Skip to main content
The Actuary: The magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries - return to the homepage Logo of The Actuary website
  • Search
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit The Actuary Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries Logo of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries

Main navigation

  • News
  • Features
    • General Features
    • Interviews
    • Students
    • Opinion
  • Topics
  • Knowledge
    • Business Skills
    • Careers
    • Events
    • Predictions by The Actuary
    • Whitepapers
    • Moody's - Climate Risk Insurers series
    • Webinars
    • Podcasts
  • Jobs
  • IFoA
    • CEO Comment
    • IFoA News
    • People & Social News
    • President Comment
  • Archive
Quick links:
  • Home
  • The Actuary Issues
  • April 2021
Students
Careers

Hostile acts

Open-access content Wednesday 7th April 2021

Adeetya Tantia looks at how war risk exclusion clauses have been interpreted in various notable incidents – and why the industry should consider updating them

Student

Humankind’s pursuit of violent solutions for problems has compelled the judicial system to interpret hostile acts exclusion clauses – commonly known in insurance as war risk exclusion clauses – in various instances.

The interpretation of these clauses is important because of the nuances in their applicability, and the risk of large claims that they may or may not apply to. The Joint Cargo Committee monitors war risks and quantifies them on a publicly available scale, but these measures can be volatile – in 1990, after Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, insurers unable to quantify risks charged up to US$162,500 as the war risk insurance premium for a flight to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 

Past cases provide insight into how this clause may be interpreted. During the First World War in 1918, the Italian steamship Napoli collided with the British steamship Lamington and sank. Both ships, taking precautions, were travelling without lights at night, and one had changed course due to a submarine attack earlier. In the judicial case between the two insurers, the court ruled that the exclusion did not apply because the damages were not a result of warlike action but of collision, which could have occurred at any time.

In 1970, Pan Am Flight 93 was hijacked, taken to Cairo, evacuated and blown up. It was ruled that the incident could not be defined as ‘war’ because the hijackers were members of a radical Jordanian political group, not a sovereign or quasi-sovereign entity. The court concluded that a group must have some incidence of sovereignty before its activities can be defined as ‘war’. 

The war exclusion clause was also not applied when, during the 1982 siege of Beirut, the city’s Holiday Inn was shelled while occupied by a particular faction. The court recognised that while there were three other factions with some attributes of sovereignty, neither the group occupying the Holiday Inn, nor the one that shelled it, possessed any characteristics of sovereignty.

On the other hand, there is the example of telecommunications business TRT Communications. During the US invasion of Panama in 1989, TRT’s Panama City office was robbed by persons dressed as civilians with assault rifles, in what appeared to be a pre-planned attack. The court found evidence that the actions were enabled by the military hostilities, and that while the robbers may not have been part of Panama’s military or government, the loss would not have occurred in the absence of the US invasion. The war exclusion was upheld.

After 9/11, President George Bush declared the attack “an act of war”. While a few insurance companies initially cited this as an indication to invoke war risk exclusions, they quickly changed position – primarily due to the case law, which interpreted war risk clauses to mean actions between sovereign or quasi-sovereign entities. As the scale of the losses became clearer, the US government passed the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act to create a backstop for insurance claims related to terrorism. 

Another example of a terrorism risk solution is Pool Re, a mutual reinsurer set up by the UK government and insurance industry in 1993 in response to the IRA’s bombing of the Baltic Exchange. Pool Re is owned by its members but is underpinned by a Treasury commitment to support Pool Re if ever it has insufficient funds to pay a legitimate claim arising from a terrorist act. Pool Re pays a premium to the government for this guarantee, and would repay the money over time if it ever used this facility.

The war risk exclusion is causing contention in cyberspace. It is suspected that nation states have backed cyber-attacks such as NotPetya (Russia) and WannaCry (North Korea). The NotPetya virus was first spotted in Ukraine in June 2017 and spread around the globe in a few hours, encrypting computer hard drives and demanding compensation. Two servers belonging to the food multinational Mondelez were infected, causing damage exceeding US$100m. 

In June 2018, Mondelez’s claim was denied under the war exclusion clause; the case is still pending in court. The possibility that major state-sponsored cyber losses could be excluded from war exclusion clauses suggests there is a gap at the heart of cyber coverage, and that the exclusion needs to be updated in light of the changing nature of hostile acts in the 21st century.

Adeetya Tantia is a guest student editor

ACT Apr21_Full.jpg
This article appeared in our April 2021 issue of The Actuary.
Click here to view this issue
Filed in
Students
Also filed in
Careers
Topics
Professional
Careers

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Latest Jobs

Risk Actuary - General Insurance

London (Greater)
£60,000 - £85,000
Reference
145934

Project Actuary - Life Insurance

Midlands
£60,000 - £110,000
Reference
145933

Model Validation Actuary

London (Greater)
£60k - £80k
Reference
145932
See all jobs »
 
 

Today's top reads

 
 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to The Actuary

Receive the print edition straight to your door

Subscribe
Spread-iPad-slantB-june.png

Topics

  • Data Science
  • Investment
  • Risk & ERM
  • Pensions
  • Environment
  • Soft skills
  • General Insurance
  • Regulation Standards
  • Health care
  • Technology
  • Reinsurance
  • Global
  • Life insurance
​
FOLLOW US
The Actuary on LinkedIn
@TheActuaryMag on Twitter
Facebook: The Actuary Magazine
CONTACT US
The Actuary
Tel: (+44) 020 7880 6200
​

IFoA

About IFoA
Become an actuary
IFoA Events
About membership

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to The Actuary Magazine
Contribute

The Actuary Jobs

Actuarial job search
Pensions jobs
General insurance jobs
Solvency II jobs

© 2023 The Actuary. The Actuary is published on behalf of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries by Redactive Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ