Our last Nord Stream pipeline post discussed the Nord Stream AG suit to recover damage costs from insurers Lloyd’s and Arch.
In a court document (excerpt below) obtained by Swedish engineer Erik Andersson, Lloyd’s and Arch assert that the damage was inflicted by, or under order of, a government , and therefore the insurers are not liable.
Given that the suspect governments have denied responsibility, shouldn’t the insurers have to prove that a government did it, and identify the government? That is what Nord Stream AG is asserting in their filing (except below).
Pictured: pig for cleaning gas pipelines. Will Nord Stream’s suit against the insurers unplug investigation findings?
Nord Stream AG has sued insurers Lloyds and Arch in the English High Court for failing to pay for pipeline damage incurred during the Sept. 2022 Baltic Sea explosions. The estimated pipeline repair costs range from €1.2 to €1.35 billion, and Nord Stream is seeking €400 million from the insurers.
Could this litigation help us learn more about the findings of the official Nord Stream investigations? After 17 months of investigation, Denmark recently concluded that “there are not sufficient grounds to pursue a criminal case in Denmark.” Only nineteen days before Sweden had announced that “Swedish jurisdiction does not apply and that the investigation therefore should be closed.” These weak announcements at the end of lengthy investigations seem too convenient, and may lend credence to Hersh’s Nord Stream account or a recent variation that implicates the UK. Germany is presumably still investigating, and it remains to be seen whether they will release findings.
Could the parties in the Nord Stream case pursue documents or testimony from the Swedish, Danish, or German investigation teams? Both sides in this case, Nord Stream AG and the insurers, would benefit from details that could help identify the responsible parties.
Bud's Offshore Energy (BOE) 