The Battle of the Aviation Industry to Cope with Weapons of Mass Destruction (and with Governments). by Ralf Oelßner and Prof. Dr. Wolf Müller-Rostin, Delvag Aviation Insurance, Cologne. Insuring the uninsurable. Hull Insurance.
by Ralf Oelßner and
Prof. Dr. Wolf Müller-Rostin,
Delvag Aviation Insurance,
Clauses proposed by the Aviation Insurers
The clauses proposed by the aviation insurers intend to exclude all cover for the hostile use of WMD, namely nuclear, radioactive contamination, biological, chemical and electromagnetic pulse devices or materials
Clauses proposed by AEA / IATA / Marsh
The scope of AVN 48 D, AVN 52 K and AVN 52 L is to provide at least limited liability coverage for the hostile use of radioactive contamination, biological, chemical, electromagnetic pulse device or matter in addition to the other perils normally written back by AVN 52 clauses.
„At least limited coverage“ means coverage under either
thus providing flexibility in the write backs of perils for insured by selecting between various write back options and choices depending on anticipated loss scenarios.
Single aircraft coverage covers WMD damages to an aircraft
Excluded is coverage for any aircraft, that flies through a WMD contamination cloud and lands normally. Reason for exclusion: multi aircraft contamination possible.
Regulatory / corporate governance compliance coverage provides the opportunity to cover all WMD damages, but only
for restricted limits as per negotiation.
Example: Explosion of aircraft covered under Single Aircraft Coverage affects other passengers of the same carrier who are sitting in other aircraft or waiting in the terminal.
Passengers of other carriers (third party liability) would be covered by the third party aggregate limit available under the Single Aircraft Coverage or Regulatory Coverage, whichever is higher.
Coverage under AVN 52 L (Service Providers) basically same as AVN 52 K, except for coverage for passengers, baggage, cargo and mail.
Art. 50 MC
AEA, IATA / Marsh in discussions with EU-Commission to clarify whether clauses would be deemed compliant with EU-Regulation 785/2004 (in particular passenger limit of 100.000 SDR [in contrast to 250.000 SDR required under the Regulation] in case of airport attack).