Nord Stream pipeline insurers will not pay €580 mn after a London judge ruled that the September 2022 sabotage resulted from the war in Ukraine, according to Beinsure.
Nord Stream AG, the Swiss company that owned the pipeline system, brought the claim against Lloyd’s Insurance Company SA and Arch Insurance (EU) DAC. Explosions ruptured three pipelines and damaged a fourth.
The insurers argued that the losses arose through war or under government direction. Their policies excluded damage linked directly or indirectly with either circumstance.
Judge Clare Moulder accepted the insurers’ position. She ruled on Monday that the ruptures and the dent happened directly or indirectly through, or as a consequence of, war.
The policy exclusion removed cover for the claimed loss under Exclusion 2.i. Lloyd’s and Arch therefore avoided the €580 mn payout.
German authorities investigated the blasts as a criminal case. Their most plausible explanation identified a group of Ukrainian divers as responsible for the sabotage.
The London court also heard evidence from a former US Navy Special Operations officer and an explosives consultant. Expert testimony considered Ukraine, Russia and the US as possible perpetrators.
Moulder made no finding on who carried out the attack. Both parties regarded Ukraine as a likely actor, although the evidence also addressed Russian and US involvement.
The judge said the war exclusion did not require the court to decide which suspect was more likely responsible. She found that the war represented a significant cause of the actions, regardless of which possible perpetrator carried out the sabotage.
Nord Stream AG belongs ultimately to Gazprom PJSC, the Russian state-backed energy group. Nord Stream 1 entered service in 2011 and carried gas from Vyborg, Russia, to Lubmin, Germany, through the Baltic Sea.
Nord Stream 2 reached completion in 2021 but never began operations. Tensions over Russia’s threats against Ukraine had intensified before the full-scale invasion in 2022.
According to Beinsure, the ruling focuses on the scope of the war exclusion rather than a final decision on responsibility for the explosions. The judgment offers a clear reading of how English courts may assess major insured infrastructure losses connected with armed conflict.
