the bombings, so the defendants must expect the court ruling to imply that the culpable government is lying.

I don't see how Lloyds and Arch can win this in a non controversial way. The insurers mention the Ukraine-Russia war, but there is no opening for possible Russian self sabotage in the defense document. My impression is that the case of the insurers relies on implicating the Ukrainian government.

I just spoke to Said Mahmoudi, the go-to legal scholar in Sweden for matters like this.

He confirms that in order to win, the insurance companies must prove that the Nord Stream bombing was a government ordered act of war. The burden of proof rests on the insurers.

He also said that even if the insurers succeed in proving government culpability, and the commercial court rules in favor of the insurers, the German government will not care.

Apparently, politics is completely independent of justice.