Nord Stream AG, the operator of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, rejects insurers’ conclusions that the collapse of a pipe on one line was likely caused by the explosions in September 2022. The company says the incident should be addressed under the terms of the insurance contract, and it points to RBC as the source of the claim it has filed. In its view, the damage qualifies as a covered loss and should be indemnified under the policy provisions that govern explosive damage to the pipeline and its critical components. The stance underscores the operator’s determination to pursue a defense that the losses fall within the insured risks mapped out in the contract and not as a non-covered geopolitical event.
Under the insurance agreement, Nord Stream AG asserts two main claim components. It seeks 380 million euros for damage tied to explosions on both lines and an additional 190 million euros for a dent produced by a separate insured incident. The operator frames these figures as recoverable costs that include repair work, replacement of damaged equipment, and related expenses necessary to restore the pipeline to safe and compliant operation. The figures are presented as the formal indemnity sought under the contract, reflecting the scale of the physical and operational disruption caused by the Baltic Sea blasts, according to RBC reporting.
Insurers counter that no payment should be made because the damage arose from the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, a risk category they argue is excluded by the policies. They contend that wartime and politically induced hazards are not covered in this case, and that the contract language does not extend to losses attributed to geopolitical hostilities. This position frames the case as a test of how broad or narrow policy exclusions are when critical energy infrastructure is hit by geopolitical shocks.
The dispute is advancing in London’s High Court. The operator filed its lawsuit against Lloyd’s and Arch in February 2024, with further allegations updated in September. The claimed compensation has risen to as much as 574 million euros as the scope of losses grows with the proceedings. The case brings together a major energy infrastructure operator and long-established London insurers in a high profile examination of policy coverage for large-scale infrastructure damage connected to geopolitical events.
On October 7, the insurers’ position became explicit, with a rejection of the Nord Stream operator’s claim for payment. The court case now centers on how the policy terms define insured events and exclusions, and whether the losses from the September 2022 incidents fall within the covered risk. The outcome could shape how similar geopolitical incidents are insured in the future and influence the balance of risk between operators and underwriters in major energy projects.
Nord Stream blasts occurred on September 26, 2022, in the Baltic Sea near the Danish island of Bornholm. The underwater detonations drew global attention to the pipeline corridor, raised questions about the integrity of the system, and triggered extensive damage assessments under the insurance policies that cover maritime infrastructure and related repair work. The Bornholm location, a busy maritime route, amplified the economic and environmental implications of the event and fed into the legal and financial scrutiny surrounding the case.
Earlier statements from the SVR indicated that the United States played a role in undermining Nord Stream. The Russian foreign intelligence service framed its remarks within a broader narrative about energy, security, and geopolitical competition. Although such assertions form part of the broader debate, they are not decisive in the court’s interpretation of the specific insurance contract terms at issue in this lawsuit, which focus on policy language and exclusions rather than attribution.