5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable

Transcrição

5th Reunion Engineering
Insurance Roundtable
June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia
Content
Introduction
2
Participants list
3
Chapter 1.
Claims overview
6
Chapter 2.
Exclusion of insurance expenses from the construction contracts —
consequences for the insurance market
26
Chapter 3.
Inherent Defects Insurance (IDI), opportunities and the application of this type
of insurance in Russia
28
Chapter 4.
Assembly from mega-modules — a new concept of the construction
44
Chapter 5.
Turbine losses — technical and monetary challenges
58
Chapter 6.
Evaluation of PML for civil and industrial engineering construction — case study
76
Chapter 7.
Cessation of works
92
Chapter 8.
Insurance of system installation of wind turbines and wind farms; insurance of
construction of solar parks
102
Chapter 9.
Last year’s experience and performance features of the pre-insurance survey
in the Moscow metro
108
Analytics
5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia
126
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are delighted to present the essential materials of the 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, organised
and hosted by Reunion AG in June 2015 in Moscow, Russia.
As usual, we focused on various topics related to underwriting of engineering risks.
While planning the roundtable discussions, we took into consideration our previous experience of running this event.
The unique group of participants, who between them represented most of the main international reinsurers and the
biggest players in the Russian insurance market including the national reinsurers, offered a very high level of experience
and knowledge, especially in the field of construction and erection insurance.
On the second day of the event participants took a break from the indoor discussion format and visited a road
construction site in Moscow. We would like to pay special thanks to Gefest Insurance Co. for helping us to organize this
visit.
We would also like to thank all the participants who presented, which also prompted interesting discussions and debate
on each of discussion subjects.
Acting as an insurance and reinsurance broker Reunion maintains a constant dialog with Russian, and CIS insurers
as well as international reinsurers. We believe regular meetings between professionals in this sector are useful for all
parties. This roundtable is our small contribution to this process. We hope this publication will be interesting to you and
we would appreciate any feedback. You can post your comments and proposals on our website www.reunion.ch. This
publication may also be downloaded from our website www.reunion.ch/media-eng/publications.
Best regards,
Igor Prandetsky, CEO
Reunion AG
2
Participants list
ACE Europe Group Ltd, London, United Kingdom
Jean-Francois Rossetto, Senior Underwriter Civil Construction
AlfaStrakhovanie JSC, Moscow, Russia
Sergei Korneev, Head of the Methodology and Underwriting of Technical Risks Insurance Department
Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty JSC, Moscow, Russia
Oleg Romanov, Director of Technical Risks Insurance Department
Pavel Smirnov-Nebosklonov, Deputy Director Engineering Insurance Department
Arab Insurance Group, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain
Peter Tailby, Senior Underwriter Engineering
Barents Re Reinsurance Co., Inc., Moscow, Russia
Denis Nikolaytsev, Deputy Head of Representation Office
British Insurance House Ltd, Moscow, Russia
Andrey Tikhonov, Head of Underwriting Department
Cunningham Lindsey Zorn GmbH, Wülfrath, Germany
Ulrich Mann, CEO and Country Manager
Cunningham Lindsey Russia JSC, Moscow, Russia
Evgeny Malachinsky, General Director
Daniil Cherepanov, Deputy Head of Property Claims Department
Alexander Mysnik, Senior Technical Expert
GEFEST IJSC, Moscow, Russia
Sergey Moskovskikh, Head of Department of Technical Risks Insurance
Hannover Rück SE, Hannover, Germany
Tomasz Zgadzaj, Underwriter
Ingosstrakh OJSIC, Moscow, Russia
Radiy Suleymanov, Director of Engineering Underwriting Department, Underwriting Division, Corporate Insurance
IIC Euro-Policy LLC, Moscow, Russia
Ilya Averin, Head of Engineering Insurance Department
Pavel Lipatov, Deputy Head of Property and Liability Insurance Division
Munich Re, Munich, Germany
Stefan Saur, Engineering & Power Underwriter
Polish Re, Warsaw, Poland
Michał Żelaśkiewicz, Product Manager — Property and Engineering
Magdalena Czaja, Team Manager, Chief Area Manager — Russia
3
Rosgosstrakh Ltd, Moscow, Russia
Igor Ryzhkin, Head of Property and Technical Risks Insurance Department
Reunion AG, Zug, Switzerland
Igor Prandetsky, CEO
Nailia Jost, Associate Manager, Reinsurance Placements
Reunion Insurance Broker LLC, Moscow, Russia
Alexander Drugov, Executive Director
Evgenia Zaytseva, Chief Executive Officer
Roksana Bobrik, Head of Reinsurance Division
Russian Reinsurance Company OJSC, Moscow, Russia
Maria Morozova, Member of the Board of Management, Head of Business Development and Client Management
Department
ISLAB LLC (RusSurvey) - in association with Crawford & Company, Moscow, Russia
Pavel Shaptsev, Deputy General Director — Head of International Programs Department
ISES LLC (RusSurvey), Moscow, Russia
Dmitry Zagorsky, Leading Risk Engineer of Risk survey Department
SCOR Reinsurance LLC, Moscow, Russia
Vadim Bogatov, Senior Underwriter P&C
Insurance Company of Gas Industry SOGAZ, Open Joint-Stock Company, Moscow, Russia
Roman Emelyanov, Head of Engineering Underwriting Division
Stanislav Sizarev, Head of Department of Underwriting of Pipeline Transport
Swiss Re Europe S.A., Munich, Germany
Ulrich Werwigk, Claims Manager
Swiss Re Europe S.A., Zürich, Switzerland
Franco Ciamberlano, Head EN Mediterranean, Germany, Nordics, Austria, CEE & ME
Sascha Gohlsch, Head Engineering CNEE (incl. Russia and CIS)
Leonhard Albrecht, Senior Underwriter
Transsiberian Reinsurance Corporation OJSC, North-Western Bureau, St.Petersburg, Russia
Tatiana Sotskova, Senior Underwriter
Unity Re Ltd., Moscow, Russia
Svetlana Chepeleva, Deputy CEO
Insurance Group UralSib, Moscow, Russia
Dmitry Tarasov, Head of Directorate of Underwriting of Corporate Property
5th
5thReunion
ReunionEngineering
EngineeringInsurance
InsuranceRoundtable,
Roundtable,June
June8-10,
8-10,2015,
2015,Moscow,
Moscow,Russia
Russia
44
Victoria Insurance Company JSC, Almaty, Kazakhstan
Sergey Lavrentyev, Deputy Chairman of the Board
VIG Re, Prague, Czech Republic
Petko Koev, Underwriter
VSK Insurance JSC, Moscow, Russia
Olecia Ryabova, Director of the Underwriting Department for Construction/Erection Risks and Civil Liability of SRO
Members
Natalya Kolpakova, Director of the Underwriting Department for Industrial Risks
Insurance company «VTB Insurance» Ltd, Moscow, Russia
Andrey Morozov, Head of Property and Liability Insurance
XL Catlin Reinsurance, Zurich, Switzerland
Francesca De Rosa, Senior Underwriter Construction/Engineering Treaty and Facultative
Zetta Insurance Company Ltd., Moscow, Russia
Anton Kulik, Senior Underwriter Engineering
55
Claims overview
1
chapter
Igor Prandetsky
Daniil Cherepanov
Thank you for coming and your support today. On behalf
of the ReUnion team, I have the honor of welcoming you
to the 5th ReUnion Engineering Reinsurance Roundtable.
We are in Moscow this year and we have the pleasure of
welcoming representatives from leading international
reinsurers and Russian and Kazakhstan insurance and
reinsurance companies.
The topic of this session is engineering insurance. Our
programme today will start with an overview of claims that
have happened since our last event, held in St. Petersburg
last year.
Then we will discuss an issue very relevant to the
Russian engineering insurance market place: the exclusion
of insurance expenses from construction contracts.
After the first coffee break, we will discuss inherent
defects insurance, which is still an issue for the Russian
insurance market.
After that, there will be a presentation by Allianz called
‘Assembly from Mega-modules’, which will highlight new
technology, and then another presentation by Swiss Re
covering turbine losses.
After the lunch break a presentation by RusSurvey will
examine how to estimate Maximum Probable Loss in
construction.
The next topic will cover Cessation of Work and how
insurers and reinsurers can deal with this risk.
Participant will then look at wind turbines and wind
farms installation insurance.
Finally, in our last session of the day, we have an
interesting report on a pre-insurance survey of the Moscow
Subway provided by Cunningham Lindsey.
Ladies and gentlemen, as usual I would also like to remind
you that the format for today will be a short presentation
followed by an open discussion. Please do not treat
this event as a conference; it is an open roundtable and
everyone’s opinion and experience is welcome.
Before the main presentations, I will just briefly tell you
more about ReUnion. We are an insurance and reinsurance
broker but also consultants. We are active in many different
lines of business, though our core business is engineering,
and we operate in regions including Russia, Azerbaijan,
Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and some other regions of the former
Soviet Union.
We also organize specialist events for the industry. This
is the fifth annual engineering roundtable we have held:
the first one was in Munich in 2011; the second one in
Sochi; the third in Montreux; and last year’s event was in
St. Petersburg.
Now please allow me to invite Daniil Cherepanov, a
representative from Cunningham Lindsey, discuss large
claims that have happened since last year.
Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Fifth ReUnion
Engineering Insurance Roundtable.
It has become a tradition to start this event with an
overview of recent CAR and EAR claims. We will cover
claims in the period of 2013-2014 settled by Cunningham
Lindsey Russia and Cunningham Lindsey, Germany. Ulrich
Mann will handle that second part of the presentation.
We will first describe our approach to claims handling
and the features that distinguish us from the other
adjusters. Then we will explain the business sectors that we
specialise in and introduce the Specialist Practice Groups
before looking at major and complex losses.
We will then explore the definition of Major and
Complex Losses (MCL) and then examine these losses at a
national level.
Finally, we will look at examples of CAR and EAR losses
handled by Cunningham Lindsey Russia in 2013 and 2014
before showing some particular examples of same handled
by Cunningham Lindsey Zorn in Germany in 2013 and
2014. We will then offer some conclusions.
As the result of decades of work adjusting construction
losses, Cunningham Lindsey has invaluable experience
and sophisticated knowledge in this field. This has created
an understanding of what our clients need, allowing us to
deliver the best solutions in practice.
There are five key things that set us apart from the other
adjusters: our qualified and dedicated adjusters with vast
experience in handling construction claims; our global
network of locally based construction experts; our experts’
detailed knowledge of construction disciplines; our quick
response and friendly cooperation; and our target-oriented
staff who always complete work properly and with due care
and diligence.
Our range of services includes: advanced loss of profits;
professional indemnity; public and employees’ liability;
private finance initiatives; latent defects; delay in start-up;
difference in conditions; contractors’ plant and equipment;
multinational annual programmes; business interruption;
third-party administration programmes; and captives.
Some of the largest and most complex construction and
civil engineering projects around the world have been
carried out under the care of our adjusters. We have helped
implement new engineering approaches and construction
techniques and worked with state-of-the-art machinery,
which requires sophisticated knowledge and experienced
personnel when dealing with complex losses or damage.
If there is a lack of a particular skill at a local level, we
can call upon the support of our colleagues worldwide.
This is how we distinguish ourselves from other adjusters.
We find that teamwork is the most effective way to find a
solution acceptable to all parties.
6
7
To achieve this, we have specific workgroups in the
Cunningham Lindsey network comprising adjusters
and engineers from different countries who specialize in
the same field, be it power, energy, construction, retail,
engineering etc. We have about 150 dedicated construction
experts throughout 46 countries united through Global
Construction Specialist Practice Groups (SPG).
To fully leverage our expertise, we have a new offering
designed to deal with high-end major and complex losses
by sharing international knowledge and experience. MCL
national teams unite professional adjusters, including
members of SPGs, in a variety of disciplines including
construction.
National team adjusters all possess full qualifications
and have a minimum of ten years’ experience handling
commercial and industrial losses. At present, the
Cunningham Lindsey Group has some 700 MCL national
adjusters including 50 international adjusters who handle
claims outside their national territories.
We define major losses are those claimed or reserved at
more than $500,000.
Some of the people working in MCL national groups
are present today. The Construction MCL Group is
represented by Alexander Mysnik and Daniil Cherepanov
from Cunningham Lindsey Russia, and Ulrich Mann who
is in charge of Cunningham Lindsey, Zorn, Germany.
We will now look at some examples of construction losses
handled by the MCL group.
The first involved a series of losses at the construction of
a liquid cargo terminal at the Ust-Luga port on the Baltic
Sea. Periodic storms washed out the fill ground and created
sink holes at the construction site. The loss occurred in late
autumn when daytime is very short in that region. In order
to inspect the site during daylight, we had to assign two
experts to survey the vast premises.
The claim totaled €850,000 and was supported by
extensive technical documentation and repair estimates.
Experts checked the restoration work and took note of
abnormally huge amount of fill used for restoration.
Adjusters conducted a geodesic survey, which confirmed
their preliminary opinion: the examination showed a
lack of fill ground volumes before the loss occurred. No
indemnity was ultimately recommended.
The next example relates to a meteorite explosion in
the Chelyabinsk region in February 2013. This ‘Act of
God’ caused damage to a rolling mill under construction
at a metallurgical plant. The shock wave following the
explosion damaged windows, sliding doors, and wall of
steel profile sheet. The insured claimed $650,000.
They planned to purchase foreign-made materials for the
repair works. Cunningham Lindsey Russia made enquiries
in the domestic market and found similar materials at
lower prices. Adjusters prepared calculation of loss on
this basis and the loss fell below the policy deductible. The
result was the insured withdrew the claim.
The next project involved the construction of a new
port terminal in the Kaliningrad region. A quay wall
was damaged after soil subsidence. The insured claimed
€300,000 for the replacement of sheet piles and soil banking.
In the course of the investigation, it was established that
the damage resulted from the faulty design of sheet piles,
which was excluded from the coverage. Therefore, the costs
of replacing the sheet piles were not covered and the claim
related to the soil banking fell below the deductible. No
settlement was recommended.
The next project relates to the construction of a new
plaster board manufacturing plant and mining facility.
During commissioning works, the membrane walls of
sediment pools were damaged. Experts studied the project
papers and concluded that the water mixers were not
properly installed and the membrane not properly fixed
due to bad workmanship.
The claim was for €250,000. The insured planned to
replace the membrane, geogrid, concrete pool walls and
mixing chamber. Having analyzed the nature and extent
of loss, adjusters concluded that the cost of the membrane
replacement was outside coverage due to bad workmanship.
The restoration of the concrete pool walls and mixing
chamber were separate insured events. The costs of
replacing the geogrid was covered but fell below the
deductible. No indemnity was recommended.
The next project involves the construction of a PVC
chemical plant. There were a series of losses between
April and October 2014 to 500 tools and instruments and
there was a further delay in start-up. But each particular
occurrence was not properly recorded by the insured.
The damages claim was €850,000 while the delay
in start-up claim was not specified. The project was
widely covered by the media and supervised by the state.
Adjusters came under pressure but explained to the
insured that the investigation should be done fully and
without prejudice, in accordance with Russian law.
The Cunningham Lindsey Russia adjusters, in close
cooperation with Cunningham Lindsey UK, carried out
investigation.
They concluded that the loss should be split into a
number of separate events due to the different locations of
damaged items, the different nature of damages and the
different contractors. In the long run, following lengthy
negotiations, the insured withdrew the claim.
The next project related to the construction of the
Olympic stadium in Baku, Azerbaijan. The roof and facade
of the stadium were fitted with Texlon foil cushions, 28 of
which were punctured by a heavy storm.
The estimate to replace the cushions was $500,000
while $50,000 in expenses had already been incurred.
The investigation is still in progress, however, it will
be considered upon the submission of supporting
documentation relating to the incurred expenses. The
status of the adjustment is «Pending».
Now I would like to hand over to my colleague Ulrich
Mann from Cunningham Lindsey, Zorn.
Ulrich Mann
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It is an honor for
me to join this ReUnion roundtable for the second time.
I am a country manager for Cunningham Lindsey in
8
Germany. Our headquarters are in Wulfrath, very close to
Dusseldorf. We have two additional offices in Berlin and
Munich. We have 26 people, 18 of them adjusters and the
rest engineers.
I would like to talk about a coal fired power plant in the
North of Germany. It is typical for as much as €1.2 billion
to be invested in this new generation of power plants. This
one has a gross power output of 790 MW. It was insured
under a typical London market CAR/EAR policy including
DSU. Some 54 claims have been made since 2008 but I will
talk only about the claims in the last two years.
We are always in discussion with the insured companies,
and 10 claims had been refused due to faulty workmanship
or design. It is our task to translate claims into the London
Market.
The dotted lines on the slide represent cooling water
pipelines. The two red lines lead to the outfall diffuser
and the blue lines to the intake riser. It’s a distance of
1.7 kilometers. The cooling water pipeline is made of
polypropylene with a diameter of 3.4 meters. They are
pre-fabricated in 50 meter-long strings and laid and fitted
together in sockets. On these cooling water pipelines alone,
seven claims were notified worth €40 million.
The biggest claim related to the sockets. On 50 out of 70
sockets, gaps were detected by a remotely operated vehicle.
There were long discussions about whether they were
faulty or not during erection but our investigation showed
it was faulty workmanship and design.
There is still no agreement but the insurers are happy that
there is no DSU claim because repairs take more than six
months. The power plant also had a lot of issues with the boiler
steel T24, which is a well-known issue, but this was not a claim.
The next loss was on the step-up transformer, the biggest
type of transformer fabricated at Siemens in Nurnberg.
Damage caused by a flash over meant the copper coils
melted. Such losses are complex because the transformer
weighs nearly 600 tonnes and can only be transported
by ship. But waiting for a repair slot in a workshop was
more expensive. Because of this, a spare transformer was
organized.
It was not easy but it was possible. The total material
damage was €5.9 million, the cost of the spare transformer
included. There was a small DSU claim related to the
higher deductible of 90 days.
Another loss, though a very small occurrence, caused
massive loss to the boiler. A steel sheet fell and made holes
in titan pipes. There was only a small amount of damage
but these pipes contain sea water for cooling the boiler. The
accident caused sea water ingress into the boiler and this
caused microcracks on the boiler pipes.
The material damage is estimated at €50 million and the
DSU will be more than €30 million. The repair will take
more than six months.
The last loss I will cover involved the collapse of a wind
measuring mast. It was not an expensive loss – the cost
of repair will be around €200,000 – but the cause was
interesting.
This mast was erected in a wind park in the Czech
Republic, more than a thousand meters above the sea level.
The height of the mast was 170 metres and equipment for
measuring wind speed, wind direction, moisture content,
and web cameras was attached to it on five levels.
It collapsed in the winter but there was no hint to the
cause. There was no wind, not a lot of snow fall. But the
photos from the web cameras were interesting. Several
hours before the mast collapsed they showed ice on the
steel profiles. It looked like a deep freezer with an open
door.
There was very high moister content in the air and the
temperature was around zero, which is dangerous. Because
of the ice, the vertical load on the mast became too high.
That was the cause of the collapse.
Daniil Cherepanov
Thank you, Ulrich that was very interesting. Now I will
make some conclusions.
The English say: «One Man, No Man», which means
that he or she who works or fights alone cannot cope with
the task. The 21st century is the age of development: of
telecommunication, technologies and globalization.
To be successful this age means having more interaction
on a country-to-country level in all spheres of life
including economics and insurance. I hope that ReUnion
can help with this task. Thank you for attention, your
questions are welcome.
9
Claims overview
1
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exclusion of insurance expenses from the construction
contracts — consequences for the insurance market
2
chapter
Igor Prandetsky
Oleg Romanov
An important event that took place recently, which
substantially influenced the Russian engineering insurance
market: the decision by the Ministry of Construction of the
Russian Federation to exclude budgets for insurance from
construction contracts.
Representatives of direct insurance companies in
attendance will know more about the implications. There
are three representatives of Russian insurance companies
here. Would Sergey from Gefest comment?
While there is hope of having insurance costs back in the
construction budget, is it possible to address this problem
by including insurance requirements in the contract?
Maybe not 1%, as was the case before, but something
realistic.
Sergey Moskovskikh
I believe all Russian insurers will support me in
saying that the decision by the Construction Ministry
undermined insurance companies, including CAR/EAR
insurance.
It was a hasty decision, which can be the Russian way,
unfortunately. They addressed the problem of insurance
costs in a simple way: no costs, no problem.
Insurers had started to respond to the government’s call
for insurance costs optimization but then this decision was
made to leave those costs out of construction budgets.
The problem is that, under the Russian law, it is the
contractor that must bear these costs as it faces property
damage and destruction risks until the project is
commissioned.
Bearing in mind that construction costs have to be reduced,
the contractor can runs out of cash to pay for insurance. As
a result, the vast majority of construction companies and
certainly those that have taken CAR/EAR policies before and,
absent a loss, received no indemnity from insurers, opt out of
insurance.
Some customers who perhaps realise the contractor will
not make a big profit on a construction project also tend to
exclude the insurance obligation from the contract. CAR/
EAR business is shrinking as a result. Unfortunately, since
CAR/EAR insurance was introduced in Russia, contractors
have failed to appreciate its importance.
Their assessment is based on a generalized comparison
between insurance premiums paid and total remunerations
received from insurance companies. Of course, premiums
paid are never matched by remunerations, otherwise
insurance companies would not be in business. The outcome
for Gefest has been a 50% drop in premiums compared with
previous years.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you very much, Sergey. That is a big reduction
in premium income and a very important factor in the
market’s development.
Sergey Moskovskikh
Efforts are now being made by insurance companies
to bring those costs back. The government is beginning
to realize they went too far. To reverse the decision work
must be done. We need to prove there will be optimization
and show how it can be achieved.
As for contractor costs, financially, those should be the
customer’s costs. There is a legislative mismatch which
places all risks on the contractor, but it is the customer that
determines the initial cost.
If that initial cost did not include insurance, given the
costs optimization occurring, it is quite possible that the
overall number of projects will drop and the market will
experience a shortage of work.
Bidders for construction contracts will be expected to
cut costs, and, as insurance is not included, it would be
difficult for them to add to an already limited budget.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, who would like to add
to the subject?
Igor Ryzhkin
I would like to point out that CAR/EAR insurance has
been the most expensive type of insurance related to
construction. As such, it was difficult to sell those policies.
After the Construction Ministry issued the letter with the
costing guidelines for federal construction projects that
included the insurance item, many insurers could make
attractive offers to organizations awarding state/municipal
contracts.
With insurance costs (previously they could be as much
as 2% of total construction costs) removed from project
estimates, customer organizations lost incentive. We now
see some interest among contractor managers but whether
the process will come back to normal is difficult to say.
I believe what is happening now is irreversible. Should
we panic? The tariffs charged in the Russian CAR/EAR
insurance market were drifting towards those you find
in Western markets. Judging from the information and
statistics found on the IMIA website, we are approaching
loss ratios similar to the major capitalist economies.
26
We should seek some kind of self-organization between
the major insurance companies offering CAR/EAR
insurance products to avoid dumping behavior. In the last
six months, a number of large insurance companies have
been cutting CAR/EAR policy prices. I think this may
trigger a crisis in this line of business.
Peter Tailby
Igor Prandetsky
It is a good question but what has happened in Russia
influences only publicly funded projects. Only government
money is affected by this decision so far. But that is a large
amount, currently 80 percent of all projects in Russia. A
substantial segment of the market has been affected. As
far as privately funded projects are concerned, there is no
change.
In Western markets the lender usually insists insurance
protection is provided. Are lenders in Russia not concerned
about the lack of insurance?
27
Inherent Defects Insurance (IDI), opportunities and
the application of this type of insurance in Russia
3
chapter
Denis Nikolaytsev
I am Deputy Head of the Barents Re Russian office and
the Head of Engineering and Property. I will speak about
inherent defects insurance (IDI). It’s a very interesting topic
but quite tricky here in Russia due to a lack of experience.
Today I will give a short overview of IDI – what is it and
how it works. I will discuss some aspects of underwriting
and claims handling and examine some big claims that
have occurred worldwide.
Finally, I will discuss IDI opportunities in Russia – how
we could better organize this type of insurance and the
obstacles and development issues here.
Some of the other terms for this type of insurance are:
Inherent Defects, Latent Defects and Decennial Insurance.
As with many forms of insurance, there is a historical
footprint for it. IDI as a sort of defects guarantee first emerged
3,800 years ago in Babylonia, but the modern view of it is
based on the Napoleonic Civil Code (19th century) when the
initial legal requirements regarding this guarantee appeared.
In the middle of the 20th century, this type of insurance
developed mostly in French-speaking regions such as
France, Belgium, French-Speaking African countries.
In the late 1980s IDI cover was first offered in the UK
market and many economically advanced countries
followed in developing this type of insurance.
There are four markets where this type of insurance is
growing and developing.
The first is in countries where there is no compulsory
builder’s liability for insurance of this type.
Secondly, countries where the law does require
builders’ liability are seeing growth. These include the
Netherlands, parts of Canada, Jordan, the Philippines and
Russia. I included Russia because now we have some legal
requirements regarding contractors’ liability insurance,
which is a first step to developing compulsory lines.
The third type of market is where compulsory builders’
liability does exist but there is no compulsory reinsurance.
But some of these countries have a well developed
voluntary IDI market.
Finally, the most advanced group of countries is where
there are both voluntary and compulsory insurance
markets. There are two main ways IDI can develop:
because of legal requirements where a contractor is forced
to insure such liability, and from the bottom up when the
market proposes solutions and products.
IDI covers damage to property caused by defective
design, materials or workmanship undiscovered at
completion. This type of insurance is quite complex. It
includes so-called non-PD claims where there is a defect
but no property damage. It could be because of a lack of
performance such as, for example, poor sound-proofing,
waterproofing or quality of glass.
Where IDI is applicable? It is used for commercial
buildings, residential properties, social housing
developments, self-build projects and completed housing
& commercial projects. This type of insurance is applicable
to privately financed projects.
The basic coverage includes structural defects, water
damage, subsidence, the threat of imminent collapse and
work to prevent damage caused by a defect.
There are two types of coverage: basic and extended.
Basic includes total or partial collapse and the solidity/
stability of the structure. Additional coverage could
include the waterproofing of roof and walls and seepage.
This line of business is complicated. A lot of effort should
be made to underwrite everything in a proper manner, to
investigate all possible risks, and to provide a client with a
really effective solution.
Here are some basic underwriting principles.
First of all, you need strict and constant engineering
monitoring at every stage of construction – even in the
pre-construction period. Second, you need the application
of comprehensive statistic information available
worldwide. Third, full risk information must be provided
including equipment specifications.
Forth, you need adequate rates, deductibles and sublimits, which in emerging markets should be based on
global statistics. Fifth, there is an issue around the period
of this coverage. It is usually a ten-year policy, but in some
markets it is possible to insure IDI risks on an annual basis
as an extension to a CAR policy.
Finally, the coverage of costs associated with avoidance
of further imminent damage can be an issue.
There are many underwriting aspects to consider and
they very much depend on market specifics and experience.
So, how does this policy work? If the insured is the principal
or owner of the building, the typical IDI period is 10 or
sometimes 20 years. The insurance premium plus audit costs
totals around 1 percent of the value but it varies globally.
I will offer some of things to remember.
• The policyholder does not have to prove the negligence
of a third party. A policy is taken out at the start of a
project and does not need to be renewed. It is an important
issue because a policy cannot be cancelled even in the case
of a loss. If it is taken before construction, it lasts until the
end of the period.
• A policy is not affected by the insolvency of any
member of the construction team.
• All projects should be subject to an engineering audit
performed during all stages of construction by highly
experienced engineers.
• Finally, design documents should be audited and onsite inspections performed throughout the construction
period.
28
The main exclusions are quite standard: anticipated
or planned for movement, settlement or expansion;
abnormal use of overloading; wear and tear or inadequate
maintenance; ageing and damage to surface coatings; and
there are some standard exclusions around contractual
obligations, politic risks, nuclear and electronic risks.
There are some optional additional covers that insurers
may propose to their clients. The most interesting, and
risky, is the loss of rent or income. It is a sort of BI cover
that can be extended for: removal expenses; the cost of
working from alternative premises; waterproofing above
and below ground; an annual indexation of the sum
insured and excess; the waiver of subrogation rights;
phased cover; and cover for non-structural components
including mechanical and electrical.
There is also an interesting product called MIDI
(Machinery Inherent Defects Insurance), which can be
purchased in addition to the general IDI policy, although
it does not exist everywhere. The biggest market for
this product is the UK. MIDI is designed to insure
inherent defects in different types of equipment and
machinery including boilers, heaters, water supply and
sewage systems, ventilators, lifts and escalators, building
maintenance units and different types of electrical and
electronic systems within the building.
This coverage is only available for new buildings under
construction, ‘shell and core’ building refurbishments,
and buildings less than two years old. It is an interesting
product that needs to be underwritten and assessed by
engineers because, as you know, commercial buildings are
all very different and the equipment installed may not be
adequate. So it’s very important to have all the information
to hand and make an assessment before installing such
equipment.
The claims handling process can be tricky in IDI
because of a lack of practice – both judicial and insurance
underwriting practice.
There can be obstacles to defining the reason for a defect
and this becomes more difficult with time.
The involvement of professional surveyors can be
restricted in some types of construction.
The study of a loss calculation and documentation could
be complex because of an absence of such documentation
or restricted access to a site.
There may be cases of insurance fraud after several years
of operation.
All parties must minimize possible damage and defect
expansion. This can be tricky.
Here are some examples of what can happen. You might
find defectively designed floor slabs or walls, the omission
of wind posts, subsidence, defective cladding, a failure of
basement tanking, a failure of the roofing, or a failure of a
rain screen allowing water to penetrate.
Interestingly, in some markets (mostly French-speaking
markets with a long history of this$ type of insurance)
IDI sometimes covers a peril called ‘unfit for its intended
purpose’ (non-PD€ claims). These can include: inadequate
sound-proofing, inadequate insulation against excessive
solar heat, inadequate air-conditioning, an inadequate
number of lifts in an office building, inadequate emergency
facilities.
I will now share with you some incidents and claims we
have seen.
A very famous one was the collapse of Royal Plaza Hotel
in Thailand. In ten seconds, the huge six-story building
was totally destroyed, with 137 people killed. The problem
stemmed from the fact it was initially built as a fourstory building in 1983. Two years later, two more were
added without properly considering the structure and soil
stability. There were two conferences being held at the
same time and, because the structure was overloaded, the
building collapsed.
Another famous incident was the collapse of a part of
the terminal at Charles de Gaulle Airport in France in
May 2004. There was fast cracking and deformation of the
section and six people died. The defect was due to defective
materials and faulty design.
A very famous incident in Russia was at the Transvaal
aqua park. In 2004, the roof collapsed due to excessive
snow load and faulty design. The chief architect was
found guilty but pardoned in an amnesty that marked the
anniversary of Parliament.
The next example features the collapse of a trade center
in Riga, Latvia. It is a famous incident because of the good
quality of the project. Many respectable international
companies were involved in the construction process. But
the roof and two walls collapsed and a lot of people died.
The next one is very interesting because it is example
features a type of a non-PD claim. It involved the so-called
Walkie-Talkie skyscraper in London or ‘Fryscraper’ as
Londoners called it.
In the summer of 2013, solar glares and reflection from
the building caused some minor third-party damage to
vehicles, bicycles and doors were damaged. A fault in
design was discovered, namely that the solar glares were
six times brighter than direct sunlight.
Interestingly, there was no damage to the building, only
third party damage. But the defect was covered and fixed
by installing a permanent awning on the south side of the
higher floors, plus some non-reflective film was glued on
the glass surface.
To summarise, I believe that in Russian there are
opportunities to develop this line of business. It is difficult
to expect the government to develop this new line, which
is complex. But I believe insurers will create effective
products and propose it selectively to clients.
Such a product would be supported by international
practice based on international statistics, and supported
by risk engineers and reinsurers. It will be interesting to
hear other views from Russian insurance companies and
international reinsurers.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you, Denis, for a great presentation. I think there is
no doubt that this product is needed as additional protection
for property owners. We are always asked: what happens
when CAR/EAR policies expire? I think IDI is a subject of
29
discussion in professional circles. I would be very interested
to hear the opinions of others.
Radiy Suleymanov
Last year we had a discussion around engineering risks
coverage being within the framework of existing long-term
warranty programmes. CAR/EAR policies include a poststartup warranty coverage extending between three to five
years.
Our Western partners have said this is not an engineering
risk but another class of business. And such risks are
difficult to assess because they are extended over time. If
there were defects in the construction phase, even with
the best engineering survey, one can hardly assess the
probability of impacts that can materialize five or seven
years later. And this is just one limitation. But it makes it
very difficult to introduce this type of insurance in Russia.
Price is another challenge. Under an annual property
damage policy, the insured will normally pay 0.015% 0.03% p.a. on the “all risk property damage” terms. If the
IDI price is 1% over 10 years then it’s 3 to 5 times the price
of a standard PD programme in Russia, with a comparable
sum insured. Will the owner want to buy insurance which
is so expensive?
Igor Prandetsky
But there is a difference in coverage.
Radiy Suleymanov
There certainly is. And coverage has its problems as well:
it is very broad, encompassing damage to the final project,
during the operation phase and third party damage,
including financial risks associated with loss of profit. This
is a comprehensive coverage.
I see two problems. One is adequate risk assessment in
Russia and the lack of a long claims history, and the other is
unclear legal regulation. We have just seen examples of losses
but no loss ratio statistics in countries where IDI is obligatory.
Knowing those figures would be useful to help
understand how premium collection in those countries
correlates with claims paid or reported, and whether the
suggested tariffs are adequate.
I know it works where it is obligatory. But we have been
discussing voluntary insurance in Russia. So I cannot
definitely expect it to work in Russia any time soon, even
with regulation being introduced which obliges selfregulated organisations to buy liability insurance. This
type of insurance is very different from the scope of
coverage offered through this product.
Igor Prandetsky
What might drive this form of insurance forward, the
availability of insurance or clients’ requirements? What are
the necessary circumstances for this product to work in
Russia?
Radiy Suleymanov
At present it is problematic. Ten years ago, we thought
about launching a similar product but we found there was
no demand.
We see many issues with the quality of construction
work and materials, permits issue procedures and
construction practices. The customer cannot have an
independent engineer at every construction site to record
irregularities and issue recommendations. He cannot be
sure that irregularities will be fixed. And highly skilled
specialists are in short supply anyway. There is a general
skills shortage.
The other unanswered question is how you evaluate
damage and set tariffs so that they are consistent with the
expected loss ratio. For these reasons it remains unclear to
us that this product will be in demand in Russia. I believe it
will not, for now.
Igor Prandetsky
I would like Oleg Romanov to share his opinion.
Oleg Romanov
I believe the environment for introducing this type of
insurance is getting increasingly conducive.
First, our government is giving up its support function
to fix many types of problems, starting with health and
education. It may stop paying compensation for losses
emerging from buildings and structures. So who will pay
for such losses if they are caused by construction defects?
The government is working on a solution to cover such
losses.
Second, you pointed to a lack of statistical data and,
hence, an inability to calculate tariffs. Why don’t you take
data from the Western market, analyze it and use it as a
starting point on pricing? Then just make adjustments.
Third, I believe this type of insurance should be made
obligatory in Russia to ensure there is a guaranteed pool
of premiums. It should be based on a general obligation,
supported by a control mechanism and independent
engineering supervision.
You mentioned skills shortage. The skills are there but
because of low demand they tend to disappear. There are
plenty of professional engineers here, they are just not
paid enough and they seek jobs elsewhere. As soon as their
services are in demand they mobilize very quickly.
Igor Prandetsky
There was a similar situation with valuation: when
demand increased, valuators emerged in great numbers.
Francesca De Rosa
I wanted to share the Italian experience. In Italy, the
product has been available since the 1980s. It was not
compulsory and it was therefore only sold where it was
compulsory in a contract.
30
For the past15 years it has been compulsory for all public
work ranging from buildings to harbors to tunnels — a
wide range of engineering projects.
I agree the engineering skills are available, but the
statistics, especially for Italy, are not so reliable. There
are accounting issues you must also consider because it
depends on how you account for claims.
In addition, there are new technologies that engineers
need to be being updated on. In the Italian market, the
technical inspection surveys during construction have
been critical. When you link the activation of the coverage
to the results of a technical inspection, you have an
advantage because if a loss happens you have detailed
reports from the construction period.
Finally, our experience is that many contractors are not
working anymore since the crisis. The deductible has to be
taken into consideration because you cannot always charge
it to the owners.
Igor Prandetsky
Igor Prandetsky
Franco Ciamberlano
Thank you very much, Francesca. I will ask Vadim to
share ideas on that.
Before considering the price and deductibles it is
important to define the cover and how you want it to apply.
We are talking about inherent defects insurance, decennial,
which is related very strongly to France, and latent defects.
All those policies have different cover extents.
We are also talking about basic cover like collapse and
the imminent threat of collapse, based only on loadbearing parts. Do we cover things like non-material
damage or not-fit-for-use risks, which are completely
different?
If you are talking about inherent/latent defects
insurance, first establish the coverage you really want to
have. There are standard wordings including Swiss Re’s IDI
and SCOR’s wording. But it’s important that you define
that right from the beginning.
Having said that, IDI is linked to a legal obligation in
many countries so that in France, you have to go with the
French wording, in Italy you have to go with the Italian
wording. In other countries you can go with a standard
policy and try to do it on a non-legal basis. But it is then
much more difficult to sell.
What is the motivation of different countries to
introduce IDI? The motivations seem completely different.
In France there were some problems with the collapse of
homes, which led to this being introduced.
In Spain, it was because a lot of British citizens wanted
to buy a second home in Spain but they did not trust
Spanish construction methods. They wanted additional
coverage and that’s why IDI was developed in Spain.
In Italy it was a completely different motivation. We
have problems with corruption on sites, especially in statefinanced projects. So IDI was applied to infrastructure
projects financed by the public administration. For
residential projects, there is a different scheme with a
different wording.
So there is a huge variety of different covers and a huge
variety of motivations behind this type of coverage.
Vadim Bogatov
I see some prospects for this type of insurance in Russia.
As for tariffs, by the way, the difference is not 50 times, it’s
somewhere around five. Taking your example with 0.02%
annual and 1% decennial, the difference will be just five
times.
SCOR offers this coverage in many countries including
Western Europe. We have some experience that my
colleagues will be happy to share. It has a future in Russia
but only if, as Oleg said, the product is launched on a mass
scale. Western reinsurers are unlikely to be interested in
a few occasional projects but they will be encouraged by
a trend and that will lead to the accumulation of a certain
volume of reinsurance premium to sustain this new
product on the Russian market.
Igor Prandetsky
Vadim, what will it take to offer this product on a mass
scale?
Vadim Bogatov
One of the key drivers would be the introduction of
obligatory inherent defects insurance. It could be just five
years to begin with. If it is voluntary, I don’t think it will
work.
On the underwriting, as Denis pointed out, one needs
to see project data before execution begins, that is, before
any excavators dig a foundation pit. I have the impression
it is possible in Russia to start construction work before
permits are obtained. So both insurers and reinsurers will
face a dilemma when the client says: I have the foundations
laid, now I want insurance.
As legislative support appears vital for this type of
insurance, can the insurers/reinsurers do something to
make the legislators aware of the need?
Vadim Bogatov
My colleagues from SCOR have visited Russia to meet
with ministerial officials and present this type of insurance
cover. Western reinsurers are certainly interested. They
could help to lobby for the product.
Anton Kulik
Since this type of insurance is somewhat unusual in
Russia, is there a generally accepted wording for it, similar
to the Swiss Re and Munich Re wording for Contractors’ All
Risks. SCOR has such wording, but do other major players?
31
32
Participant
It is mandatory in the Danish market but only for
residential buildings and the deductibles are set by the
government. It is mandatory to have this insurance but
at a sustainable rate, which is significantly lower than, for
instance, in France.
But this is only possible because you have diversification
and no negative selection because normal people are not
really aware of these exposures. If you are acting in a market
where it is not mandatory, people buy coverage when they
see the exposure. So you have kind of a negative selection.
What would help to introduce this cover? Making it a legal
requirement would definitely help make this sustainable.
Radiy Suleymanov
I’d like to add to Oleg’s summary about the prospects of
this type of insurance in Russia.
I am skeptical. Given the challenges of today, including
the economic situation, it would only work if introduced
as an obligatory cover. But the only type of insurance
that is obligatory is TPL. What can be insured are the
consequences of a building collapsing on third parties and
other properties. In other words, such a new cover would
be limited if introduced as obligatory within the current
regulatory framework.
This is why, in the current environment, it is not possible
to offer the full scope of coverage as described. Perhaps we
could estimate the potential loss ratio but to really make it
work in Russia we need to have the constitution amended,
which I find very unlikely in the foreseeable future.
compliance to standards during construction. Without
those three elements it will not be profitable.
The expert companies now are Swiss Re, SCOR and
Swiss National since one of Swiss Re’s experts moved
across. If you need advice I would suggest you approach
them. And statistics are published on the IMIA website,
which show the performance. It’s relatively modest account
but you can see the results.
Daniil Cherepanov
I’ve got a question. Technical audits are crucial for loss
control and damage elimination but how often should
they occur? Secondly, should this involve instrument
examination or simply visual inspections and document
checks?
Denis Nikolaytsev
Thank you. When this product is introduced, assuming
it is as the market develops, it will be a national product,
with its special features, I would imagine.
An insurer specializing in engineering insurance will
have its own methods which depend on many factors
including the type of project, engineering documentation
and availability of skills. This can result in a diversity
of methods. The involvement of external engineering
companies can also be an advantage in contributing to loss
control.
The frequency of audits will depend on many
factors. You need to ensure consistency and the proper
sequencing of engineering audit and control. It should
be a comprehensive process covering everything from
documentary control to work completion control,
disbursement control and quality control at every
construction phase.
Finally, startup and commissioning will require close
attention as this is a crucial point beyond which no further
defects can be discovered or corrected.
Peter Tailby
Igor Prandetsky
There are three major points to consider. It has to be
compulsory otherwise you’ll have adverse selection.
You need a stable political environment. If litigation is
increasing you will have a problem. Finally, a technical
inspection service must be established to monitor
Thank you, Denis. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to
wrap up this discussion. I took the liberty of skipping the
coffee break because it was such a good discussion. But we
must keep on schedule and I will ask Oleg Romanov from
Allianz AGCS to present.
Igor Prandetsky
33
Inherent Defects Insurance (IDI), opportunities and
the application of this type of insurance in Russia
3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Assembly from mega-modules — a new concept
of the construction
4
chapter
Oleg Romanov
Dear colleagues, here in Russia I represent Allianz
Global Corporate & Specialty, part of the Allianz group.
Our department is responsible for underwriting properties
valued at more than $100 million.
My presentation was prompted by the very first project
in Russia to use mega-modules technology. The plant is
used for liquefied natural gas and is part of the Yamal LNG
project. As Russian insurers are not familiar with this
technology, we thought it would be interesting to discuss it
from an insurers’ perspective.
Normally in construction, things are built using single
units of a size that enables their easy transportation by
railroad or highway.
There may be situations when preassembled units are
used to make a structure. The petro-chemistry industry uses
pieces of equipment big enough to require special logistics
and special vehicles to deliver, for example.
There are also examples of where complete modules are
delivered to the site, connected and put into operation. In
this picture you see a small module and a bigger one, but
still they are of ‘normal’ size and weight.
Here is an example of an even larger subassembly. It is a
kind of evolutionary process. The largest units that we have
seen so far are platforms in offshore construction: they are
built onshore (usually at dockyards) and then towed to the
final location to be installed.
Finally, some time ago mega-modules came into use in
onshore construction projects. The LNG industry has been
the main driver of this when it has built facilities in remote
locations close to natural gas fields. Gas is then liquefied
and transported by sea in tankers to customers all over the
world, instead of building pipelines.
One such project at Curtis Island used 260 modules,
the largest of which weighed 6,500 tonnes. It could be
compared to a multi-storey building the size of a football
field. At the site, a complete LNG plant is assembled from
those ‘building bricks’. The purpose is to reduce onsite
work time by having the work done elsewhere.
To give you an idea of the size of a 6,500 module,
imagine an Airbus A380, the largest airliner made, and
how many people can be seated inside. Its takeoff weight,
with passengers, will be just 560 tonnes. So in terms of
weight, one module equals 12 such aircraft.
Why was this technology developed? An average LNG
plant project costs between $20 and $30 billion to build.
Completing it in four to five years takes tens of thousands
of workers at a construction site, which would normally be
located near gas fields.
Yamal, for instance, is a cold desert peninsula far from
any populated area and cargos can only be delivered by sea.
Imagine the cost of setting up and maintaining a construction
camp housing that workforce and the cost of hiring all those
people to work in severe weather conditions. To have most
of the work done in a warmer environment with lower wage
costs is a viable option.
It is critical for the construction project to be located
close to waterways. Inland transportation would require
a superhighway built to a higher standard than an airfield
runway.
There are already a number of mega-module assemble
centers, mostly in South-East Asia and China. These
are countries with a long history of shipbuilding, large
dockyards, inexpensive workforce, favorable weather
conditions all year round and waterways suitable for
transportation.
These enterprises are already fully operational. The
workforce is already available and already possesses all the
necessary skills to build such modules.
You drastically reduce the need for skilled, highly-paid
labor at the place of construction. You save on payroll and
the construction camp. You also benefit from a shorter
project execution time. The quality of work and testing is
also improved as both are performed in factory conditions
by trained staff using standard equipment.
There is a downside. Shipping is associated with much
higher risks because both the weight and value of a single
item are much greater compared with a conventional cargo.
You also need to make special logistical arrangements and
build a special port to receive the modules for delivery. And
qualified warranty surveyors experienced in mega-module
shipment are in short supply.
When high value items such as oil platforms are shipped,
the insurer will insist a Marine Warranty Surveyor escorts
the cargo and his word is law on the way. If the captain
does not comply with his requirements the coverage is
terminated. This practice ensures a predictable outcome.
Unfortunately, there is a shortage of Marine Warranty
Surveyors and the number of projects is growing
exponentially.
There is another problem. If anything happens with the
module, not a total loss but some minor damage, repairs
will take much longer and will cost more than with a
conventional construction approach.
Projects of this type also have other special characteristics
that must be considered in risk assessment and underwriting.
They are often located in areas with severe climate.
Yamal, for example, has very cold winters and frequent
snowstorms. Low temperatures cause the embrittlement
of metals, which means a higher risk of equipment
breakdown. The navigation season is also quite short, just
three or four months.
Construction teams performing the final assembly
usually work on a rotational basis, say, every other month.
44
They work under stress and long polar nights and freezing
temperatures will increase the risk of human error.
The transportation of mega-modules poses logistical
challenges as it involves shipment by sea, loading/
unloading and conveyance by land. You need contractors
experienced in such operations.
Finally, CAR coverage must extend to the places where
the modules are manufactured – a dockyard will not have
the correct insurance. The project owner and other parties
will want full coverage, so normally it is all included in the
CAR policy.
The dockyard coverage also represents a relatively high
natural catastrophe risk, something we are not used to.
Russia has a low nat cat exposure. We sit on two tectonic
plates which means volcanic activity and earthquakes only
occur in peripheral regions in the South-East.
Floods are infrequent and we have few strong winds or
tornados.
But those dockyards are located in countries such as
China, Thailand, the Philippines and Indonesia. We all
know the kind of disasters that happen there. The 2014
typhoon Haiyan was one of the strongest ever recorded.
This is how your dockyard may be affected. So risk
assessment, contract wording and pricing must take
into account the fact that coverage extends to areas of
unusually high nat cat risks.
When dealing with dockyards in those countries we
should also remember that the Russian insurance company
is not allowed to be a direct insurer. You need a local
insurer issue the policy and enter into the CAR contract
through reinsurance.
Allianz is already participating in several such projects and
has some valuable experience and statistics. And international
insurers can easily find local fronting arrangements.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you very much, Oleg. For more than a hundred
years the insurance industry has followed advances
in technology. Products have become increasingly
sophisticated and interesting. I have a question. How is
the coverage structured? Is it a kind of a project policy or
something specially designed for mega-modules?
Oleg Romanov
In fact it is a fairly traditional product. Marine
shipment is not covered in a CAR policy – only inland
transportation with a limit on volume. The shipment of a
mega-module is covered by marine cargo insurance, which
has its own wording and underwriting. There is nothing
really innovative here. What is new is what is insured and
the associated risks. You need to consider those risks and
manage them.
Denis Nikolaytsev
Oleg, you said when the insurance/reinsurance contract
covers remote manufacturing sites we face the risk of the
concentration of many modules in one location, the value of
which can reach billions. This could result in a catastrophic
loss. Which underwriting or risk monitoring can minimise
such a threat?
Oleg Romanov
As dockyards are located in areas prone to nat cat risks,
most companies have set limits of coverage. For the insurer
trying to assess the risk, it is important to estimate PML
in such locations taking the manufacturing schedule and
value concentration into account. They need tp ensure the
PML will not go beyond the insurer’s limits.
There is another point to remember. Those dockyards
operate very much like a conveyor belt. There are chains
of modules in different degrees of completion, surrounded
by workers, equipment and cranes. This means the value
concentration is enormous. There can be modules for our
project and for other projects, all in one place. Such an
accumulation of property must be taken into account.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, now we can ask
questions and share ideas.
Franco Ciamberlano
Thank you for a very interesting presentation. You
said we are talking about traditional products: marine,
engineering. How would you deal then with the DSU
coverage over the whole project? For the principal, it is
important the project is completed in time. The DSU
normally applies at the end of the project, when it has
missed the final completion. So even if you have a loss on
the marine part, this might not trigger DSU but has to
be taken into consideration for future DSU development.
There are some overlaps.
Oleg Romanov
If you refer to delay caused by the late delivery of cargo,
there is the 50/50 clause which serves as a link between the
two policies in terms of property damage (PD). In general,
in order to avoid any conflicts it is better if both policies
are held by the same insurer.
Evgeny Malachinsky
In one case I am familiar with, modules were delivered
by sea to a location in the north. We faced an unexpected
problem. Some equipment may be very sensitive and even a
minor indentation or scratch is unacceptable.
When it was delivered to the site for unloading the
special type of sling with non-scratch sheathing, normally
used, was unavailable. The module could not be unloaded
until they brought the right sling. You have to go into this
level of detail to avoid a delay in start-up.
45
Oleg Romanov
In an earlier presentation we saw a case from Germany
where a tiny hole caused an €80 million loss.
Radiy Suleymanov
Oleg Romanov said we separate the marine cargo policy
from the CAR insurance. We know about Munich Re’s
Comprehensive Project Insurance, which sits within the
CAE framework. It includes a Marine Cargo Insurance
section and an ALOP/DSU section. This combined
insurance can cover the project for the whole period of
construction and erection, including cargo shipment.
In most cases where marine cargo insurance is taken for
an offshore project under the international WELCAR-2001
rules, cargo insurance is part of a CAR/EAR policy. For
example, shipping a platform to its place of installation
involves both transportation and equipment assembly at
the seaport prefabrication site. It is a single, uninterrupted,
cover which, in this case, will extend to ALOP/DSU risks.
Oleg Romanov
I agree but this practice is applied specifically to offshore
projects. Here, we are dealing with an onshore one. So
the routine is different: the marine cargo policy is taken
separately and is based on the WELCAR wording. The
onland portion is insured on Munich Re terms, which
are different. As far as I know Munich Re is no longer
promoting its CPI policy as it failed to meet expectations.
Igor Prandetsky
Does Munich Re use Comprehensive Project Insurance
for onshore projects?
Stefan Saur
We would like to promote our CPI policy but,
unfortunately, as its scope is wider than the original CAR/
EAR policy few insureds were prepared to pay for this
wider scope of cover. That’s why we use our standard CAR/
EAR policy. CPI policies are used in other markets but
not in Russia, unfortunately. Worldwide, we use it for big
projects such as LNG plants.
We are now in the process of issuing a new Munich
Re CEAR policy which is a combination of our CAR and
our EAR policies. This policy is clearer in its scope and
definitions and includes a terrorism exclusion.
Franco Ciamberlano
It makes sense to combine a CAR policy with the marine
policy for such a project, especially if you have DSU. The
DSU is only triggered if a project is not ready on handover
day. The marine DSU is of secondary interest as long as
handover day is still met. So it makes a lot of sense to
combine the policies and have DSU over both.
One reason for some resistance in the market comes
not from reinsurance but the direct insurance side. A lot of
companies struggle to subdivide between the engineering
treaty, the marine treaty, and the DSU. Where do you allocate
claims? Often it comes down to very practical issues.
Igor Prandetsky
That is absolutely true. We have to deliver a comprehensive
solution. Who else would like to join the discussion?
Maria Morozova
In terms of the ceded reinsurance contract, a CAR policy
can cover the cargo for the period of transportation, but
there should also be a comprehensive policy. If the insurer
writes a separate policy for cargo shipping you need to
carefully read the wording of the treaty reinsurance contract
to ensure there is no confusion in the way particular risks
are attributed.
Igor Prandetsky
If you issue an insurance policy with both marine
and CAR elements, it will automatically become a
comprehensive project policy. If you cannot cede such
policy into the treaty you need to negotiate an extra one on
a facultative basis.
Maria Morozova
Absolutely. If the insurance company wants the treaty
to cover such policies, it should consult with the reinsurer
first. There are situations when the treaty says, OK, cargo
in transit is covered if it comes under the CAR policy.
The problem is that a reinsurer covering mega-modules will
face a different exposure compared with the transportation
of smaller units. We are dealing with different PMLs. And we
can end up with a loss that occurs during transport and not at
the construction site.
My advice to ceding companies is to speak to your
treaty reinsurers. The wording of the direct policy must be
addressed, otherwise, in the event of a loss, the insurer may
disagree with the reinsurer.
Igor Prandetsky
You refer to situations not covered by incorporating the
Inland Transit clause, which still fits within the product’s
standard format.
Maria Morozova
Judging by the method of transportation, it is not
traditional Inland Transit. I have a question for the
engineers here: it seems securing the cargo is a special
concern. It is one thing to ship single units but quite
another to have an assembled mega-module exposed to
dynamic loads such as a boat pitching. Such a unit was
not designed to sustain such continuous oscillation. How
should such a cargo be secured against pitching?
46
Igor Prandetsky
I would recommend reinsurers speak to your ceding
companies about the inclusion of Inland Transit cover and
define its limitations to avoid misunderstanding. In terms of
the specifics of loading and keeping the load safely on board
the ship, I suggest you discuss this issue with our experts
during the coffee break. Thank you very much.
Now we have an interesting insight into the world of
turbine losses.
47
Assembly from mega-modules — a new concept
of the construction
4
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
Turbine losses — technical and economic challenges
5
chapter
Ulrich Werwigk
Thank you. I am the only claims manager here and I will
give an insight in the problems we face handling claims.
It is always helpful to have this type of exchange with
underwriters.
First, a personal introduction: I’m not an engineer but a
lawyer by training. Before I joined Swiss Re 10 years ago, I
worked in the construction industry as a lawyer for more
than 17 years. I dealt with a lot of engineering claims at
that time.
One of the main problems we face when dealing with
turbine losses is that regulations are often not observed.
The second is how to deal with this failure of the insured
and their staff.
Turbine losses and other CAR losses are not solely
technical losses there are also economic consequences,
which I will illustrate.
I have three main topics. Firstly, I will give a short
overview of Swiss Re’s engineering claims management.
Then I will cover the main topic of turbine losses. Finally, I
have some short conclusions around claims handling more
generally.
Swiss Re’s engineering claims management department
covers EMEA – Europe, the Middle East and Africa
and also Russia. It has offices in Zurich, Paris, London,
Rome and Munich. We comprise six claims managers
who deal with claims, and two engineers: Philipp Sager, a
mechanical engineer in Zurich, and Isaac Felekidis, a civil
engineer also in Zurich.
We deal with nearly 6,000 engineering claims per year.
We have regular exchanges within the team about what is
going on in the market and how we can assist each other
and share our experiences. No risk is exactly the same as
another so it is important to share our experiences.
We try to conduct a technical survey of each claim to check
for any specific technical implications. Finally, we combine
this experience with our wider Swiss Re claims network.
I will cover some prominent losses including Charles de
Gaulle Airport, which was mentioned earlier, and we have
dealt with various offshore losses including a lot of power
plants. We have also dealt with some Russian losses recently.
We look to learn from each claim and to improve our
claims handling.
Through the network I have described, we have an
overview of many engineering loss scenarios. For example,
if we see turbines from the same manufacturers with
identical losses, we keep this information so our clients
can see where these losses are occurring.
This overview allows us to anticipate claim trends,
detect serial issues in turbines and provide solutions. We
also exchange information with the risk management
department in Swiss Re.
We also have a network of experienced loss adjusters and
technical experts we can rely on. That allows us to get to
the root cause in our analysis and claims handling. This
is very important for claims management. We also ensure
all business data is treated confidentially during this
cooperation, however.
Now I will share some examples of turbine losses. I will
look at the root cause analysis and cost control. All these
examples are individual risks. Please do not conclude
from one of these examples that they represent a general
trend in any particular country. Such losses can happen
anywhere in the world.
Fire and explosions represent one of the most frequent
loss scenarios we see. It is often very difficult to detect the
real cause, however. We have to look at indications such as
broken shafts but we also see broken blades, different types
of blades damage and damage to the bearings. The real
cause is usually not fire but some underlying problem in
some of the complex units.
For turbine loss handling one of the most important
challenges is finding adequate expertise. I mentioned that
we have a network of experts who we can recommend to
our clients in the a case of a loss.
Another area we often see problems is in the
availability of documentation. First the manufacturer’s
documentation, in particular where the loss occurs in the
commissioning phase; secondly, in operational reports;
finally, in pure machinery losses, there is a need for
maintenance survey reports. These are all crucial if we are
to assess the root cause of losses.
An additional challenge we had in one case was difficulty
accessing the damaged turbine and turbine parts. This has
some consequences for the wordings of CAR policies and
also machinery breakdown policies. The question from the
claims handling side is: do the policy wordings correspond
to these loss adjusting requirements?
In terms of the causes of losses, we often see human
error, negligence, design failures, power outages and a lack
of maintenance.
We often see a combination of causes. In claims
adjustment it is important to differentiate between causes
to ensure that we can make recourse at the end because of
subrogation and potentially separate out DSU claims.
We dealt with a very large claim at a power plant loss
in Sweden in 2012. During the commissioning phase the
turbine overheated because of a lack of oil. The problem
was not shown on the controls screens so the turbine
overheated. Because of this, the shaft broke and catapulted
through the turbine housing damaging the oil pipe and the
roof. The oil also ignited causing an explosion and fire.
In fact, the root cause was that three small plugs were
installed incorrectly. Whoever installed them mixed them up,
58
so a lack of oil supply was not registered. It was a very small
mistake that caused a very big loss. The total loss was more
than €30 million. The CAR part was €10.6 million covering
buildings and the power plant. The existing property was
damaged and there was business interruption as well.
The ceding insurance company closely monitored the
repairs and reviewed 11,000 invoices in total. Thus they
could detect some potential for savings due to the policy
wording and also some double insurance.
A new loss we are dealing with involved the
modernisation of a power plant by installing an additional
650 MW steam turbine line. During the commissioning
phase, 20 hours after starting the turbine they noted some
cracking noise in the turbine. They stopped it and noted
that some of the blades were fractured.
I was surprised to hear that material fatigue had been
caused after just 20 hours and we investigated in more
detail. We found there was a weakness in the design of the
blades. They had used a new design but there were some
problems. In addition they had been a lack of monitoring in
place in the phase of turbine commissioning.
That claim is ongoing. One of the key topics is the
combination of property damage and DSU. The question of
the weak design of the blades is something to be addressed
with the manufacturer. It is the manufacturer’s problem
and it cannot trigger the DSU loss.
It is also important to differentiate between the different
causes and understand the impact of each. In this loss we
have, through the network of experts I explained, an expert
from a German technical university working on the case.
This was a special requirement of our clients. They wanted
an internationally experienced technician to look at this
problem.
We also worked on a loss at a hydro power plant in
Austria in 2009. Again in the first instance, there was an
explosion and fire in the power house.
This fire was caused by lightning hitting the grid system
of the power plant. Everybody initially thought that was
what caused the loss until the experts detected that there
were already problems in the rotor of the turbine.
The power plant was built in 1976 and the loss happened
in 2009. The machinery coverage and property damage
meant the loss totaled €36 million. Fortunately no BI was
covered.
The cause of the loss was established as being hairline
cracks where the poles were fixed to the rotor.
The main problem was how to replace a 33-year old
turbine and generator. The policy was an all-risk cover
based on an indexed replacement value. But a 33-year old
turbine and generator is not the same as a new one. This
was discussed and some parts were excluded. For example,
they had installed a new control and safety system after the
loss. This meant a saving of around €5 million.
Here you see the power plant in the upper basin of the
Austrian mountains, the pipes going down to the turbine,
and it is pumping water back when the power plant is not
producing any power.
Here you see the power house where the loss happened.
One of the poles detached from the generator and blocked
its whole movement so that the shaft between the starting
motor and motor-generator broke.
You see here the very small hairline cracks.
Now a case I found interesting: a burning wind turbine.
I could not have imagined a fire could happen in a turbine.
It is metal, which you would not think could catch fire. But
the problem was caused by the overheating of the bearing.
In this case, the turbine had no power supply, was
running in the wind but could not generate power. It
could not be moved to a standstill position, so the turbine
overheated and caught fire.
The main issue here was that these power plants have a
UPS (Uninterrupted Powers Supply) system. This ensures
the power supply will not be interrupted but this was not
the case here.
The UPS did not work so it overheated and the rotor/
turbine caught fire. The property damage was around
€3 million and a certain amount was paid out under a
business interruption claim until the rotor was replaced.
One of the most frequent causes of losses in turbines
is power outage. We all know that power supplies can
be disrupted. It can happen anywhere. That is why IPS
systems are so important. They guarantee a seamless
transition of the power supply in the case of a power
outage.
Most problems we see in these cases happened due to
the failure of the UPS and in many cases it was because of
ageing batteries.
In other cases, maintenance was not carried out properly
and did not detect ageing batteries or their failure.
A very large loss in the Netherlands was caused by
the failure of the UPS system; another took place in
Bangladesh, a third in Kuwait.
Another loss happened some years ago in Poland. In this
case, the direct insurer and reinsurers were notified rather
late. The direct insurer was informed thirty days after it
happened. The argument was that they did not know the
extent of the loss, so they could not inform the insurer
earlier.
This was a weak argument but, as insurers and
reinsurers, we have to find solutions. The problem in this
case was that a gas turbine was shut down in an emergency.
But the operation team could not find any reasons for this
shut down.
They decided to restart it. After nearly an hour it
stopped again and would not restart. The turbine was then
dismantled and sent back to the manufacturer in Italy.
This was one of the problems we had to deal with. It
was done before the first notification was received by the
insurer. In this phase of repairs, loss adjusters had no
access to the turbine.
The loss also happened very close to the next
maintenance and inspection period, so there was also the
question of how to separate the two things.
We discussed this with our client extensively. Finally,
a solution was found and negotiated but access to the
damaged parts had to be assured.
The invoice of the insurer for the manufacturer was
ZL13 million. I previously mentioned the example from
59
Sweden where the adjusters reviewed 11,000 invoices.
We should not have go that far but this document is too
general and should not be the basis for handling the claim.
However sometimes we cannot avoid it.
Here is another interesting example from the
engineering network. We see a part calculation of a turbine
loss. The loss started at more than $20 million but went
down to $14 million. It finally closed at around $8 million.
The reason it reduced was because they analyzed
individual cost positions with a high degree of detail. For
example, project management costs were calculated three
times. This is another example of where we can save money.
Some short conclusions. I have mentioned root cause
analysis, which is very important. In the handling of
turbine losses we are dealing with very complex systems.
We need access to the appropriate technical expertise and
documentation.
The proper specification of costs is also very important.
Not only in terms of general positions – you must go
deeper into overheads and management fees. There are
areas which may increase the loss.
We also need to be clear as to what the key figures are
in a project. A clear wording is important which is also
adapted to the project. We also need clear clauses allowing
cooperation and the disclosure of documents and cost
positions, which is also relevant on the direct insurance side.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you very much, Ulrich, for giving us an insight
into this interesting field of turbine claims handling. It’s
quite an interesting issue, and I am absolutely sure there
will be many questions. My suggestion is to allocate time
for questions and answers after lunch.
60
61
Turbine losses — technical and economic challenges
5
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
Evaluation of PML for civil and industrial engineering
construction — case study
6
chapter
Dmitry Zagorsky
First we need to define PML. There are two widely used
approaches: one which assumes the normal functioning of
protection systems; the other is based on the worst possible
scenario and implies a failure of the protection systems
including the inaction/ineffective action of emergency
rescue and firefighting teams.
Although most insurers and reinsurers share the same
understanding of the measure, companies use many
different terms to describe these two loss types including
Probable Maximum Loss, Maximum Foreseeable Loss,
Estimated Maximum Loss and Normal Loss Expectancy.
I will cover the two most frequently used terms: the
worst case scenario is called Maximum Foreseeable Loss
(MFL), and the one with operational protection systems is
called Probable Maximum Loss (PML).
There are some reservations. A PML estimate implies
the proper functioning of fire-proof and accident-proof
systems installed as per project design such as emergency
shutdown, fire-resistant doors, fire dampers, automatic
sprinkler systems and others.
‘Normal functioning’ means the systems remain in the
same condition as they were during inspection. This is
especially critical for construction sites where the overall
preparedness changes all the time. We are often asked to
calculate PML without inspection but such an estimate will
not be objective. In almost every case the fire-proof and
accident-proof systems specified in the project design are
only partially functional (or even missing while construction
is in progress). Potential damage is thus much greater.
So we thought it would be a good idea to broaden the
scope of our presentation and describe some hazardous
events developing both under a worst case and with
fire/accident protection systems functional. All of the
scenarios were selected from our practice and built from
real construction site risk assessments. Unfortunately
some of them turned more or less into reality, which
proves that our focus was correct.
Case 1: Fire in a building under construction during
finishing operations
This is one of the most frequent scenarios. This is a
case of a high-rise building (more than 60 floors) in a
final phase of construction. The carrying frame is of
reinforced concrete with extended fire endurance period
of 240 minutes. The building envelope is made of glazing.
Finishing work is in-progress inside, utility and fire
extinguishing systems are under startup.
Automatic sprinklers are not yet functional but the
total fire load in the building is already substantial: there
are combustible finishing materials including equipment,
packaging and furniture. In addition to the separation of
fire danger and functional danger premises (diesel-driven
generator, firefighting station, substructure and others),
the building is vertically divided into fire compartments
of 15 to 25 floors each. The sum insured is around
$400,000,000.
The worst case MFL assumptions are: high fire load
inside the building, non-functional automatic fire
suppression systems (automatic sprinklers, fire alarm,
extinguishing systems, ventilation), uncovered apertures
in fire partitions, late fire detection, untimely alert to the
firefighting service resulting in late arrival of fire brigades,
and ineffective firefighting.
According to fire reports, with inactive smoke control
systems the smoke will travel through the stairwell at 7 to
8 meters per minute. If fire develops on one of the lower
floors and fire partitions remain uncovered , after as little
as 7–8 minutes smoke will spread all over the stairwell.
It will be impossible to remain there without respiratory
protective equipment.
By that time the rooms on the top floors will also be
filled with smoke, especially on the leeward side. Intensive
fumigation will hinder firefighting operations inside the
building. The temperature in the premises where the fire
originated will depend on the fire load. Average volumetric
temperature can peak at 1,000°C, floor slabs can be heated
to 960°C at the surface, and walls to 860°C.
Given the assumptions of non-functional fire protection
systems and significant high fire load, the fire is expected to
travel throughout the above-ground structures of the building.
Under the influence of heat the load-bearing structures will
sustain serious damage; most of the utilities systems, external
and internal finishing and the glazing will be destroyed.
Because of high fire endurance (240 minutes) no collapse
is expected but reinforced concrete structures will be
damaged (cracking, chipping, peeling of concrete cover) due
to high temperature, excessive humidity and quick cooling.
Condition assessment and reclamation will be costly.
In this particular case, we were provided with a
construction costs estimate broken down by work type
(structures, utilities, finishing). We estimated the damage
at $250 million. If you only have the aggregate sum insured
(without breakdown) you should refer to insured events
statistics: a fire event in a reinforced concrete building may
lead to the destruction of up to 65% of the building value
(which in this case is equal to $260 million.)
The PML case is a similar fire situation but adjusted
for the actual status of fire protection systems (most
importantly, covered apertures in fire partitions and
inactive water extinguishing unit). In this scenario, fire
will spread throughout the floor and further on, but only
within the limits of the fire compartment.
Before firefighting teams arrive a large area within a
single fire compartment will be on fire. So the firefighters
will seek first of all to prevent further fire propagation and
protect apertures in fire partitions between adjacent fire
compartments.
76
Bearing in mind that the building is divided into fire
compartments by firewalls and floor slabs with high fire
endurance (REI 240), the fire is unlikely to spread beyond
the affected fire compartment. For the purpose of loss
estimation we assume that the largest fire compartment is
damaged, similarly to the previous scenario. The damage
will then be about $40 million.
In estimating possible damage we must make an
adjustment for debris removal and, if needed, site
clearance. Although it is based on current claim settlement
practice, it is a rather arbitrary value, normally in the
range of 2% to 10% (depending on the nature of damage).
Case 2: Fire at a construction materials and equipment
warehouse
This is another typical hazard with a potential for significant
damage at the construction site. In the final phases of
construction such a warehouse would normally store large
volumes of valuable construction and finishing materials as
well as equipment, usually supplied in combustible packaging.
To determine insurance and reinsurance parameters we
take such a warehouse separately from the construction
project itself, which is a stadium. The construction site
encompasses a warehouse with telecom equipment
(broadcasting equipment, LCD screens to be mounted
above the play field, etc.) of the total value approaching
$8,000,000. The 1,000 m2 warehouse is built of sandwich
panels on a steel frame. There is no automatic fire
extinguishing system, and fire alarm is nonfunctional.
The source fire may result from hot works, noncompliance
with smoking rules, damaged electric cabling or for other
reasons. Due to the defective automatic fire alarm system
the fire outbreak will not be promptly detected by the
warehouse personnel and will not be suppressed with
emergency firefighting equipment.
Given the fire expansion speed of 1.5 meters per minute,
almost the whole building will be engulfed by fire in 10
minutes. In this case PML will equal MFL. The equipment
and materials stored as well as the warehouse itself will be
totally destroyed, the damage estimated as follows:
Item
Damage, $
Telecom Equipment
8,000,000
Warehouse
500,000
Adjustment for debris clearance/
removal (7%)
595,000
Total:
9,095,000
The possible damage from a warehouse fire is thus
estimated at $9.1 million.
Normally you would also take into account the DSU caused
by the fire event (which was not insurable in this case).
The scenarios covered so far are typical examples of
possible damage estimation in civil engineering. Now to
scenarios in industrial construction where damage estimation
takes into account some important differences.
The final phase of construction (startup and commissioning
when the insurance policy is still valid and the sum insured
is at a maximum) presents some additional hazards typical
of an operating industrial facility. In that period most of
the emergency control and fire protection systems are not
functioning normally.
The CAR policy often covers (total or partial)
rehabilitation or upgrade of a plant while in operation. In
this case an accident affecting equipment, which is in use
and not covered by the CAR policy can cause catastrophic
damage to the construction (rehabilitation) project.
Case 3: Steel mill construction.
The steel mill consists of dozens of buildings, structures
and infrastructure facilities which make part of the same
technological process including feedstock acceptance,
grading and storage; furnace charge preparation and drying;
steel smelting and casting; final product storage and shipment.
The worst case scenario assumes a high degree of
construction preparedness: the accident happens in the final
phase of construction when the sum insured is approaching
100%. After some analysis which took into account sums
ensured, industry-specific construction processes and
technological solutions, as well as the amounts and storage/
utilization of flammable and explosive substances, we selected
a melting shop for the purpose of MFL estimation.
The hazard event, which can cause the most severe
damage would be emergency depressurization of watercooled elements of a smelt furnace and water ingress
into molten metal. As soon as water comes into contact
with molten metal it evaporates immediately expanding
in volume more than 1,600-fold, leading to a physical
explosion. Inside the furnace overpressure will exceed
100 kPa. The furnace will be destroyed, with molten metal
escaping into the premises of the melting shop.
Inside the shop there are several identical furnaces in a
single row arrangement. The worst case scenario would be
vapor explosion (as described above) and total destruction
of any of them, except the peripheral ones. Large
fragments of the destroyed furnace and the exit of molten
metal will damage the two adjacent furnaces and other
process equipment. The scenario forecasts local collapse
of building structures affected by the molten metal, their
refractory casing having been damaged by the explosion.
The worst case scenario involves:
• The total destruction of one electric furnace (Furnace
No. 2) and its utility systems;
• The partial (50%) destruction of adjacent electric furnaces
(No. 1 and No. 3) and their utility systems;
• The partial collapse of the melting shop building
(support columns’ refractory casing not fully installed).
Items Insured
Extent of
Damage
Loss in Monetary
Terms, €
1. Melting Furnace No.
100%
20,000,000
2. Two adjacent Melting
Furnaces, No. 1 and No. 3
50%
20,000,000
3. Melting Shop Building
30%
3,000,000
4. Debris Clearance and
Removal Costs
Total, €:
7% of
Items 1-3
3,010,000
46,010,000
77
78
Possible damage from a melting furnace explosion
during startup/commissioning is thus estimated at
€46,000,000.
Under the most favorable circumstances reinstallation
of Furnace No. 2 (taking into account time requirements
for accident investigation; debris removal; condition
assessment of intact shop structures and equipment;
construction and erection work to restore the building;
new equipment purchase, delivery and installation;
furnace startup and operation at full capacity) will take up
to 12 months, the other two furnaces will be restored in 9
months.
Case 4: Explosion during construction work at a
chemical plant
Capacity expansion and modernization of an operating
chemical plant involves some new construction performed
inside the premises and in the immediate vicinity. The
main products are nitric acid, ammonia nitrate, ammonia,
methanol and carbamide.
Modeling a worst case scenario required a detailed
analysis of each of the covered risks, i.e. fire and explosion.
We looked at a number of scenarios affecting construction
projects as well as facilities in operation. The selected
scenario is depressurization of a pipe or reservoir containing
explosive substances, with subsequent explosion and fire.
There are a number of factors contributing to such an
accident including:
• The presence of hazardous substances (natural gas,
hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, hydrogen sulphide and
others) in most production processes;
• The high pressure and high temperature processes;
• The presence of potential sources of fire in standard
operation (heated surfaces of pipes and machines,
electrostatic discharges, etc.).
When calculating the volumes of hazardous substances
involved in the accident and contributing to destructive
forces we took a conservative estimate which considers
maximum filling levels allowed by process regulations.
Based on the analysis findings and production cycle
processes data for workshops (both operational an under
construction), and taking into account flammable/explosive
substances volumes and handling procedures, we chose an
insulated ammonia tank as the case study for MFL estimation.
This choice was prompted by the following factors:
• The high value of property in the affected area;
• The relatively high concentration of insured properties
in the affected area;
• The significant volumes of flammable and explosive
substances handled.
If the insulated tank is damaged, up to 10,000 tons of
liquid ammonia (its temperature is -33.4 °С) will spill out.
Upon contact with the atmosphere the spill will boil up.
Evaporation intensity will gradually decline due to heat
exchange between the pool of liquid ammonia and the
subsurface. Basic calculation suggests that the vapor cloud
will contain about 43.6 tons of gaseous ammonia. As the
cloud reaches the lower boundary of the inflammation
concentration range, the presence of ignition sources (such
as colliding metal fragments of destroyed equipment)
may bring about explosion which in turn may cause a fire
accident.
The correlation between blast pressure and extent of
damage is assumed while taking into consideration the
structural design of buildings (we know that explosion
pressures would be different to destroy a light steel frame
building and an earthquake-proof building made of
reinforced concrete).
The blast pressure distribution diagram implies that
almost all process equipment of the ammonia storage
facility (isolated tank, spherical tanks, secondary process
building, flare facility, compressor house of the liquid
ammonia storage cycle, ammonia distribution pumping
station, process pipe racks etc.) will end up in the total and
severe damage area. Some of the process equipment of the
operating plant will be in the light damage area.
Vapor cloud explosion will damage the area around
the tank and will cause inflagration. The spill area
encompasses other facilities under construction and
uninsured operating facilities that were destroyed by the
explosion. They must also be considered when dealing
with this type of accidents because of possible loss
accumulation.
The value of the isothermic liquid ammonia storage
facilities under construction, destroyed as a result of
explosion and fire, is $22.96 million. Damage calculation
must take into account the possibility of an upward
adjustment for debris clearance and removal (7.0%):
22.96 х 1.07 = $24.572 million. Following this calculation
procedure, the monetary value of MFL (adding the cost
of debris clearance and removal) can be approximated at
$24.6 million.
A similar accident happened in the Soviet Lithuania in 1989,
with a 7,000 ton reservoir depressurized. The above scenario
materialized, with significant property damage and seven
lives lost; 40,000 residents of the nearby city were evacuated.
In addition, if this scenario materializes, third party
property damage and life loss/personal injury is to be
expected. In the worst case the MFL may hit the liability
limit of $10,000,000.
The PML calculations covered so far are given with
respect to technological accidents. In addition to that,
construction site risk assessment can include calculation
of damage from natural forces. It is important to note
that potential climatic and hydrogeologic threats to a
construction project are addressed in the design phase,
and materialization of nat cat PML in most cases results
from faulty design (Including front end engineering) or
construction errors.
Case 5: Earthquake
This involved the construction of a 16-storey
multifunctional center (hotels, offices, apartments) in
a seismic region. The sum insured is $350,000,000. The
estimated seismic hazard at the foundation depth based
on MSK-64 (Medvedev–Sponheuer–Karnik) scale damage
categories is:
• for a 500 year period — intensity 8.4;
• for a 1000 year period — intensity 8.9.
79
80
The facility consists of several sections attached to
each other. The structure is of reinforced concrete with
combined frame arrangement. The design includes high
damping seismic bearings (between the foundation and
the superstructure) for better earthquake resistance; in
addition, the building will have multiple aseismic joints.
The worst case hazard development scenario assumes that
the earthquake protection features either fail or prove
ineffective. As I mentioned, this may happen as a result of
design or construction errors.
An earthquake of this intensity will cause severe damage
to buildings, some elements being destroyed (throughcracks and fractures in the walls, partial collapse of
buildings, collapsing partition walls and enclosure walls).
Above and below ground pipelines and utilities networks
will sustain multiple fractures. On-site and access roads
will be totally destroyed by the shock effect.
Taking into account the information on sums insured,
the total damage under this scenario is not expected to
exceed 80% of construction work value, or $280,000,000.
With the debris clearance/removal adjustment (10.0%) the
damage is estimated at $308 million.
Case 6: Damage caused by sea storm
Seaport construction project (including dredging,
beaching, pier construction etc.) with the total value of
around $250,000,000 takes place in an isolated, poorly
studied area (with scarce storm statistics).
Berthing facilities consist of reinforced concrete piles in
steel tube shell joined at the top with steel elements and
reinforced concrete slabs placed above them. The worst case
scenario with respect to seaport construction is a storm
whose intensity and duration by far exceed the design load.
The value of possible damage may be affected by any
construction errors such as deviation from the work
method statement: for example, building an extensive
length of the berth instead of building one section at a
time (by work zones).
The storm is expected to partially damage the berthing
facilities under construction with scouring taking place
at the shore stabilization site. Estimated damage does not
exceed 50% of the value of the berthing facilities and shore
stabilization operations and is approximately equal to $80
million. With the debris clearance/removal allowance
(10%) the damage is valued at about $88 million.
I hope the scenarios I described here have given you an idea
of PML value calculation for insured construction projects.
Ruling out all emergencies is not possible. Nevertheless,
when engineering risk assessment and PML calculation
are done properly it helps the underwriter in adequately
pricing the risk insured and determining the efficient
insurance/reinsurance parameters.
We are open for cooperation. If you face any issues when
estimating possible damage we will be happy to help.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you, Dmitry. I have a question first to Russian
insurers. To what extent do you face the issue of correct
PML assessment in your business? Have you had any
difficulties with it? Has it caused any problems with treaty
reinsurance?
Pavel Shaptsev
We calculate PML when dealing with large facilities.
Additionally, we normally calculate a base case scenario,
for example, a fire event in respect of oil refineries,
petrochemical plants and civil works. For engineering
structures such as bridges the base case is collapse. We also
calculate nat cat PML for three types of threats: earthquake,
flooding and storm. I find it difficult to estimate PML from
a natural disaster because normally we only know a certain
zone delineated by Munich Re or Swiss Re maps.
So we have our own methodology but it is not as precise as
the one our colleagues apply to fire event scenarios. It is just
a percentage of the total. When dealing with an earthquake
risk we check the seismic zone; if it is flooding we look at
frequency of occurrence and potential impact on property.
Let me share one more experience from our practice. We
were considering a risk in Russia which was an industrial
business located 5 kilometers from an airfield where at
that time they were testing a new fighter aircraft. The
underwriters wanted to calculate PML for a scenario
in which a fully loaded aircraft crashes on the premises.
When they asked a risk engineer to do the calculation he
said the damage would be comparable to a meteorite fall.
We decided rather to stick with our guidelines and did the
calculation the same way we do for a normal fire event.
Generally speaking, you could assume PML to always
be 100%. But it is more reasonable to define segments by
type of facility; there are normally some scenarios already
assigned to them which are not based on PML statistics
alone but take into account the most probable course of
events, prompted by more general statistics and knowledge.
It seems logical to calculate PML, and it is worth
the effort because many treaty reinsurance contracts
(including those signed by Russian companies) allow for
the ceding of risk using PML as well as the sum insured
and the limit. But of course you need the right skills
to calculate it. You need risk engineers with proper
qualification. You need to be cautious as well, not taking
broker’s PML for granted. It is better to double-check
yourself or outsource the task.
Igor Prandetsky
I agree. A PML calculation is a responsible task that
requires special skills. Liability for wrong PML estimate stays
with the insurer, not reinsurer, and it is the insurer’s job.
Natalya Kolpakova
We had some experiences with calculating PML in relation
to nat cat risks. The policy was written for an Olympic facility
near Sochi, at the elevation of 500 to 900 meters. The sum
insured was substantial — tens of billions in ruble terms. After
consultations with reinsurers we assumed the nat cat PML to
81
be 100% and ceded the whole risk on a facultative basis. Sochi
is a place characterized by high landslide and earthquake risks;
it is close to the Mzymta river. We were concerned that if any
such event occurred it might damage the facility as a whole.
It took us some time to choose the right approach to
PML: the facility consists of separate buildings at different
elevations. Eventually it was the decision we took jointly
with our leader and broker to set a 100% PML for nat cat
risks. There is a big question about property risk and power
transmission lines construction: how to treat PML, how
much value can be destroyed in one instance if it is a large
facility with extensive transmission lines.
We usually address this issue by setting a specific limit
and having it reinsured but when it comes to complex
industrial risks involving high values and multiple processes
we outsource the PML calculation to professionals such as
Rus Survey. And of course we use their PML estimate for
reinsurance.
Oleg Romanov
You said you use Rus Survey. Do they offer any guarantee?
What if they get it wrong and PML is underestimated?
Natalya Kolpakova
No surveyor will provide such a guarantee.
Oleg Romanov
Maybe they have professional indemnity insurance?
Natalya Kolpakova
in its classical form because here in Russia this product
can only be sold to people who perform professional
duties such as medical doctors. Sooner or later Russian
companies will have their professional liability insured as
well, but the market is not ready yet.
Stefan Saur
There are many approaches to assess the PML for PD.
But I would also be interested in the DSU loss in the PML
assessment. This is a question for the direct insurers. How
do you assess the PML for DSU? Is it always the full sum
insured for DSU and the full indemnity period? Or do you
assess this also individually, by considering circumstances
of the risk?
Oleg Romanov
I can speak on behalf of Allianz. It follows a strict rule:
100% of DSU risk is included in the sum insured. But you
are probably more interested to hear from Russian insurers.
Radiy Suleymanov
I agree with Oleg Romanov that the PML assessment is the
weakest point. At our previous Round Table we discussed this
issue, including PML associated with DSU risks. Given that
all insurers keep limited portfolios of those risks, including
Allianz (this is what they said last year), none of them can
offer an acceptable DSU-related PML assessment, and neither
can we. So we either agree with the brokers’ assessment (if
their engineers are prepared to provide any) or take the sum
insured to be PML for the given risk.
We look closely at surveyor reports. Some are not
trustworthy; we don’t really use them. But our experience
with Rus Survey has been positive so far.
Igor Prandetsky
Oleg Romanov
Radiy Suleymanov
Brokers are optimists by nature.
So PML becomes MFL?
As a member of valuation services providers’ SROs we
have the relevant insurance covers. This year the National
Association of Insurance Adjusters signed a professional
TPL insurance contract with Alfa Strakhovanie for its
member companies including ourselves. So we try to use
different legal protection tools available on the market.
It is difficult to calculate it otherwise. You can do it if you
deal, for example, with multiple locations, each potentially
contributing to the loss. But the PML calculation as applied
to the property under construction (that is, ALOP/DSU)
cannot be similar to PML for BI risks in a property damage
programme. There are important differences. Such a
contribution to the loss does not occur in the same period as
the consequences that influence DSU claim payment. This is
why I have to agree with the esteemed Allianz colleagues: in
this situation such an estimation is justifiable.
Igor Prandetsky
Igor Prandetsky
So the risk insured is that of a mistaken/inadequate PML
estimation?
If there are no more comments, I suggest we move
further without break to our next subject presented
by Stefan. This is a very interesting case that happens
regularly in real life — the cessation of works. It will
be interesting to know how Munich Re considers this
situation.
Pavel Shaptsev
Pavel Shaptsev
It’s about third party property damage/personal injury.
It’s not a legal entity’s professional indemnity insurance
82
83
Evaluation of PML for civil and industrial engineering
construction — case study
6
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Cessation of works
7
chapter
Stefan Saur
My name is Stefan Saur, an engineering underwriter
from Munich Re. I will tell you about cessation of work in
engineering project business.
First of all, a quick outline of my presentation. I will
discuss our definition of cessation of work (CoW),
scenarios and potential loss or damage. Then, our position
in this regard and some recommendations regarding
standstill cover, minimum requirements during this
period, and, if works resume after this period, we also have
some recommendations.
First of all, let me discuss the definition of CoW. It is an
unplanned and unforeseen partial or total interruption
of the works, which leaves the project unattended and
unprotected.
In a construction project, you also have planned
interruptions like weekends or public holidays. Also,
depending on the area, you can have a wet season when
you have planned interruptions, or strong winters like here
in Russia, in the north. These are scheduled breaks and
they are known. But CoW is an unplanned interruption.
There are a number of scenarios that could trigger a
CoW. It could be finance problems either for the principal,
who cannot pay the contractor, the contractor or a key
supplier who goes bankrupt.
A weak economic and political environment can also
lead to a CoW. There may be a dispute between principal
and contractor. There could be delivery problems from a
key supplier.
Other reasons include geological risk where
archaeological items are discovered during the
construction phase or environmental risk. There are many
reasons for CoW.
In terms of losses and damages there are also many
things that can happen. One is theft if the site is not
properly fenced during this period while arson, vandalism
or sabotage can also all occur.
During a lack of use, losses can be caused by flood,
inundation, windstorm or earthquake. Deterioration due to
a lack of use can be an issue as can corrosion and wear and
tear if the project is in standstill for a long period.
We generally exclude losses or damages during this
CoW period. In our CAR/EAR policy they are completely
excluded. The wording says: “The Insurers will not
indemnify the Insured in respect of loss caused by or
arising out of or aggravated by cessation of work whether
total or partial.”
Our CPI policy is a little broader. There we have four weeks
of CoW covered. It says: “The Insurer shall not indemnify the
Insured in respect of any loss resulting from any partial or
total unscheduled cessation of work exceeding four weeks.”
So at least there are four weeks covered but basically
CoW is excluded in our policies. It is applicable to all
sections in particular to the ALOP section which needs to
be considered very carefully.
If you use other wordings, where CoW might be not
excluded, then every policy should have a «Material
Change in Risk» proviso.
Our understanding is that CoW represents a material
change in risk, because there is a different exposure. In our
CPI policy, for example, there is also a «Material Change
in Risk» proviso which says that «The Insurer shall not be
liable for any loss which would not have resulted had there
not been a material change in risk». But then there’s an
important phrase: «...unless the Insurer has agreed to the
material change in risk.»
That’s our position. Generally, either losses or damages
occurring during the CoW period are excluded or the
«Material Change in Risk» proviso should exclude such
risk unless the insured and the insurer have mutually
agreed to modify the policy to include this change in risk.
Our recommendation is that the insurer either evaluates
available risk reports or, better still, conducts its own risk
survey to get a clear picture about the project. This allows
the insurer to estimate values, see whether interruption
occurs during a critical phase and what the exposure to
natural perils including fire, theft and burglary are like.
Once you have this picture you can discuss the standstill
cover, which we would suggest to do by endorsement. You
can do it under a separate policy but endorsement means
you have consistency in coverage.
Standstill cover should be always a named perils cover,
not an all-risk cover, defining exactly what kind of perils
are covered, and also include technical warranties detailing
what kind of project it is, what stage of completion, etc.
You can also adjust deductibles or include limits for
this period; you should also stipulate the period for the
standstill coverage and maybe extend it once in a while,
depending on your discussion with the client.
If the risk survey shows a very unsatisfying situation or
you can’t agree with your client on the standstill cover,
cancel the policy and do some final premium adjustment.
We would recommend some minimum requirements
during the standstill period. Here are some
recommendations that could be included in the
endorsement for the standstill coverage:
• Adequate protection measures should be taken against
natural perils. Depending on the project, these should
include safety nets, slope protection, bracings, dewatering
devices, etc.
• The side should be properly fenced and guarded
24 hours a day. This should also be stipulated in the
endorsement.
• The site should be generally clean and all inflammable
92
and explosive materials, combustible waste material removed.
• There should also be sufficient fire prevention
measures.
• If you have key equipment already on site, you should
discuss with the manufacturer how to conserve it properly
and it should be checked at regular intervals.
Our recommendation is to stipulate these in an
endorsement to the standstill cover.
If the cessation of work is resolved and work planned
to resume, it should not automatically be an all-risk
cover again. We suggest another site survey is conducted,
depending on the CoW period.
If it’s only one or two months, no further site surveys
are necessary. But, depending on the period, we would
recommend another site survey to get again a clear picture
about the situation on site. It might be necessary to adjust
the original policy cover or restrict it.
This could involve the adjustment of deductibles again.
Depending on whether equipment is used, you could have
some restrictions or higher deductibles for testing, or the
maintenance period could be adjusted. We recommend
you look at the situation on site again and maybe adjust the
original policy.
Silent risks always require tailor-made solutions. There is
always a solution but there should be close communication
between the insured and insurer to discuss how to cover
those risks.
Stefan Saur
Igor Prandetsky
We have policies covering the EXPO 2017 facilities. The
exhibition will take place in Kazakhstan in 2017. Extension
is not what we expect because the project is under control
and the deadline fixed.
The president, who lives near the construction site, visits
frequently and holds update meetings there. Initially the
target commissioning date was April 2017. The president
said: ‘I know there will be unfinished jobs, so let’s make it
by December 31, 2016.’
Of course there will be changes. The project design,
supervised by international architectural and engineering
organisations, is yet to be finalized. Our reinsurance
colleagues are about to go there now to do a survey. This
project is as vital to Kazakhstan as Sochi was for Russia.
I think Kazakhstan learned lessons from Sochi. Our
government got involved early on.
As regards CAR insurance, the whole project is divided
among general contractors. Sembol, a major Turkish
contractor, is the only one which is not within the scope
of our reinsurers. All the other construction jobs are
monitored by us, by the reinsurers, and by the president
himself. Now after half a year we expect the first survey.
Thank you very much, Stefan. Ladies and gentlemen,
would you share your experience of dealing with CoW in
your risks?
Oleg Romanov
We had several risks of this type, especially during the
2008 crisis when many projects were suspended. We reached
a perfect understanding with our clients (the insureds). We
communicated our approach and they accepted that.
By virtue of a supplementary agreement for that period
we provided a limited cover with warranties. Usually, when
construction resumed, the policy would work normally
again. We were also pleased to see that all projects in
Moscow were maintained in a good condition throughout
the CoW period, with proper guarding and fencing.
Igor Prandetsky
We are sometimes informed by insurers or brokers that
an extension is required. If the original period for the
project was, say, two years, we are asked to extend it for
another two years. What happens during this period? A
site is not abandoned but there’s slow process. Because we
are far from the construction site, are they abandoned?
Oleg Romanov
Many projects end up in this situation. Commissioning a
project on time is unusual. It happens for different reasons
including untimely financing and an extended waiting
time to obtain official permits.
If the construction process is just slowed, it is not critical
as far as we are concerned; we even benefit as the policy is
renewed. We have projects where the coverage is renewed
on a regular basis. Surveys are performed regularly and the
risk found to be acceptable. We rarely find any problems.
Igor Prandetsky
Let me ask Sergey Lavrentyev who represents the
Kazakhstan: do you have the same situation with
construction projects?
Sergey Lavrentyev
What about when financing is interrupted but cessation
of work does not really happen? Maybe work is delayed
but continues in a sluggish manner, falling behind the
schedule. What is your approach then?
Igor Prandetsky
Oleg Romanov
Thank you. I am pleased to hear that the risks are placed in
the hands of good, reliable, people, and remain under control.
If the project is not abandoned, there is nothing to
discuss. True, it no longer fits within its normal schedule
but is kept fully under the contractor’s control.
Sergey Lavrentyev
The truth is that in many projects (in Kazakhstan as well
93
as in Russia) start-up delay is a norm. Our policies take
account of that. An extension to the construction period
is rather exception for us. We tell the client: the policy has
expired without a loss, and the project is not complete. If
you want the policy extended you pay.
Vadim Bogatov
I have a question to Stefan. How would you explain to
the client the link between CoW and damage caused by
an earthquake? In your definition, the policy excludes
damage, directly or indirectly caused by CoW. So if an
earthquake happens, what will be your arguments?
Stefan Saur
Earthquake is definitely an interesting peril in this
regard. It depends on the type of project. A high-rise
building, for example, needs sufficient bracings. If there is
a strong earthquake, the site should not be left without any
protection. Also, if the site is excavated, there should be
enough bracings, slope protections etc to reduce exposure
to earthquakes.
Vadim Bogatov
I wonder how you can protect from an earthquake?
Igor Prandetsky
It’s an Act of God. You cannot influence it, you can just
react.
the risk quality going down in such situations. This is where
I have a problem.
My second point is that it can be difficult to do a proper
risk survey when the cessation of works or a period
extension happens.
Finally, it can be difficult to establish the value of what
is already constructed. It is difficult to estimate what the
exposure on the construction site really is. CoW is not
usual point, but period extension of two years, and then
another two years, is difficult to explain, and surveys are
needed in this case.
Igor Prandetsky
It is possible to extend it on the basis of premium,
understanding the risk and the quality. May I ask JeanFrancois first, and then Svetlana for their views?
Jean-Francois Rossetto
We had an interesting CoW case in Sierra Leone where
there was an outbreak of Ebola. The site was no longer
accessible, so we have to rely on what the people had done
before they left the site. It made a survey impossible.
Igor Prandetsky
Did you resume the coverage later on?
Jean-Francois Rossetto
Yes, we did a few months later, and everything was fine.
Peter Tailby
Svetlana Chepeleva
I have a question for Stefan. In my market, Dubai, in
2009 we had 300 tower blocks under standstill cover.
Would you comment on what the loss experience has been
generally? There have not been any actual losses in Dubai
but people are very concerned about insurance coverage.
We limited it to Named Perils and did an inspection
every six months. But in reality there has not been any
damage.
I would like to share the perspective of Russian
reinsurers. We are often asked to “suspend the reinsurance
contract” in such a situation and we refer to the Russian
law under which such a status does not exist. What
happens if a loss occurs in that period? Will the reinsurer
pay? If not, it means the contract is invalid. If the reinsurer
must pay, there are still questions about the trigger event
and the scope of cover. This is why, as a reinsurer, we
terminate the contract, rather than suspending it, until
work resumes or, if delay is significant, until a proper
surveyor report is provided.
Another typical request is for reinsurance two or three
years after construction work began but perhaps half a
year before completion. But we ask: who is the insurer, and
why is reinsurance sought only now? Without complete
information about the risk we will not underwrite it.
A good illustration of what can happen when a project is
suspended can be seen in the Polonsky case. Polonsky had
a number of projects scattered throughout Russia, some of
which were suspended. One of them was a skyscraper in
Moscow that was ambitiously announced as the tallest in
Europe.
My colleagues at AlfaStrakhovanie did a great job
performing a valuation and survey and they made
Stefan Saur
As far as I know we also have not experienced any losses
or damages, at least in my area, in Eastern Europe. In Latin
America I’m not sure but, as far as I know, we have not
experienced any losses or damages.
Igor Prandetsky
Tomasz, would you like to add something on the subject?
Tomasz Zgadzaj
I’ve not often faced CoW. I have seen the construction
period extended often in connection with poor economic
conditions or the principal facing troubles, for example. I see
94
recommendations regarding the reinforcement of
structures. Everything was successfully insured, with all
the conditions, clauses and recommendations included.
Everything was built to completion.
arguments/explanation about the reasons for CoW, we
need to know how much work was completed at the
particular site and how much remains to be done. We
depend on you.
Oleg Romanov
Radiy Suleymanov
Let me add a couple of points. The Munich Re policy
does not say that it is suspended for as long as work is
interrupted. Instead it says that it does not cover losses
directly following a CoW. It covers losses that are truly
external and are neither generated nor increased by CoW.
It means that the policy can remain valid even without a
supplementary agreement.
The client has received the money. Maybe he could
reclaim part of the premium, corresponding to the unpaid
period. This could be set off against the premium due
under a new reinsurance contract. But if this does not
happen the reinsured has no cash to extend the cover.
Svetlana Chepeleva
I agree. I’m just talking about the expression ‘Suspension
of the reinsurance contract’. Without seeing the insurance
policy and its wording, I don’t know whether it is based
on an endorsement. Yet they want me to suspend
the reinsurance? What does it mean to suspend the
reinsurance contract? Are we supposed to cover losses
during that period? If so, what kind of losses, and for what
reasons? Or maybe we don’t cover losses because our
liability exists as long as there is a contract.
Oleg Romanov
There have been concerns that in the event of CoW the
value of disbursed funds is difficult to determine. I don’t see
an issue here because all the costs are documented in Job
Completion Reports and placed on the principal’s balance
sheet. What’s the problem? Any work that was completed
and any materials/equipment purchased are recorded and
can be verified. It’s all about relations with the client: will
they provide this information? Why shouldn’t they?
Radiy Suleymanov
I have a question for Svetlana. What about if a client
wants reinsurance to be suspended and later wants it back.
It looks like you terminate the reinsurance contract but
then you relaunch it.
The insurant has suspended the cover by placing limiting
conditions because of the impossibility of proceeding with
construction work.
Then he says: I want to extend the cover. Why don’t we
shift it forward by the same period without charging more?
What will be the terms of resuming the cover if such a
shift in time is not conditioned on additional premium?
The premium you received from that client (the ceding
insurer) was paid under the first contract. Does it mean
there is no premium under the second one?
Svetlana Chepeleva
We have had situations such as this but we always find
a solution. We look at the insurer’s position and clientele
before making a decision. If the insurer has an established
portfolio, reliable underwriting relations and extensive
business contacts, we will see what we can do. But if they
have only one policy and nontransparent documentation,
we give it up. The reinsurer is always a secondary party
to the insurance deal, so we decide depending on the
arguments presented to us.
Igor Prandetsky
So it’s decided on a case-by-case approach, sometimes
using discretion when a formal decision is not possible. Are
there any more comments on the subject?
Anton Kulik
Stefan named some approaches that help mitigate the
risk during a CoW period such as named perils cover
and certain restrictions ensuring the preservation of
structures. But he did not mention that the sum insured
for that period can be equal to the indemnity limit for all
events. It could be a compromise cover arrangement with
the insurant. We’ve had such cases when the insurant
would agree to a limit that was much below the sum
insured.
Participant
Standstill risks are definitely manageable. They are
always tailor-made, but it can be done; there is always a
solution. But we have often been informed quite late, for
example, when a project has already been at a standstill for
the past three months. The problem is that if a loss occurs
during that period no solution will have been agreed yet.
This situation can be easily avoided if we get involved from
the start. If there a loss in that period it is definitely quite
cumbersome to solve.
Svetlana Chepeleva
Igor Prandetsky
We would look at the terms under which you suspended
the cover and want to extend it. If we accept your
We now move to a more theoretical subject related to
coverage of modern technology.
95
Cessation of works
7
96
97
98
99
100
101
Insurance of system installation of wind turbines and
wind farms; insurance of construction of solar parks
8
chapter
Participant
I’m an engineering underwriter and I’ll try to keep you
awake during this final presentation about wind and solar
farms.
I will start with some insights about solar farms, mainly
from Spanish market and some from the US. I will also talk
about wind energy. I am in charge of the German market
where offshore wind is high on the agenda.
I shall start with solar. The first step is to differentiate
between photovoltaic plants, which are common on the
roofs of private homes in Germany, and thermosolar
plants, which are bigger and more complex.
There are two kinds of thermosolar plants: parabolic
mirror plants and tower plants.
First I will discuss the parabolic plant where heat is
produced in the parabolic mirrors in two different stages.
Here we have salt storage, which is optional. That heat can
be stored within these salt tanks. Up to 15 hours of power
production can be maintained during cloudy days and even
during the night, due to salt melting in salt storage tanks.
Heat Transfer Fluid (HTF) then produces steam which
then produces power in a steam turbine as in a normal
power plant.
This means we have the same issues as in a coal-heated
power plant.
The second type is similar. Here we have steam
production mainly in the top of the tower where the light
and heat is concentrated in the boiler. Then we have nearly
the same system as in the salt tanks for heat control, and
then a normal steam turbine that is producing electricity.
The information required for these risks is also similar
to the thermal power plant. The type of turbine is key as
are the thermosolar feed elements, heat exchangers for
the plant, and the bottlenecks. For photovoltaics it’s quite
easy: the type of the solar panels drives the exposure
here. Especially if you talk about Chinese manufacturers
you have to look directly at the manufacturer of the solar
panels.
The experience of the contractor is key in thermosolar
plants. We want to know what experience they have for
such projects, as the technology itself is not that developed
compared to conventional power plants.
For photovoltaic plants, the main exposure during
construction is theft. From what we have experienced, they
don’t only steal one or two panels, they come in lorries and
gather a whole plant in one night. So this is really a big
exposure if the site is not guarded.
Beside this specific risk measurement everything that
applies to normal, conventional EAR or power plants
applies here as well, especially if you are carrying DSU.
DSU is always a very complex coverage. The additional
challenge is that solar and wind power production is not
continuous as is the case in conventional power plants.
You have some historical data but in the case of a loss you
have to justify what the actual loss sustained was. You have
more windy days, you have more sunny days; you need the
data to estimate and calculate the loss sustained.
Theft is the main exposure for photovoltaic projects.
As with thermosolar parabolic mirror plants this is not a
proven technology yet. There are some plants and some
experience, however, it is not comparable to conventional
ones.
The design cannot be taken as proven therefore, which
means the cover should be applied accordingly. Operation
is a bit more complex as heat production is always
changing and cannot be regulated by temperature and
pressure adjustments.
For parabolic mirror tower plants the thermal fluid/
heat transfer fluid (HTF) can be molten salt or sometimes
pressurized oil, both of which are prone to fire. These
fluids can also freeze. The molten salt starts freezing below
temperatures of 130 degrees. In the case of pressurized
oil it is more like temperatures below 80 degrees. When it
starts to freeze it blocks the pipes and is quite cumbersome
to liquefy it again.
Thermosolar tower plants are even closer to being
prototypes and experience is even more limited compared
to parabolic ones where we have bigger power plants,
especially in Spain.
I will describe some of the losses we have seen. The first
one in Spain was due to accelerated fatigue/abnormal wear
and tear in the boiler. There was no extraordinary trigger
for this loss. It was due to how the plant operates with
changing heat and temperature that this boiler had to be
replaced.
Here you can see that BI, or DSU if you talk about
testing, is mainly the trigger for the loss. It cost €500,000
for the material damage and €12.5 million for the BI
section.
Not everything was directly linked to the loss but a
repair plan had to be established and it only could be
operated on a limited output. So the revenues were limited
until the boiler was completely replaced.
What was special was the loss occurred during peak
output of the power plant. Output is heavily dependent on
the season.
This was not an extraordinary loss. We have seen
similar cases in smaller plants. It was mainly due to lack of
maintenance and extraordinary wear and tear. It cannot
be proved that something was done wrong or could be
improved; the problem appeared at several plants.
The next loss example was caused by heat. We had
excessive dilatation which produced a breakdown in one of
the heat transfer fluid pipes. The material damage loss was
102
not the largest but there was land contamination due to the
outflow of the fluid. After the loss it had to be shut down,
and the fluid froze. De-freezing is very cumbersome and
time-consuming. We had a €2 million loss for MD and BI
combined.
Here you see some examples of fires. Sometimes oil
is used, which is highly flammable. This is a risk that is
frequency-prone, which means a reasonable deductible
should apply because smaller losses appear quite often.
Serial losses are a big issue. A serial loss clause is
key because you can have several similar parts used
in construction. We had an issue with the design of
the mirrors and two burned completely down. There
was a defect there and the serial loss issue needs to be
considered.
From an underwriting perspective, photovoltaic plants
are simpler for reinsurers. You don’t see it that often on a
facultative basis. From a technical point of view, they are
not complicated and [with] smaller sums are insured.
In the case of the bigger photovoltaic fields you are
looking at an output of 100-150 MW. In the case of
thermosolar plants, you can get up to 350 MW.
A photovoltaic plant with an output of 100 MW would
require a €120 million investment. A thermosolar plant
with an output of 350 MW could mean an investment of
€1.5 billion. That’s why from the reinsurance point of view
it is more interesting to focus on thermosolar plants.
Photovoltaic is additionally very prone to wind damage
as it is uncovered and spread over a large area. Hail is not
such a big issue as was initially expected. Wind is definitely
driving the exposure.
For thermosolar plants, as mentioned already, there can
be a design issue as the technology is not that developed
yet. The recommendation is not to grant too broad a cover.
From our point of view, LEG2 is definitely the maximum of
what should be granted here.
DSU in general is a very sensitive topic, especially
for thermosolar plants, so deductibles here should be
definitely higher for the boiler as this is the bottleneck for
the whole plant. If it is damaged, the power plant cannot
operate anymore. If you have a loss on some mirrors or
one parabolic string, at least there can be some output
produced, and so the DSU or BI losses are not that big.
Coming to the wind farms, onshore windfarms are
a relatively new technology. Experience is growing
significantly, especially in Europe. If you look at it
worldwide, more than 30 percent of the onshore wind
[power] production is coming from China. China is the
largest onshore wind power producer in the world.
What we have experienced in such projects is that the
age effect of used turbines and used components is much
greater than initially assumed. This leads to a significantly
higher need for reasonable and good maintenance. Good
maintenance, we figured out, is one of the key triggers to
the sustainable operation of such plants.
I will give you a rough overview of a wind turbine. You
have the rotor, the connection to an optional gearbox
which rotates and produces electricity via the generator.
In the latter years, the gearbox has lots of issues and is
involved in the majority of losses. New turbines don’t
have the gearbox anymore; they use the direct drive
technology, which has some advantages in size and weight.
There are still manufacturers producing wind turbines
with a gearbox but the tendency is to go for direct drive
technology.
Here is an overview of the information that should be
requested for covering such risks. The key is understanding
the type of wind turbine. On a wind farm you can have 3040 wind turbines all of the same type, so a serial loss can
occur. If the model has an issue/defect it needs to be taken
into account and avoided.
Inland transport coverage is also challenging because
most wind turbines are installed in remote areas where
access roads can be narrowed or covered by trees.
Logistically, it is very challenging.
Some manufacturer/contractor agreements cover some
kind of maintenance. You really have to dig into the details
of what exactly the manufacturer is covering though. Are
they only granting some administrative functionality
or are they checking the turbines on a regular basis and
replacing parts that function abnormally.
Here is a short summary. As mentioned, transportation
is a challenge: many plates have been damaged due to
challenging transportation. Talking about fire exposure,
lightning is not the main trigger, its more fire triggered
inside the gongola by heat and oil. That’s definitely a
challenge.
In terms of offshore wind, I’m heavily involved with what
has been going on in Germany. The North Sea, outside the
12-mile zone, is split into economic zones belonging to
Germany, the UK, and Denmark. In these zones, different
government regulations apply. Germany regulates its wind
farms within the German economic zone in a different way
to the UK. Governmental regulations are very important,
especially when we talk about DSU.
Europe is the world leader in offshore wind power, with
the first offshore wind farm being installed in Denmark.
Denmark is one of the key offshore wind markets we are
involved with. As of 2014, 74 offshore wind farms were
in operation while several are in the tendering process
and several are already under construction. But 74 are
producing power with the total output of 8 GW.
The UK is the leading power producer in the North Sea.
The European Wind Energy Association which organizes a
big offshore wind meeting once a year, has set the target of
40 GW to be installed by 2020.
There have been some delays triggered by legal issues
but the outlook remains promising and the development is
very significant.
As a standard wind turbine generates 6 MW per turbine.
If you look at the overall potential of offshore wind
power, sooner or later China will contribute in a significant
way, as well as the US where we have already seen some
very large offshore wind projects. None of them are in
operation yet but they are in the pipeline.
In Germany, it is normal to see 80 turbines in strings but
in the US we’ve seen already wind farms with 170 turbines.
Here is a typical scheme of what a wind farm looks like.
103
Several turbines are placed in one line/string and then
connected to the offshore wind farm belonging to the same
operator. They are connected using cables. The typical
investment for such a wind farm with 400 MW of output is
about €1.2 billion.
What is the lifetime of a wind turbine?
Participant
Good question. We are in a beginning phase so I rely
on the manufacturer’s information. The maintenance
programme granted by the manufacturer extends up to
20 years. They say the turbines are designed for 25 years.
We don’t know yet because we have not reached the end of
such a period. But you can say, 20 to 25 years roughly.
With very small wind turbines of, say, 4 MW, the tower
is already there and they just replace the nacelle on the top.
Of course some calculation has to be done: if the tower and
everything is appropriate for the bigger nacelle, then only
the nacelle and the blades have to be replaced. Then you
have a wind farm with a higher output and definitely less
investment.
Here you see how it usually works. You have the wind
turbines producing electricity connected to an offshore
wind farm belonging to the wind farm operator. Then you
have a 130 KV AC cable connected directly to an onshore
substation which is feeding electricity into the grid.
In the German North Sea, the system is a bit different.
You have a kind of collector substation in between. The
offshore wind farms are, let’s say, 100km offshore, which
means the loss of electricity over such a distance is high.
So the offshore wind platform is connected to a collector
substation to which up to four wind farms are connected.
This substation belongs to the grid operator. If you have a
loss at such a collector substation, it means that as many as
four wind farms cannot feed in. They don’t suffer loss, they
are producing electricity but they cannot feed in, so we are
facing a kind of accumulated CBI exposure.
There is a debate about what is covered, what is not
covered and whose fault it is. Is it the wind farm operator
or the collector substation operator? That can lead to a
long discussion, also involving the German government.
It was one of the reasons for the delay in the total plan of
renewable energies in Germany. Now, who is responsible
has been defined, and the project continues.
In the North Sea, and in the offshore segment in general,
around two thirds of wind turbines are supplied by
Siemens, which is the market leader. Some come from the
Danish Vestas manufacturer, and the rest mainly from
Senvion, the former RePower, manufacturer. These are the
three main players in the North Sea.
A few different types are used depending on the water
depth. More than two thirds of the foundations used in the
North Sea are monopiles. They are driven about 35 meters
into the sea bed and weigh about 350 tons.
Because you hammer them into the sea bed, they are not
100 percent perpendicular. There is also a transition piece,
which weighs about 150 tons.
To fix them, you use grout, a kind of special concrete, to
fix it and make it perpendicular. We have seen issues with
this. After the grout dried there was some sinkage and
cracks due to vibration. Two were affected and another was
investigated.
It was a challenge for the manufacturer to fix it. It was
not an insured loss, however, all of the monopiles, not in
one wind farm but several, needed to be repaired. That’s
why I recommend not granting coverage that is too broad
as the technology is not proven yet.
In the nacelle itself, the main difference is between those
that use direct drive technology and conventional ones
that use a gearbox.
This gives you a rough idea about the dimension of the
parts used here. On the left you see the blade, which is
made of two parts fixed together. Before they are lifted
and installed they will be shipped to the site. The actual
models are up to 120 meters in diameter, and installed at
the height of 100 meters.
This is the offshore sea cable, to show the size and how
it looks. This here is a wind farm substation and this is a
collector substation to which up to four wind farms are
connected. From the underwriting perspective, this is a
bottleneck. If this substation is damaged, the whole wind
farm cannot feed in any electricity anymore. If there is
a storm and turbines are affected, the others can work
fine and can still produce electricity. If the substation is
damaged, it is total blackout.
This is an example of an installation vessel. The majority
of cable losses are due to cables.
Much of this is unproven technology. Most of the models
are upgraded but they all use the same technology though
you have different size and shapes of the blades.
Another challenge is the size and weight of these things.
For example, a nacelle for a 6 MW turbine can weigh 350
tons. This has to be lifted offshore with waves and very
harsh weather conditions. Several losses have happened
when the installation vessel hit the tower, for example.
Access to the site is a challenge as well. Sometimes
you have an uninsured delay because you just cannot get
offshore due to the weather. If there is a rough storm and
very high waves, you cannot access the site. This also needs
to be considered in DSU cover.
Repair costs are higher because of the limited availability
of specialist equipment. There were only a small number of
installation vessels available, which meant a wait. And the
rental was costly at several hundred euros a day.
Ship collision is another exposure we see, especially with
substations.
In terms of underwriting considerations, the wording is
based on the WELCAR wording which, from our point of
view, should be kept.
We recommend avoiding any guarantee covers. There is
much that cannot be foreseen. If after some years there is
a deficiency due to an unexpected oscillation, for example,
a loss may occur which was not considered before. One
example of this was the issue we had with the grout. If that
had been covered it would have been a very high insurance
loss.
A serial loss clause is a must. Deductibles are more or
104
less standard for all offshore works at around €250,000 and
for offshore sea cables, not less than €500,000. The average
loss for an offshore sea cable is about €6 million but it can
reach up €20 million easily.
The manufacturer is important. It has to be a wellknown and reliable company. That is why we don’t have
much experience with Asian manufacturers; so far only
European manufacturers have been covered, and even
there we see challenges.
Online Condition Monitoring is critical. It is installed as
standard now in wind farms and monitors heat, oscillation,
pressure and many other things. If there is something
unusual the turbine will immediately stop.
Turbines are designed to work up to a wind speed of
roughly 75 metres per second. When it is more than this,
the blades turn out of the wind direction, and stop.
An interesting case we saw was where the angle of the
blades shifted by one screw hole let’s say. They wanted
to shift the blades but the stopping position was so high
and the wind pushing the blades so strongly, there was
abnormal wear and tear of the brakes.
Some of the turbines burned down, and they figured
there was an error in the erection. But it was not an error
in the erection but in the manuals. So it was erected
correctly but the manual was wrong. Ultimately more than
1,000 turbines were affected.
The majority of losses come from cables. It can be due to
a leg standing on the cable directly, or due to over-bending
when it is laid. So the experience of the cable-laying
company is very important to avoid losses here.
The foundations are the second biggest problem in terms
of losses. Then the blades, the gear box and then other
factors.
There are more examples of losses. Within one section
of an AC cable 100 abnormal bulges were discovered. This
could be a loss of €18 million and this is only material
damage loss.
Finally, some lessons we have learned:
• This can be a tremendous serial hazard.
• The substation can be a bottleneck especially if DSU is
covered.
• An offshore wind farm project is not just an onshore
one with some additional offshore challenges - it’s totally
a different project. Lifting onshore is not comparable with
lifting offshore.
• It is important to define the task of the Marine
Warranty Surveyor. It must be clear what happens if the
contractor is not following the recommendations of the
MWS. In many wordings it is missing; there is always an
MWS clause but no consequences are defined.
• Risk monitoring is key.
I have a document to share with you. It is an offshore
code of practice developed recently and Munich Re was
involved. It provides some risk monitoring standards and is
available in English, German and Chinese. I am not aware
of any Russian version but would be happy to collaborate.
It is an official document also available on the IMIA
website and the German Insurance Association website. I
recommend you to read and use it.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you very much. It was an interesting presentation.
I think everyone followed it very carefully. In my opinion,
this subject is becoming increasingly important in the
market. The solar energy sector is underdeveloped but
wind power is more advanced and is becoming increasingly
important. I will ask our participants, the insurers, if they
have had experience providing coverage for such risks.
Oleg Romanov
We have not signed a contract yet but we have received
a number of requests for wind farms and solar farms
insurance in Ukraine and Kazakhstan.
Sergey Lavrentyev
It will be part of the EXPO 2017 preparations as a green
economy is being promoted, in particular solar and wind
power. There are many projects being contemplated but
very few wind farms in operation. Some projects are based
on the rotor-type design but I am not aware of any one
operating on an industrial scale. A wind farm is under
development at the Jungar Gate mountain pass between
China and Kazakhstan where the wind is blowing all the
time. A small wind farm will be definitely built in Astana,
only serving the EXPO 2017 needs. But there is no wind
power industry yet as such.
Solar panels are in use and the government is making
a special effort to develop hydro power. Kazakhstan has
a system of small-scale hydro power plants which were
abandoned some time ago to give space to large dams.
China, on the contrary, has adopted this technology
putting up a dam on every river or creek, installing
diversion pipes and small turbines. This is what
Kazakhstan is also promoting now, setting up special
entities for small hydropower.
Igor Prandetsky
Maybe we can focus on hydropower at the next event.
Natalia Kolpakova
We received a request for solar park installation in
Russia. The speaker pointed out theft is the main risk in
terms of photovoltaic panels. I would like to hear about
your experience with other risks. The project is to be
located in the Altai region. It is unique, and we don’t have
any experience yet. We need to know to what extent solar
farms are exposed to wind and how much wind force they
can sustain. And in addition, what about the risk of broken
panels? Are they impact resistant? Maybe you can tell us
more about solar panels.
Participant
From a reinsurer’s perspective these projects are not of
a significant size. I cannot say what wind speed they are
105
designed for but when a specific wind speed is exceeded
it affects not just a single panel it effectively removes half
of the solar plant. It is a very big exposure. There are two
types: fixed ones and rotating ones, which follow the sun.
Fixed panels can resist the wind a little bit better; movable
ones are more prone to that exposure.
Natalia Kolpakova
Our project had fixed panels.
Participant
They are definitely exposed to wind. I cannot tell you
the specific wind speed that they must resist but it is
definitely a key exposure. We have a natural hazards map
for specific wind farms. The GeoPod is also accessible
for our clients, it can measure wind speeds in these
areas. Please focus on the wind speed in the area of
construction of these plants.
Pavel Shaptsev
Do you perform a risk survey when underwriting solar
and wind projects? Are there any organizations or experts
that specialize in this?
Sergey Lavrentyev
The presenter mentioned that offshore wind farm losses
are often caused by contractor deviating from the standard
operating procedure when performing erection work. How
can anyone anticipate future deviations, even knowing the
erection blueprint?
Participant
For such projects a Marine Warranty Surveyor has to be
on site all the time during all the major phases of work. His
recommendations must be followed. Several insurers send
their own warranty surveyor in addition to this. So there
are surveyors permanently on site and on the ships during
the installation. A breach of recommendation can be seen
easily.
We had a case where a substation was shipped to the
installation site. The project was already delayed, not
because of a loss but for reasons related to normal work.
The MWS recommended not proceeding with installation
due to the weather – the waves were too high. The insurer
said no cover would be given if the contractor did not
comply, and the contractor proceeded at his own risk.
Michał Żelaśkiewicz
There have been requests. This line of business will be
developed. Green energy is more than a fashion in Russia
and Kazakhstan in the mindset of policymakers.
I understand that the wind farms are not yet popular in
Russia, but I would like to share some experience regarding
future projects.
In Poland we have about 15 years of experience,
and I would like to share something that might be an
underwriting consideration.
We had this situation when the government looked
to boost the renewable industry. There were many new
investments and a lot of wind farms were bought and
installed.
After that we had quite a bad loss experience. The
insured claimed they were using new machines but we
found the machines had been used and wear and tear was
at quite an advanced stage.
The loss occurred just after the installation. Now the
situation is better. The awareness of the insured is better.
They are using new machineries, which improved the
insurance results. The age of the machinery is crucial to
know what we are dealing with.
Oleg Romanov
Igor Prandetsky
The European agenda is to change the energy balance;
to reduce dependence on a single source of supply and
keep pollution under control. Russia is not facing such a
global challenge. We are independent in terms of energy
supplies.
Thank you very much, Michał. Thank you, Participant,
for your great presentation. Now we move on, and I ask
Cunningham Lindsey to present their experience with a
subway survey. That will be the last discussion subject for
the Fifth Round Table, followed by a Q&A session.
Participant
We are in contact with risk surveyors. We are also in
close contact with our insured partners, and, therefore, on
the construction site surveyors are involved as well. We
definitely get information from them.
Oleg Romanov
Russia has no plans to develop solar and wind power on
a large scale because we have so much natural gas. For this
reason it is unlikely that Russia will offer any demand for
the reinsurance of such risks.
Igor Prandetsky
Igor Prandetsky
Still, as long as there is the potential for such risks it is
useful to be informed.
106
107
Last year’s experience and performance features of the
pre-insurance survey in the Moscow metro
9
chapter
Alexander Mysnik
This presentation continues on the topic of construction
risks insurance. I would like to share our experience of
doing a pre-risk survey of construction projects associated
with the Moscow Metro highlighting specific issues and
challenges we faced in 2014.
We are grateful to Pomosch Insurance Company, which
invited us to work on the project and helped liaise with
the insurant to obtain project documentation and arrange
construction site visits.
Let me start with some history. The very first line of the
Moscow Metro was commissioned on May 15, 1935, so it
celebrates its 80th anniversary this year. On the slide you
can see the first line, with 13 stations and how the system
developed over the 80 years. As of the report date, 192
stations were in operation and the number has now grown
to 196, placing the Moscow Metro among the world’s ten
largest underground rail systems.
Moscow Metro stations are of different design and
structure. Deep-level stations predominate in the center,
while in the peripheral districts you find mostly subsurface
stations and a few on-ground platforms.
As Moscow continues to expand, the demand for rapid
transit services is growing and so is the Metro. On the
slide, the map shows future planned stations and their
expected commission dates.
In 2012, a Metro development programme was launched
extending to 2020. The plan is to build 78 new stations,
some over 155km of tunnels, seven electric engine houses
and other facilities.
There will be new lines and extensions of existing
ones. Another circular line will be added called the Third
Interchange Circuit, which will connect with many of the lines.
Of the 78 stations included in the plan, 37 are scheduled
to be commissioned between 2012 and 2017. The project
was insured through a competitive bidding process which
involved Russia’s largest insurance companies. The project
was split into five lots and contracts were awarded to three
leading insurers including Pomosch.
We were asked to do a pre-risk survey of 10 stations,
about 15 km of rail track and 30 km of tunnels. The value
of the lot we worked on was RUB 195 billion (€2 billion),
and the whole 2012-2017 project was evaluated at more
than RUB1 trillion (€25 billion).
Dr Ing Ulrich Mann from Cunningham Lindsey Zorn
engineering center, who has extensive experience with
underground rail systems and tunnels, was involved in the
project. This was important because the project was to be
reinsured in the Western market.
It also allowed for the independent verification of our
results. After joining the project we visited four stations
out of ten under construction and other sites. However,
most of the work was done in the office using drawings and
estimates provided.
The sites are scattered across several Moscow districts
and can be grouped into four locations all different in
terms of construction, value and technologies applied.
Location 1, a Spartak subsurface station, is a special
case because it was mothballed for 28 years after an earlier
project was discontinued. In 2013, construction resumed
and proceeded on the live section without interrupting the
traffic. Work was performed during short out-of-service
intervals. It has since been put into operation.
Location 2 was a Tekhnopark grade-level station. As in
the previous case, construction had to be done without
interrupting normal service. The operational line is
shielded by a temporary enclosure. Commissioning is
scheduled for December, 2015.
Location 3 is a 3km extension of the operational
Zamoskvoretskaya line, with two subsurface stations in
a residential district. Tunnel boring machines (TBM) are
used for tunneling while the cut-and-cover (C&C) method
will be used for the stations.
Location 4 is a 7 km long section of the Third
Interchange Circuit. This is the most difficult section in
the central part of the city with six interchange stations
of different structural types and depths. Moreover, one
segment of the line runs below the Moskva river bed.
Within one location you come across many types of
construction work, which makes our job challenging.
The Moscow Metro offers examples of all station types.
Construction methods differ accordingly: rock tunneling is
used for deep-and medium-level stations, mostly in the city
center, and C&C (i.e. by excavation, similarly to regular
buildings), for subsurface stations.
The Moscow Metro has traditionally used a two-tunnel
system to separate trains going in opposite directions. A
variety of methods can be used for tunneling, depending
on depth and soil type: rock tunneling (with or without
ground freezing), TBM boring, while some shallow tunnels
are excavated using the C&C method.
Groundwater conditions dictate the choice of tunnel
casing: steel liner, reinforced concrete liner, and (where
TBMs are used) modernized, heavy-duty reinforced
concrete liner.
As we were preparing the report, work was in progress at
150 construction sites employing some 40,000 workers and
22 top brand TBMs. These numbers break the Soviet record
set in the 1980s when there were fewer TBMs. Four out of
the 22 TBMs were operated within the scope of our project.
I will now highlight the construction conditions with the
highest construction risks:
• A complex geological profile (saturated soil, flowing sand;
karstic phenomena; water ingress at construction sites);
108
• A significant average annual precipitation possibly
leading to over-wetting of the soil body;
• The possible alteration of geological structures in the site
area caused, in particular, by construction work at the site;
• The simultaneous use of many pieces of equipment
including heavy duty machines and TBMs;
• Construction in areas of intensive residential
development (buildings and utility systems located in close
vicinity to the construction site);
• The development of operational lines without traffic
interruption, when work can only be performed during
out-of-service intervals;
• A different degree of drawings and specifications
availability (as engineering continues in parallel with
construction);
• Multiple and isolated construction projects and sites
varying in phase and type of work performed;
• The construction of main line tunnels under the
Moskva river bed.
All these peculiarities were taken into consideration in
project documentation development.
The next slide is a summary of our findings. We were
dealing with a number of construction projects extending
over long distances, of different purposes, technology and
value. This prompted us to outline four locations specifying
the relevant risk types for each, including construction risks,
equipment damage and third party liability.
Moreover, each location was subdivided into more than
10 sub-zones based on the variety of soil characteristics,
work methods, equipment used and area development
density. With the total construction cost RUB95 billion,
the largest PML (at location 4 with rock tunneling) was
estimated at RUB1.4 billion.
Based on our estimates, the overall probability of an
insured event (for all construction projects and sites)
was rated below average, which means that the negative
factors, although present, do not exceed the average levels
acceptable for the tunneling industry.
Having completed the project we continue to follow the
progress of Moscow Metro construction out of professional
interest through reading media reports and our contacts
with insurers. As of today, the Spartak station was put into
operation in 2014 and the Tekhnopark station is scheduled
to open in late 2015.
The engineering issues I mentioned before affected
Location 3. Construction work at the Belomorskaya
station was suspended, to be resumed later after the line
section becomes operational. The risk profile will change
accordingly.
Last year, an incident occurred at Location 3. A drilling
overturned and damaged some other equipment on the
site. The reason was trivial – a failure to comply with work
procedures. The existing asphalt pavement looked solid
enough for heavy machinery but that assumption proved
wrong after they had driven in 40 piles.
That incident did not generate a significant loss but it
proved that our assessment was correct and there is every
reason to insurer large construction projects.
Accidents during underground line construction are
not unique to Russia. You must have heard about similar
events that happened over the last 10 years in Beijing (2007,
2010), Cologne (2009) and Warsaw. There was another
incident in Moscow in 2013. Those were serious, high-loss
accidents involving tunnel collapse. Smaller incidents take
place on every construction site. This proves that risks may
be triggered by reasons other than technical complexity of
the project or external impacts.
Such accidents or events can happen in any construction
project independent of its geography. In addition to the
site conditions, CAR insurance must take into account the
technical regulation norms for construction work applied
in the particular country.
Russia has certain national norms and regulations that
apply in particular to tunneling and Metro construction.
For Russian construction projects to be reinsured on the
Western market, those national construction regulations
must be understood. The next slide outlines the legal
framework of technical regulation.
Historically, Russian technical regulation has evolved
as a system of State Standards (so called GOSTs) first
introduced in 1925 and still developing under the Russian
Federation. Since 1947, the Soviet Union has been a cofounder and member of the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO). This tradition continues.
GOST standards encompass construction regulations
but are of broader technical application. There are also
national standards that specifically focus on construction
such as the Design and Construction Documentation
System.
Since 1955, the country has used technical regulation
documents that apply to construction operations. The
Construction Rules and Regulations (SNiPs) are part of
the National Standardization System. The Russian GOSTs
and SNiPs are similar to the DIN standards in Germany.
Up to 1995, SNiPs were used as a source of technical and
administrative regulation for construction projects of
different types.
Following the adoption of the federal codes (including
the Civil Code and Urban Development Code) in 1995
the SNiPs became a part of a broader system of technical
regulations. Since 2010, they became known as a «Body
of Rules” that apply to engineering, construction,
commissioning and costing. However, the term SNiP
is still used by the Russian construction industry for
convenience.
The next slide provides an overview of quality
control and standards compliance in construction.
As you can see, internal and external controls operate
simultaneously at every stage of the construction process
in Russia. The government has always given attention to
technical regulation and quality control, including the
harmonization with international standards.
The ISO 9000 series has laid a foundation for quality
control systems in different production sectors in Russia
but there is no single, internationally accepted, standard
specifically adapted for the construction industry. For this
reason certification under ISO 9001 is still voluntary for
Russian construction companies. Holding such a certificate,
109
however, demonstrates that the organization maintains a
solid position in the market.
In terms of the effectiveness of Russia’s quality control
system, years of experience have demonstrated that:
• The Russian quality control and construction standard
compliance system has proved to be effective;
• The quality control is exercised in all phases of project
implementation;
• The quality control system has multiple stages with
internal and external controls double checking each other
to increase reliability;
• The existing quality control system does not conflict
with ISO quality control requirements.
But even with the most advanced quality control system,
the human factor remains the most frequent reason for rules
violation and omissions in a construction project. Even a
perfectly designed quality control system is no guarantee
against risk. Hence, there is a demand for insurance
coverage and risk assessment and we provide both.
The next slide lists the key recommendations included in
our report. They are quite general. Still they point to some
aspects which are important both for the contractor and
the insurer.
Here are the main difficulties we faced when working on
the project:
• Visiting construction sites was subject to special
authorization because the Moscow Metro has a secure
facility status making it different from other entities. This
delayed the beginning of our work.
• The insured had to deal with multiple construction
sites and it took them time to prepare the requested
documents. This added to the delay at certain locations.
• Tight deadlines were set for report submission while
the amount of design documentation to be studied was
substantial.
• Risk assessment required the identification of
«representative» sites within each location distinguished
by many specific factors such as hydrogeological
characteristics, designated purpose, project design
solutions, existing facilities, etc.
• Each location was characterized by a unique
combination of risk factors that were difficult to
summarize in the absence of a standard, metro-specific
risk assessment methodology.
• Assessment approaches had to be agreed with
the international colleagues to elaborate a common
methodology that would satisfy all the parties.
• The team had to analyze a large number of cost
estimates and classify different types of budgeted costs
to come up with PML for each of the representative sites;
construction contractors had never looked into that before.
• There was no possibility to receive clarifications from
the engineering contractor. Design documentation never
mentions any risks; this added quite significantly to our
costs as we had to go deeper into the details.
Another issue was that the insurant did not have a
centralized construction risk management function.
Insurants tend to believe that compliance with norms and
regulations (SnIP, GOST and others) while performing
front-end engineering/design and construction/erection
work will reduce all relevant risks to minimal or reasonable
levels. This means that no extra expenses are need to hire
special staff and do risk management.
On the other hand, insurers are not particularly
advanced in this respect compared to the insurant. Small
insurance companies do not necessarily have staff with
technical/construction background. Large insurance
companies normally employ construction engineers full
time, but:
• They often lack direct construction experience,
especially when it comes to large or special projects;
• Some do not have an engineering unit which means
that the staff are not exposed to construction projects on a
regular basis; and
• The value of practical experience is always proportional
to the number of projects assessed and claims investigated.
When staff mostly deal with relatively simple cases they
run into difficulties when dealing with more complex
situations.
The pre-risk survey is the main source of unbiased
information used to support decisions about the possibility
of insuring a construction project, as well as terms, scope
of cover and the sum insured. It is equally important to
organize engineering supervision of construction projects
to make sure that insurance terms and conditions are met,
risk minimization steps are taken, quality and schedule
requirements are complied with.
It is preferable to do your own pre-risk survey. However,
when it comes to projects associated with special hazards,
high values or excessive risks you would normally need the
services of specialists. Companies such as Cunningham
Lindsey Russia, Cunningham Lindsey Zorn, CLARC
and others do this professionally. Taking advantage of
their extensive experience they can provide assistance to
insurers.
Personally, I prefer doing a pre-risk survey rather than
facing a loss because I see the outcome of a creative process
and not destruction. The Moscow City Construction
Department accepted our Lot 5 Report, which gives me
great pleasure.
We will be happy to work with you on similar or other
projects of high complexity.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you, Alexander. Ladies and gentlemen, this will be
the final session of today and it is a Q&A.
Pavel Shaptsev
Let me go back to IDI. The prevailing view was that
this type of insurance should be introduced in Russia as
mandatory, so that leaving those risks uncovered would
not be an option. That would help us gain experience to
develop our own (local) approach and price the cover.
We have some experience with projects involving
international companies. For example, movie production
working with companies such as Sony, Columbia or Universal,
110
which act as main producers and co-investors.
Whenever they provide funding for projects in Russia
they require that local partners and contractors buy policies
with IDI cover. Of course, such risks are reinsured in the
West. But this serves as motivation for Russian insurants. If
well know companies were to promote this coverage when
doing business in Russia it could help promote the insurance
culture more generally and IDI in particular, supplementing
potential mandatory insurance.
Denis Nikolaytsev
I agree. Russia’s progress with mandatory insurance has
not always been smooth. Trying to make such a technically
challenging insurance cover as mandatory will lead to
chaos.
My idea was that major clients of insurance companies
will begin thinking about it and looking at international
practice. This will prompt some leading insurers to design
a customized product. With time and experience, it will be
possible to move on to mandatory insurance.
Pavel Shaptsev
I have a question for Ulrich Werwigk about the damaged
turbine that was 33 years old. Was the turbine repaired
or replaced? When dealing with equipment produced
decades ago we sometimes find that a modern substitute
with similar functional characteristics can be less
expensive. And if the modern equipment piece has better
performance, will the direct insurer or reinsurer cover
such improvement provided that it is not more expensive?
turbine had a performance of around 275 MW, and the new
one, nearly 300 MW. All these aspects were considered,
which resulted in a reduction of € 8 million off the effective
replacement value.
Pavel Shaptsev
Was the insurant was satisfied with the settlement?
Ulrich Werwigk
Yes, this amount was agreed through negotiation. I
assume the insured was happy with this payment at the
end. It was a compromise.
Pavel Shaptsev
My second question concerns the turbine taken to Italy
for inspection and repairs without notifying the insurer
and reinsurers. Based on what I heard, as an insurer/
reinsurer I would deny settlement in this situation. Why
did they still decide to settle the claim?
Ulrich Werwigk
That turbine loss was handled as a total loss. So it was
replaced by a new turbine and generator system. No old parts
were reused — it was a new turbine instead of the old one.
The main discussion was around the specific advantages
of the new turbine, for example, longevity. They calculated
some amounts to be deducted. Also, there were some
improvements compared to the old one and this was dealt
with in the final amount. That was the main challenge in
this loss.
Yes, the indemnity was paid at the end, and you raise a
very important question: whether the loss can be denied
or not. We had intensive discussions with our client about
this point.
The energy market in all European countries is very
sensitive. We understood there were some constraints for
our client and we took these into account.
In the end, we choose to contribute to a solution. In fact,
we knew that there had been an incident, which happened
in 2010, which caused the removal of the turbine. It was
taken to the manufacturer. As such, it was very difficult to
calculate the extent of damage. But we had the facts about
the incident and we sought a realistic method to calculate it.
This was also the suggestion of the loss adjuster involved
in the loss. They raised the possibility of co-liability with
the insured as he restarted the turbine and did not stop the
operation. There was the argument to say, this increased
the damage and was a failure to perform his obligations. For
that reason the compensation was reduced by around 14%.
Pavel Shaptsev
Pavel Shaptsev
Does it mean that the settlement was equal to the full
sum insured or was it settled below the sum because of the
improvements?
So the insurant’s behavior was recognized as acceptable
given the circumstances but this resulted in a lower
compensation?
Ulrich Werwigk
Ulrich Werwigk
Ulrich Werwigk
The first claim was around €60 million. The replacement
turbine was around €45 million, and the insurer settled
with around €37 million. There was a significant reduction
due to the modernization, longevity and other advantages
of the new turbine.
The new turbine also had a higher power output. The old
Yes.
Igor Ryzhkin
I have two comments to make, the first on IDI. There
is a new potential customer who could drive mandatory
inherent defects insurance: homeowners in apartment blocks.
111
Those people are already burdened with growing utility
bills and must often make regular payments for building
renovation. Burdening them any further with repair costs
if construction defects are discovered would be too much.
I think building maintenance companies will realize that
IDI insurance is the only way to address this problem for
homeowners.
The second point is about cessation of work. This has
become especially relevant in Russia now that construction
projects are underfunded. Progress delays caused by the
unavailability of funds affect 80% of construction projects,
which have our policies.
It is up to the insurer to identify such delays when they
take place. It would be impossible to send inspectors to
every single site. In the case of a large construction project,
our policy includes a provision that the insurant submits a
work completion certificate, the so called KC-3 Form. This
is to be issued on a cumulative basis and enables us to see
whether work is paid for in time.
Wherever payment is delayed by more than three
months we set up an inspection team to check the
completion of all the mothballing activities that the
law and regulation require from a contractor in such
situations. If they fail to do it (sometimes they cannot pay
for mothballing let alone construction work), we rate the
risk as significant and, in line with the Civil Code, either
terminate the contract or apply a different tariff.
Sergey Moskovskikh
I have a question to Ulrich Mann about the 54 losses
that occurred at a single hydro power plant, mostly caused
by human error. Ulrich Werwigk also referred to human
error in his presentation when he stressed the importance
of being competent in construction business. But even if
you are competent and you know construction regulations,
how can you account for this “human factor”? It represents
the main cause of loss in the vast majority of cases.
And how was risk monitored at the power plant anyway,
given the 54 losses occurring over the period?
Ulrich Mann
There are sometimes new technologies for which we
don’t have standards and technical rules. For example, an
offshore pipeline – there are many possible techniques,
but polypropylene pipes of such big diameter were never
before made for this purpose. Construction companies
try to get the best consultants and involve international
teams for connecting these pipes. They invested a lot
of development effort, but this was not enough to do it
without fault.
Another example was the defects and damage in the
boiler. These are very sensitive areas, and there are new
developments, for example, the T24 steel caused issues at
10 power plants in Germany and other countries.
Additionally, it is often an issue of project management.
If you have very good project management you reduce
claims significantly.
Sergey Moskovskikh
Was my understanding correct that the overwhelming
majority of those 54 consecutive losses were had the same
cause? You referred to unproven technology as the main
reason. Was this chain of losses really caused by that?
Ulrich Mann
I’ve presented three different losses. I think two
were caused by new technology, of different conditions
in relation to standards. This was the cause for the
transformer loss and of course for the offshore cooling
water pipeline. But the biggest loss I’ve shown (the third
one) was typical damage which can happen everywhere.
Radiy Suleymanov
My question relates to Alexander Mysnik’s presentation.
You referred to large volumes of construction industry
regulatory documents and some quality certificates you
studied when performing the survey and drafting your
report. I wondered, to what extent are our construction
regulations, in particular in the Metro construction sector,
consistent with the Tunneling Code of Practice which was
developed by Western underwriters and which is extensively
used for rock tunneling risk assessment? To what extent can
we rely on the Code when underwriting such risks (and in
particular Metro construction risks) in Russia?
Alexander Mysnik
I think there was some misunderstanding. By large volumes
of documents I meant project design documentations,
not regulations. Yes, we have SNiPs in Russia regulating
Metro tunneling among other things. They do not conflict
with the Tunneling Code of Practice in any way, although
the Code has a more general nature as a document. It is
designed for insurance business rather than construction.
It can serve as a source of guidance for monitoring or for
some general inspections. But it is not intended to be used
for project development or implementation. In this respect
the SNiPs are more precise and, I would say, more legitimate
than the code. But essentially there is no contraction. The
code can be used for your purposes.
Tomasz Zgadzaj
I would like to address again the question regarding the
cooling pipeline to Ulrich. If we included in the wording
the Serial Loss clause, would the situation change, so that
many losses on these joints would be limited to the serial
loss as defined in the clause? And the second question:
if we exclude LEG3 from the wording and are limited to
LEG2, for example, how would this influence the coverage?
Ulrich Mann
There is a difference in legacy. This is a UK policy but
the legacy is German. If the loss happened in the UK, the
112
coverage would be very different. Then you can speak about
a Serial Loss clause or about LEG2 or LEG3.
In Germany it is a bit different because the definition
of faulty workmanship and faulty design is a bit more
extended. You have to complete your work without any fault
and then this is covered. This is different to the UK view: if
you have reached one status this is covered before all work
is complete. We have not spoken about Serial Loss clause or
LEG2 or LEG3 because it is not relevant to our legacy.
Igor Ryzhkin
I would like to personally thank Igor for organizing this
Roundtable. For me the discussion of claims settlement
was especially useful. This is the first Roundtable where
specific losses were described in such detail. It would
be great if we had time at a future Roundtable to share
information about our major losses and to hear about other
insurers’ experiences with claims settlement. This is how
underwriting practice develops.
Igor Prandetsky
Thank you. We always take into consideration all your
preferences regarding the agenda and particular issues.
When planning our next event we will ask you in advance
to pinpoint three topics that you find most interesting to
discuss. We will draft the agenda accordingly.
Regretfully, I have to close our Fifth Roundtable. You
have received memory cards with presentations from the
speakers who agreed to share them. I think we will send
you some more by email, as well as the group photo.
We have also given you evaluation forms. You are kindly
asked to fill them in and return before you leave. We value your
feedback, both positive and negative. It is important to know
what we can do better serve your expectations next time.
113
Insurance of system installation of wind turbines and
wind farms; insurance of construction of solar parks
9
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
Analytics
Following the results of 2014, 16 out of 102 insurers
showed loss. In 2013 there were 11 such companies. Thus,
the total net profit of the companies, by estimates of RAEX
(«Expert RA»), grew approximately by 1,5 times. The profit
continues to concentrate in hands of a small amount of
companies, though the share of top-5 companies in total
net profit decreased (from 74% in 2013 to 67% in 2014).
More than a half of large insurers also noted the growth
of profitability of their own funds. In 2014 only two out
of top-20 companies showed loss by premium income
according to the results of the year 2014. In 2013 there
were four such companies.
In the conditions of sharp unprofitability growth in
terms of motor types, the share of expenses on conducting
business of retail insurers (40,4% for in 2014) for the
first time fell below the value of the index for non-retail
companies (44,5% in 2014). The companies with share of
individuals insurance in premium income more than 50%
had to considerably reduce the expenses (-4,4 pp). At the
same time, corporate insurers added 1,1 pp to the index
2014. In general, on the market, the average value of share
of expenses on conducting business fell to 43,5% (-0,7
pp) . As a result of the same and also after introduction
of the moratorium on revaluation of securities, obtaining
additional income from currency investments and
financial aid of owners, they succeeded to show formal
growth of profitability: the average value of profitability of
own funds of the insurance companies grew by 1,6 pp in
2014 (against decrease by 2,7 pp in 2013). According to the
forecast of RAEX («Expert RA»), in 2015 companies will
continue following the strategy of optimization of their
expenses and reduction of the share of highly unprofitable
segments in the portfolio, that will allow them to keep
profitability at the level of 7,0–8,0%.
Slump in own funds profitability changed to its growth;
however it has a formal character. Following the results
of 2014, the average value of profitability of own funds of
insurance companies grew by 1,6 pp and made 7,7% (against
decrease by 2,7 pp in 2013). Growth of the index is noted both
concerning retail and at corporate insurers. Profitability of
own funds of retail companies made 5,4% in 2014 (+1,8 pp),
at non-retail companies — 9,0% in 2014, having added 1,5
pp. Even though profitability of own funds of the insurers
specializing in Motor Insurance (share of MOD and OMI
insurance in the portfolio over 65%) grew most strongly (by
2,3 pp) in 2014, it made only 4,4% that is much lower than the
average market index. The main contribution to the growth
of profitability of own funds was made by introduction of the
moratorium regulator on revaluation of securities, available
in the portfolios of the companies at the end of 2014. Besides,
the index was supported by the growth of currency funds cost
and financial aid provided by shareholders of the companies
in certain cases.
Motor insurers had to work more than the others on
reduction of expenditures on conducting business. Growth
of unprofitability on main types, in particular on car
insurance, had the constraining impact on dynamics of
profitability (unprofitability in OMI insurance grew to 68,6%
(+6,6 pp), in MOD insurance added 7,4 pp and made 74,3%
in 2014). In this regard, last year motor insurers had to work
most actively on reduction in their expenditure (the share
of expenses on conducting business in the part of premium
income decreased by 6,6 pp, to 38,4% in 2014). The index of
expenses on conducting business includes commission to
intermediaries, rent, maintaining and technical support of
the offices, salary of employees, bonuses, advertising and
other expenses necessary for providing the operation of the
company. While the retail companies cut off their expenses
(-4,4 pp), the corporate insurers added to the index 1,1 pp in
2014. Generally on the market, the average index value fell
from 44,2% in 2013 to 43,5% in 2014.
For profitability maintenance, the insurers will continue
to refuse building of the market share in favor of reduction
of highly unprofitable segments share. For restoration of
profitability indexes, the companies cut down expenses,
increased quality of losses settlement for decrease in legal
cost, reduced highly unprofitable business share in the
portfolio. Following such strategy will allow the companies
to keep profitability of own funds at the current level, and,
according to the forecast of RAEX («Expert RA»), the average
profitability of own funds of insurance companies will make
7,0–8,0%, following the results of 2015. Retail insurance
companies started actively cutting down expenses on
conducting business only in the second half of the year 2014
(decrease in commissions, closing of unprofitable sales offices,
staff reduction, advertising). The effect from realization of
these measures will be shown in 2015 to the full extent, and
the index of expenses on conducting business will decrease
by 1–1,5 pp, to 42,0–43,0%. The forecast also assumes relative
macroeconomic stability and decrease in rates of gain in
insurance premiums not more than to 5–8% in 2015.
Insurance premiums on insurance of construction and
erection risks (CER) will be reduced in 2015 by 3-7%, to 3234 billion rubles. Such forecast was made by the experts of
Analytical Centre «The Institute of Insurance» created at
the All-Russian Union of Insurers (ARUI).
As it is said in the press release of ARUI, growth of the
premiums won’t occur in connection with the break in
implementation of large federal construction projects
which give the main volume of this segment.
For the moment, 80–85% of the premiums on insurance
of CER are the insurance share of construction objects
financed by budgets at different levels.
Following the results of 2014, the volume of premiums
in the segment can be reduced by 7–9% - to 34–35 billion
rubles. Rates of premium income gain in 2015 will depend,
according to the experts of «The Institute of insurance»,
on the macroeconomic situation in the country and rates
126
of insurance premiums receipt will be dependent on new
federal projects. According to the optimistic forecast, in
the conditions of accelerated pace of insurance premiums
receipt on new federal projects it will remain at the level
of 2014 (about 35 billion rubles), according to the basic
forecast, it will be reduced by 3–7%.
As it is noted in the message, in the first half of the year
2014 the total volume of insurance premiums in CAR
insurance was reduced by 6,4% in comparison to the
similar period of the last year and made 17,6 billion rubles.
Thus, premiums in the property insurance segment within
CAR in the first half of the year were reduced by 7%, to
15,5 billion rubles, in liability insurance segment within
CAR — by 11%, to 0,62 billion rubles. Premium income in
liability insurance under SRO grew by 2%, to 1,44 billion rubles.
The head of ARUI Igor Yurgens considers that the
decision on removal of CAR insurance expenses from the
estimates of the national construction projects can serve
one more factor of decrease in premiums in the CAR
segment. «The Insurers expect an substantial CAR market
slump in 2015. It is connected with adoption of the Order
No 294 by the Ministry of Construction, Architecture and
Housing of the Russian Federation in the summer 2014
according to which the expenses on CAR insurance are
excluded from all construction estimates - these expenses
are no longer compensated by the State Customer», — this
was the note of I. Yurgens, who is quoted in the message.
Диаграмма 1. Прогноз динамики взносов по страхованию СМР
Diagram 1. Prediction of Premium Income History on CMR Insurance
Взносы по страхованию СМР (базовый прогноз), млрд рублей
Premium Income on CMR Insurance (basic prediction), RUB bn
Взносы по страхованию СМР (негативный прогноз), млрд рублей
Premium Income on CMR Insurance (negative prediction), RUB bn
Темпы прироста взносов по страхованию СМР (базовый прогноз), %
Rates of Increase of Premium Income on CMR Insurance (basic prediction), %
Темпы прироста взносов по страхованию СМР (негативный прогноз), %
Rates of Increase of Premium Income on CMR Insurance (negative prediction), %
Источник: «Эксперт РА» RAEX
Source: «RA Expert» RAEX
127
Таблица 1. Компании-лидеры российского страхового рынка по взносам (без учета ОМС), включая принятое
перестрахование, 2014 г.
Table 1. Leading companies of the Russian insurance market per premium income (without Obligatory Health
insurance), including incoming reinsurance, 2014
Место / рег. №/ Компания / группа компаний Взносы,
Position Reg. No. Company / Group of companies всего,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
В том числе: /
Including:
Прямое
страхование
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
Взносы
всего, 2013г.,
Входящее тыс. руб. /
перестрахо- Premiums,
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
надежности
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
1
1, 977,
3984,
1298,
3175
ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал /
Group of companies
ROSGOSSTRAKH and KAPITAL
156 492 760.0 151 774 333
4 718 427
122 515 670.0
н.д./
27.7
15.1
A++
2
1208,
3825,
3230,
1864,
3255,
3524
Страховая Группа СОГАЗ /
Insurance Group SOGAZ
123 130 058.4 116 945 186
6 184 872
103 950 417.5
n/a
18.5
11.9
A++
3
928,
3823,
3837,
2708,
4189
Группа "ИНГО" /
Group "INGO"
75 188 753.7
69 598 903
5 589 851
74 811 250.7
53 091 478.4
0.5
7.3
A++
4
1 209
ОСАО "РЕСО-Гарантия" /
Insurance OJSC "RESO
Garantia"
66 089 452.6
65 252 233
837 219
58 199 808.3
54 708 703.2
13.6
6.4
A++
5
2239,
3447
Страховая группа
"Альфастрахование" /
Insurance group
"Alfastrakhovanie"
60 103 611.7
58 948 314
1 155 298
52 779 530.2
38 755 714.7
13.9
5.8
A++
6
621
САО "ВСК" /
Insurance JSC "VSK"
38 454 046.7
37 873 950
580 097
38 539 327.3
26 207 698.4
-0.2
3.7
A++
7
3 398
ООО СК "ВТБ Страхование" /
Insurance Company "VTB
Insurance" Ltd.
38 167 679.1
36 871 569
1 296 110
31 798 690.2
21 215 722.4
20.0
3.7
A++
8
3 692
ООО СК "Сбербанк
страхование жизни" /
Insurance Company "Sberbank
Life insurance" Ltd.
36 485 895.0
36 485 895
0
9 054 480.0
15 343 523.3
303.0
3.5
A++
9
1 307
ООО "СК "Согласие" /
Insurance company "Soglasie"
Ltd.
34 475 088.0
33 856 521
618 567
42 888 046.0
514 606.0
-19.6
3.3
A++
10
1284,
3972
Группа Ренессанс
Страхование /
Group Renaissance Insurance
32 532 548.0
32 396 639
135 909
40 543 828.0
27 186 639.0
-19.8
3.1
A++
11
290,
141,
3828,
2890
Группа Альянс /
Group Alliance
27 997 397.7
27 352 725
644 673
37 742 513.0
14 342 485.0
-25.8
2.7
A++
12
983,
3987,
2326
Страховая группа "УРАЛСИБ" /
Insurance Group "URALSIB"
17 107 545.0
16 989 302
118 243
17 467 259.0
23 199 972.5
-2.1
1.7
A+
128
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
13
1427,
2226,
4013
Страховая группа МАКС /
Insurance Group "MAKS"
16 706 124.0
16 561 993
144 131
16 270 338.2
12 461 224.0
2.7
1.6
A++
14
263,
4003,
0092
Группа ЖАСО /
ZHASO Group
13 580 263.0
13 341 151
239 112
12 757 617.0
10 408 868.0
6.4
1.3
A++
15
461
АО "СГ МСК" /
JSC "Insurance Group MSK"
11 213 199.0
11 064 265
148 934
18 860 756.0
12 716 085.0
-40.5
1.1
A+
16
1 834
ОАО "САК "ЭНЕРГОГАРАНТ" /
JSC "Insurance Joint-Stock
Company "ENERGOGARANT"
9 718 819.0
9 366 153
352 666
9 437 331.0
5 094 763.0
3.0
0.9
A++
17
3 256
АО "Страховая Компания
Метлайф" /
JSC "Insurance Company
Metlife"
8 818 508.9
8 818 509
0
9 847 385.0
2 948 763.0
-10.4
0.9
A++
18
177,
3879
Страховая компания ЭРГО /
Insurance Company ERGO
7 259 565.0
7 244 414
15 151
4 499 109.0
2 847 029.0
61.4
0.7
A+
19
1 083
ООО "Зетта Страхование"
6 501 043.0
(бывш. ООО СК "Цюрих" ) /
"Zetta Insurance" Ltd. (former
Insurance Company "Zurich" Ltd.)
6 432 986
68 057
9 012 424.0
5 558 705
***
-27.9
0.6
A
20
3211,
3204,
4014,
1894
Страховая группа "Югория" /
Insurance Company "Yugoria"
6 272 894.0
6 263 664
9 230
4 945 319.0
4 481 549.0
26.8
0.6
нет / n/a
21
1580,
4079
СОСЬЕТЕ ЖЕНЕРАЛЬ
СТРАХОВАНИЕ /
SOCIETE GENERALE Insurance
5 762 032.0
5 762 032
0
5 682 991.0
475 562.0
1.4
0.6
нет / n/a
22
4 105
ООО "Страховая компания
5 344 348.0
"СиВ Лайф" /
Insurance Company "CiV Life" Ltd.)
5 344 348
0
3 930 265.7
686 543.3
36.0
0.5
нет / n/a
23
3 127
ООО "Страховое общество
"Сургутнефтегаз" /
Insurance Society
"Surgutneftegas" Ltd.
4 488 168.0
4 283 692
204 476
5 390 358.1
3 328 139.0
-16.7
0.4
A+
24
3 116
ОАО НАСКО /
ОJSC "NASCO"
4 317 401.0
4 148 825
168 576
2 795 264.0
1 302 152.0
54.5
0.4
A+
25
3 492
ООО "СК "РЕСПЕКТ-ПОЛИС" /
Insurance Company "RESPECT
POLICE" Ltd.
3 880 404.0
3 615 319
265 085
3 052 815.0
590 233.0
27.1
0.4
B+
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
129
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
26
3 947
ЗАО "АИГ" /
JSC "AIG"
3 831 013.0
2 716 635
1 114 378
2 655 395.0
841 543.0
44.3
0.4
A+
27
4 179
ООО "СК "Райффайзен Лайф" / 3 694 929.1
Insurance Company "Raffeizen
Life" Ltd.
3 694 929
0
2 839 329.0
312 279.2
30.1
0.4
A++
28
2 243
ООО "СК ЮЖУРАЛ-АСКО" /
Insurance Company
"YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd.
3 552 707.0
3 552 707
0
1 926 662.0
1 723 011.0
84.4
0.3
A
29
3748,
3993
Группа страховых компаний
"Русский Стандарт" /
Group of Insurance Companies
"Russian Standard"
3 543 686.0
3 543 686
0
8 296 415.0
415 074.8
-57.3
0.3
A+
30
2 947
ЗАО СК "РСХБ-Страхование" /
CJSC Insurance Company
"RSHB Insurance"
3 174 188.0
3 144 896
29 292
2 510 422.0
1 311 706.0
26.4
0.3
A++
31
1216,
4001,
3957
Страховая группа "Чулпан" /
Insurance Group Chulpan”
3 071 273.6
3 008 449
62 824
2 600 940.0
1 576 519.5
18.1
0.3
A+
32
1 675
ОАО "Либерти Страхование" /
OJSC "Liberty Insurance"
2 805 061.0
2 752 871
52 190
2 514 261.0
1 741 648.0
11.6
0.3
A+
33
2489,
3999
Страховая группа АСКО /
Insurance Group "ASKO"
2 793 165.0
2 793 165
0
2 510 454.0
1 873 338.0
11.3
0.3
A
34
3 609
ООО "ППФ Страхование
жизни" /
"PPF Life Insurance" Ltd.
2 683 689.0
2 683 689
0
8 504 826.0
953 439.0
-68.4
0.3
A++
35
3 847
ООО СК "Независимая
страховая группа" /
Insurance Company
"Independent Insurance Group"
Ltd.
2 661 530.0
2 657 225
4 305
1 948 255.0
216 925.0
36.6
0.3
A+
36
3 099
ОАО "ОТКРЫТИЕ
СТРАХОВАНИЕ" /
OJSC "OPEN INSURANCE"
2 602 773.0
2 588 409
14 364
5 196 485.0
1 118 608.0
-49.9
0.3
A+
37
2 792
"Купеческое" /
Insurance Society
"Kupecheskoye" Ltd.
2 561 427.0
2 559 136
2 291
1 953 484.0
596 328.0
31.1
0.2
нет / n/a
38
3 834
ООО «Страховое общество
"Помощь" /
Insurance Society "Pomosch"
Ltd.
2 532 465.0
2 279 206
253 259
2 530 723.0
552 146.0
0.1
0.2
A
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
130
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
39
915
ОАО "Страховая компания
"ПАРИ" /
OJSC “Insurance Company
"PARI"
2 382 985.0
2 308 820
74 165
2 076 844.0
861 730.0
14.7
0.2
A+
40
2 496
ООО "ИСК Евро-Полис" /
Informational Insurance
Company "Euro-Polis" Ltd.
2 356 946.0
2 236 608
120 338
2 240 701.0
1 217 205.0
5.2
0.2
A+
41
3 487
ООО "БИН Страхование" /
"BIN Insurance" Ltd.
2 317 705.0
2 264 664
53 041
2 559 583.0
2 460 119.0
-9.4
0.2
A
42
397
ООО Страховая Компания
"Гелиос" /
Insurance Company "Helios"
Ltd.
2 288 719.0
2 247 229
41 490
1 265 266.0
585 532.0
80.9
0.2
A+
43
3 193
ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ
"АРСЕНАЛЪ" /
"INSURANCE COMPANY
"ARSENAL" Ltd.
2 133 501.0
2 133 501
0
1 074 595.0
166 900.0
98.5
0.2
A
44
1 641
АО САО "Гефест" /
Insurance JSC "GEFEST"
2 092 066.0
2 021 457
70 609
2 448 603.0
925 454.0
-14.6
0.2
A
45
2 877
"Мегарусс-Д" /
"Insurance Company
"Megaruss-D" ltd.
1 988 145.0
1 940 137
48 008
2 118 831.0
879 142.0
-6.2
0.2
нет / n/a
46
907
ЗАО Страховая компания
"Инвестиции и Финансы" /
"Investments and Finance"
1 755 701.0
1 755 701
0
1 165 552.7
1 034 276.0
50.6
0.2
A
47
3 866
ООО "Страховая компания "ВСК
– Линия жизни" /
"Insurance Company "VSK –
Lifeline" ltd.
1 684 894.9
1 684 895
0
1 751 885.5
1 570 168.5
-3.8
0.2
A++
48
159
СОАО "Русский Страховой
Центр" /
Insurance OJSC “Russian
Insurance Centre”
1 671 341.0
1 433 287
238 054
1 130 689.0
195 397.0
47.8
0.2
нет / n/a
49
3 799
ООО "Британский Страховой
Дом" /
"British Insurance House" Ltd.
1 620 691.0
1 620 691
0
1 438 088.0
324 238.0
12.7
0.2
A
50
1 621
ОАО Страховое Общество
"ЯКОРЬ" /
OJSC Insurance society "Yakor"
1 611 865.8
1 462 422
149 444
1 081 139.8
447 187.7
49.1
0.2
A
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
131
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
51
413
ООО Муниципальная
1 581 932.0
страховая компания "СТРАЖ"
им. С. Живаго /
"Strazh" Municipal Insurance
Company named after
S.Zhivago Ltd.
1 581 932
0
823 215.0
758 449.0
92.2
0.2
нет / n/a
52
2 182
САО "Надежда" /
Insurance JSC “Nadezhda”
1 577 506.3
1 577 506
0
887 374.7
820 887.5
77.8
0.2
A+
53
3 229
ЗАО "Страховая бизнес
группа" /
CJSC “Insurance Business
Group”
1 492 215.0
1 476 267
15 948
1 109 546.0
122 681.0
34.5
0.1
A
54
3 438
ООО "ПРОМИНСТРАХ" /
“PROMINSTRAKH” Ltd.
1 397 164.0
1 313 219
83 945
1 163 013.0
230 691.0
20.1
0.1
A
55
88
ПАО "Межотраслевой
страховой центр" /
OJSC “Inter-Industry Insurance
Centre”
1 379 021.0
1 379 021
0
1 208 275.0
754 239.0
14.1
0.1
B++
56
1 643
ООО СПК "Юнити Ре" /
Insurance and Reinsurance
Company "Unity Re" Ltd.
1 340 538.0
0
1 340 538
2 328 879.0
1 041 903.0
-42.4
0.1
A++
57
3 693
"Независимость" /
"Insurance Company
"Nezavisimost" Ltd.
1 297 258.0
1 283 784
13 474
1 907 740.0
92 217.0
-32.0
0.1
B+
58
630
ПАО "Страховая компания
ГАЙДЕ" /
OJSC "Insurance Company
"GAYDE"
1 267 461.0
1 267 461
0
926 764.0
769 943.0
36.8
0.1
нет / n/a
59
1336,
3959
Группа компаний Капиталполис /
Group of Companies "Capital
Polis"
1 170 831.0
1 170 831
0
924 588.0
670 161.0
26.6
0.1
A
60
212
АО "Цюрих надежное
страхование" /
JSC "Zurich Reliable Insurance"
Ltd.
1 165 319.0
1 165 319
0
5.0
55 343.0
23 306 280.0
0.1
нет / n/a
61
3 295
ООО "Национальная
страховая группа –
"РОСЭНЕРГО" /
"National Insurance Group
"ROSENERGO" Ltd.
1 149 719.0
1 149 670
49
672 498.0
315 554.0
71.0
0.1
нет / n/a
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
132
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
62
3 117
ООО "Перестраховочное
общество "КАМА РЕ" /
"Reinsurance Society "KAMA
RE" Ltd.
1 125 747.7
0
1 125 748
602 679.0
157 447.5
86.8
0.1
A
63
1 574
"Советская" /
"Insurance Company
"Sovietskaya" Ltd.
1 091 503.0
1 091 503
0
1 248 654.0
579 493.0
-12.6
0.1
нет / n/a
64
1 908
ОАО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ
"РЕГИОНГАРАНТ" /
OJSC Insurance Company
"REGIONGARANT"
1 073 654.0
1 022 171
51 483
1 248 750.0
262 945.0
-14.0
0.1
A+
65
3 084
ООО "Национальная
противопожарная страховая
компания" /
National Anti-Fire Insurance
Company Ltd.
1 026 260.0
1 022 310
3 950
1 652 869.0
336 944.0
-37.9
0.1
нет / n/a
66
3 568
ООО "ПСА" /
"PSA" Ltd.
989 425.0
989 425
0
602 242.0
509 484.0
64.3
0.1
B++
67
1 182
"ТИТ" /
"Insurance Company "TIT" Ltd.
943 214.0
566 077
377 137
829 842.0
467 447.0
13.7
0.1
A
68
1 522
ОАО "Транссибирская
перестраховочная
корпорация" /
OJSC "Transsiberian
Reinsurance Corporation"
928 124.0
0
928 124
764 713.0
550 272.0
21.4
0.1
A+
70
3 300
ОАО СГ "Спасские ворота" /
OJSC Insurance Group
"Spasskiye Vorota"
814 263.0
796 481
17 782
687 770.0
318 392.0
18.4
0.1
A+
71
2 290
ООО СК "Московия" /
Insurance Company
"Moskoviya" Ltd.
778 401.0
778 401
0
364 733.0
289 897.0
113.4
0.1
B++
72
2 353
"Сибирский Дом
Страхования" /
"Insurance Company "Siberian
Insurance House" Ltd.
671 654.0
647 312
24 342
640 059.0
328 077.0
4.9
0.1
нет / n/a
73
4 117
"Кредит Европа Лайф" /
"Insurance Company "Credit
Europe Life" Ltd.
670 775.0
670 775
0
1 014 239.0
39 347.0
-33.9
0.1
A+
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
133
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
74
4 009
ЗАСО "Европейское
Туристическое Страхование" /
CJS Insurance Society
"European Touristic Insurance"
662 203.0
662 203
0
513 908.0
335 447.0
28.9
0.1
A+
75
1 412
ЗАО "Д2 Страхование" /
CJSC "D2 Insurance"
644 379.0
644 379
0
578 914.0
131 335.0
11.3
0.1
A
76
3 390
АО "Страховая Компания
"ПОЛИС-ГАРАНТ" /
"POLIS-GARANT"
634 728.1
634 728
0
446 276.9
311 710.6
42.2
0.1
нет / n/a
77
3 467
ЗАО СК "Сибирский Спас" /
CJSC "Sibirsky Spas"
612 458.0
612 458
0
455 531.0
252 030.0
34.4
0.1
A+
78
3 983
ОАО "РСК "Стерх" /
OJSC "RSK Sterkh"
595 295.0
570 414
24 881
578 600.0
209 651.0
2.9
0.1
A+
79
2 619
ОАО "Страховая компания
"Астро-Волга" /
OJSC "Insurance Company
"Astro-Volga"
555 174.0
555 174
0
616 835.0
349 333.0
-10.0
0.1
A
80
574
Екатеринбург" /
"Insurance Company
"Ekaterinburg" Ltd.
541 717.0
541 717
0
311 634.0
255 370.0
73.8
0.1
A
81
585
ООО "Страховая фирма "Адонис" / 534 992.0
"Insurance Company "Adonis" Ltd.
490 475
44 517
408 005.0
271 307.0
31.1
0.1
A
82
632
"СЕРВИСРЕЗЕРВ" /
"Insurance Company
"CERVICERESERVE" Ltd.
513 652.0
513 652
0
254 842.0
262 396.0
101.6
0.0
A
83
796
ЗАО "Страховая группа
АВАНГАРД-ГАРАНТ" /
"AVANGARD-GARANT"
473 916.0
473 916
0
368 272.0
297 581.0
28.7
0.0
нет / n/a
84
3 857
ООО "ССГ" /
"SSG" Ltd.
454 214.0
438 490
15 724
435 351.0
62 626.0
4.3
0.0
B++
85
507
АО "СК "Колымская" /
"Kolymskaya"
441 688.0
441 688
0
370 041.0
227 353.0
19.4
0.0
нет / n/a
86
518
ОАО СК "БАСК" /
OJSC "Insurance Company "BASK"
409 141.0
409 141
0
350 700.0
213 894.0
16.7
0.0
нет / n/a
87
3 498
ООО Страховая компания
"Свисс-Гарант" /
"Insurance Company "SwissGarant" Ltd.
388 012.0
387 977
35
520 335.0
127 942.0
-25.4
0.0
B
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
134
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
88
319
ОАО "Страховая группа
"ХОСКА" /
OJSC "Insurance Group
"HOUSKA"
324 055.0
324 055
0
172 321.0
96 832.0
88.1
0.0
A
89
66
307 710.0
"Ангара" /
"Insurance Company "Angara" Ltd.
307 710
0
227 079.0
155 069.0
35.5
0.0
A
90
924
"Селекта" /
"Insurance Company "Selecta" Ltd.
262 226.0
32 887
229 339
30 285.0
68 025.0
765.9
0.0
нет / n/a
91
1 577
ООО "БСК "Резонанс" /
"BSK "Rezonance" Ltd.
235 354.6
235 355
0
134 314.5
76 156.8
75.2
0.0
A
92
3 598
ФЬОРД" /
"Insurance Company "FYORD"
Ltd.
197 188.0
197 188
0
175 646.0
127 525.0
12.3
0.0
A
93
3 543
ООО СК "Экип" /
Insurance Company "EQUIP"
Ltd.
173 736.0
173 736
0
162 057.0
81 150.0
7.2
0.0
B
94
2 144
ЗАО "Страховая компания
АСКО-Центр" /
CJSC Insurance Company "ASKOCentre"
163 149.0
163 149
0
132 000.0
60 206.0
23.6
0.0
нет / n/a
95
3 995
ЗАО ВТБ Страхование жизни /
CJSC VTB Life Insurance
162 962.0
162 962
0
16 790.0
43 354.0
870.6
0.0
нет / n/a
96
72
ООО "Региональная
страховая компания" /
"Regional Insurance Company"
Ltd.
158 029.0
158 029
0
32 189.0
24 234.0
390.9
0.0
A
97
3 941
ООО "СМП-Страхование" /
"SMP-Insurance" Ltd.
132 403.0
132 403
0
183 263.0
77 710.0
-27.8
0.0
A
98
3 535
ООО СК "РОСИНКОР Резерв" / 121 055.5
Insurance Company "ROSINCOR
Reserve" Ltd.
121 056
0
33 499.3
11 923.9
261.4
0.0
нет / n/a
99
2 447
ЗАО страховая компания
"Железнодорожный
страховой фонд" /
"Railway Insurance Fund"
114 605.0
114 605
0
122 600.0
10 430.0
-6.5
0.0
B++
100
425
ОАО Акционерная страховая
компания "Ингвар" /
OJSC Joint Stock Insurance
Company "Ingvar"
108 895.0
108 895
0
115 310.0
14 505.0
-5.6
0.0
нет / n/a
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
135
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total,
thousands
RUB
Including:
Прямое
(без ОМС) /
Direct
insurance
(without
obligatory
health
insurance)
Взносы
total, 2013,
вание /
thousands
Incoming
reinsurance RUB
Выплаты
всего, тыс.
руб. /
Loss
payments,
total,
thousands
RUB
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
101
3 914
ООО "Промышленная
Перестраховочная
Компания" /
"Industrial Reinsurance
Company" Ltd.
90 834.0
15
90 819
47 741.0
53 504.0
90.3
0.0
A
102
552
АО "Страховая компания
"Чувашия-Мед" /
JSC Insurance Company
"Chuvashiya-Med"
84 129.0
84 129
0
78 363.0
68 436.0
7.4
0.0
A+
103
455
ЗАО "Страховая компания
"АКОМС" /
CJSC "Insurance Company
"AKOMS" Ltd.
83 477.0
83 477
0
100 629.0
12 834.0
-17.0
0.0
B++
104
60
"РОСЛЕС" /
"Insurance Company "ROSLES" Ltd.
81 669.0
61 188
20 481
102 356.0
22 486.0
-20.2
0.0
B++
105
3 245
ООО Страховое общество
"ВЕРНА" /
Insurance Society "VERNA" Ltd.
2 388.0
2 388
0
150 399.0
195.0
-98.4
0.0
B++
* Оценка объема рынка выполнена RAEX («Эксперт РА») с использованием статистических данных ЦБ /
Assessment of market size is executed by RAEX («RA Expert «) with the use of statistical data of the Central Bank
** Рейтинг присвоен на одну (крупнейшую) или несколько компаний группы /
Score is assigned on one (largest) or several companies of a group
*** С учетом передачи портфеля ЗАО «Цюрих Надежное Страхование» /
Taking into account transfer of a portfolio of Joint Stock Company «Zurich Reliable Insurance
Источник: RAEX («Эксперт РА») по данным компаний, приславших анкеты, и ЦБ /
Source: RAEX («RA Expert «) according to the data of the companies which sent questionnaires, and the Central Bank
136
Таблица 2. Страхование строительно-монтажных рисков (имущество), 2014 г.
Table 2. Insurance of construction and erection risks (property), 2014
Место / рег. №/
Position Reg. No.
Компания / группа компаний
Company / Group of companies
Взносы, тыс.
руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB
Выплаты, тыс.
руб.: /
Claims paid,
thousands RUB
Взносы всего,
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total, 2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов,
%/
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
1
1208, 3825,
3230, 1864,
3255, 3524
13 288 537
797 877
11 099 550
6.0
19.7
49.0
A++
2
3 116
ОАО НАСКО /
JSC "NASCO"
1 520 635
5 137
570 163
0.3
166.7
5.6
A+
3
3 229
ЗАО "Страховая бизнес группа" /
CJSC "Insurance Business Group"
1 196 059
17 583
633 297
1.5
88.9
4.4
A
4
2239, 3447
Страховая группа
"Альфастрахование" /
Insurance group "Alfastrakhovanie"
1 087 668
118 205
1 067 806
10.9
1.9
4.0
A++
5
3 834
ООО "Страховое общество "Помощь" / 1 053 517
Insurance Society "Pomosch" Ltd.
2 646
1 023 927
0.3
2.9
3.9
A
6
1, 977, 3984,
1298, 3175
ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал /
Group of companies ROSGOSSTRAKH
and KAPITAL
967 650
н.д. / n/a
1 315 333
нет
-26.4
3.6
A++
7
1 209
Insurance OJSC "RESO Garantia"
792 801
116 512
999 248
14.7
-20.7
2.9
A++
8
621
САО "ВСК" /
Insurance JSC "VSK"
790 826
29 050
1 260 614
3.7
-37.3
2.9
A++
9
3 799
ООО "Британский Страховой Дом" /
"British Insurance House"Ltd.
680 036
614
598 212
0.1
13.7
2.5
A
10
928, 3823, 3837,
2708, 4189
Group "INGO"
612 085
76 654
595 079
12.5
2.9
2.3
A++
11
1 834
JSC "Insurance Joint-Stock Company
"ENERGOGARANT"
587 955
21 667
466 851
3.7
25.9
2.2
A++
12
1 641
575 306
72 787
1 189 580
12.7
-51.6
2.1
A
13
1 621
ОАО Страховое Общество "ЯКОРЬ" /
536 456
5 489
430 257
1.0
24.7
2.0
A
14
3 438
ООО "ПРОМИНСТРАХ"/
“PROMINSTRAKH” Ltd.
342 551
1 766
221 286
0.5
54.8
1.3
A
15
3 398
ООО СК "ВТБ Страхование"/
Insurance Company "VTB Insurance"
Ltd.
316 406
5 982
574 004
1.9
-44.9
1.2
A++
16
3 492
ООО "СК "РЕСПЕКТ-ПОЛИС" /
300 350
Insurance Company "RESPECT POLICE"
0
37 870
0.0
693.1
1.1
B+
17
1 307
Insurance company "Soglasie" Ltd.
280 557
1 244
720 414
0.4
-61.1
1.0
A++
18
3 857
ООО "ССГ"/
"SSG" Ltd.
265 628
77
227 867
0.0
16.6
1.0
B++
19
290, 141, 3828,
2890
Group Alliance
233 649
51 033
283 365
21.8
-17.5
0.9
A++
137
Position Reg. No.
руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB
руб.: /
Claims paid,
thousands RUB
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total, 2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов,
%/
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
20
1 412
ЗАО "Д2 Страхование" /
CJSC "D2 Insurance"
142 141
0
2 442
0.0
5 720.7
0.5
A
21
2 877
136 941
"Мегарусс-Д" /
"Insurance Company "Megaruss-D" ltd.
0
92 876
0.0
47.4
0.5
нет / n/a
22
212
АО "Цюрих надежное страхование"/ 80 553
JSC "Zurich Reliable Insurance" Ltd.
550
0
0.7
-
0.3
нет / n/a
23
1 908
OJSC Insurance Company
"REGIONGARANT"
78 494
77
57 069
0.1
37.5
0.3
A+
24
3 193
ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ
"АРСЕНАЛЪ" /
"INSURANCE COMPANY "ARSENAL" Ltd.
72 694
0
54 312
0.0
33.8
0.3
A
25
461
70 160
650
195 409
0.9
-64.1
0.3
A+
26
1427, 2226, 4013 Страховая группа МАКС /
64 629
0
831 398
0.0
-92.2
0.2
A++
27
1284, 3972
Группа Ренессанс Страхование /
56 051
0
98 222
0.0
-42.9
0.2
A++
28
915
ОАО "Страховая компания "ПАРИ" /
OJSC "Insurance Company "PARI"
44 250
149
27 823
0.3
59.0
0.2
A+
29
983, 3987, 2326
39 437
1 120
45 488
2.8
-13.3
0.1
A+
30
3 847
ООО СК "Независимая страховая
группа" /
Insurance Company "Independent
Insurance Group" Ltd.
31 621
0
1 357
0.0
2 230.2
0.1
A+
31
3 487
29 748
0
12 602
0.0
136.1
0.1
A
32
1 083
ООО "Зетта Страхование" (бывш.
ООО СК "Цюрих" ) /
"Zetta Insurance" Ltd. (former
Insurance Company "Zurich" Ltd.)
27 115
24 277 ***
79 787
89.5
-66.0
0.1
A
33
2 496
Informational Insurance Company
"Euro-Polis" Ltd.
22 985
2 963
80 450
12.9
-71.4
0.1
A+
34
2 947
ЗАО СК "РСХБ-Страхование" /CJSC
Insurance Company “RSHB Insurance”
22 850
19 694
33 534
86.2
-31.9
0.1
A++
35
159
СОАО "Русский Страховой Центр" /
Insurance OJSC “Russian Insurance
Centre”
22 494
0
132 192
0.0
-83.0
0.1
нет / n/a
36
1 675
OJSC “Liberty Insurance”
22 033
1 131
23 345
5.1
-5.6
0.1
A+
138
Position Reg. No.
руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB
руб.: /
Claims paid,
thousands RUB
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total, 2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов,
%/
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
37
2 792
"Купеческое" /
Insurance Society "Kupecheskoye" Ltd.
19 458
0
35 044
0.0
-44.5
0.1
нет / n/a
38
3 127
Insurance Society "Surgutneftegas" Ltd.
16 859
1 574
51 752
9.3
-67.4
0.1
A+
39
3211, 3204,
4014, 1894
16 785
1 022
53 947
6.1
-68.9
0.1
нет / n/a
40
88
ПАО "Межотраслевой страховой
центр" /
OJSC "Inter-Industry Insurance
Centre"
16 653
0
156 369
0.0
-89.4
0.1
B++
41
907
ЗАО Страховая компания
"Инвестиции и Финансы" /
"Investments and Finance"
12 827
0
23 987
0.0
-46.5
0.0
A
42
177, 3879
12 216
172
6 727
1.4
81.6
0.0
A+
43
3 295
ООО "Национальная страховая
группа – "РОСЭНЕРГО" /
"National Insurance Group
"ROSENERGO" Ltd.
11 131
0
12 419
0.0
-10.4
0.0
нет / n/a
44
574
Екатеринбург" /
"Insurance Company “Ekaterinburg"
Ltd.
10 035
0
6 238
0.0
60.9
0.0
A
45
3 983
OJSC "RSK Sterkh"
10 015
0
28 866
0.0
-65.3
0.0
A+
46
1216, 4001,
3957
Insurance Group "Chulpan"
9 883
93
95 936
0.9
-89.7
0.0
A+
47
3 947
ЗАО "АИГ" /
JSC "AIG"
9 386
2 498
7 137
26.6
31.5
0.0
A+
48
3 099
ОАО "ОТКРЫТИЕ СТРАХОВАНИЕ" /
8 298
115
9 003
1.4
-7.8
0.0
A+
49
1 574
7 973
"Советская" /
"Insurance Company "Sovietskaya" Ltd.
202
13 610
2.5
-41.4
0.0
нет / n/a
50
3 300
OJSC Insurance Group "Spasskiye
Vorota"
5 709
0
2 173
0.0
162.7
0.0
A+
51
3 941
5 320
0
4
0.0
132 900.0
0.0
A
52
3 598
ООО "Страховая компания ФЬОРД" /
"Insurance Company "FYORD" Ltd.
4 467
0
0
0.0
-
0.0
A
139
Position Reg. No.
руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB
руб.: /
Claims paid,
thousands RUB
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
total, 2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов,
%/
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
53
92
Insurance Company "YUZHURAL
ASKO" Ltd.
3 385
0
1 421
0.0
138.2
0.0
A
54
2 182
САО "Надежда" /Insurance JSC
“Nadezhda”
2 323
0
94
0.0
2 371.3
0.0
A+
55
3 390
АО "Страховая Компания "ПОЛИСГАРАНТ" /
JSC "Insurance Company “POLISGARANT"
1 711
0
1 337
0.0
28.0
0.0
нет / n/a
56
397
ООО Страховая Компания "Гелиос" /
"Insurance Company "Helios" Ltd.
734
0
4 159
0.0
-82.4
0.0
A+
57
630
ПАО "Страховая компания ГАЙДЕ" /
OJSC "Insurance Company "GAYDE"
678
0
3 190
0.0
-78.7
0.0
нет / n/a
58
2 619
ОАО "Страховая компания "АстроВолга" /
OJSC "Insurance Company “AstroVolga"
344
0
1 206
0.0
-71.5
0.0
A
59
2489, 3999
Страховая группа АСКО /
289
0
3 700
0.0
-92.2
0.0
A
60
3 693
"Независимость" /
"Insurance Company "Nezavisimost" Ltd.
241
0
9 808
0.0
-97.5
0.0
B+
61
2 144
ЗАО "Страховая компания АСКОЦентр" /
CJSC Insurance Company "ASKOCentre"
95
2
22 902
2.1
-99.6
0.0
нет / n/a
62
2 290
Insurance Company "Moskoviya" Ltd.
68
0
1 390
0.0
-95.1
0.0
B++
63
2 243
Insurance Company "YUZHURAL
ASKO" Ltd.
40
0
49
0.0
-18.4
0.0
A
64
518
13
0
0
0.0
-
0.0
нет / n/a
140
Таблица 3. Страхование строительно-монтажных рисков (страхование ответственности, кроме страхования
ответственности в рамках СРО), 2014 г.
Table 3. Insurance of construction and erection risks (liability, except liability insurance in the frameworks of SRO), 2014
Место /
Position
рег. №/
Reg. No.
Взносы,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB,
thousands
RUB
Выплаты,
тыс. руб. /
Payments,
thousands
RUB
Взносы,
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
1
1208, 3825,
3230, 1864,
3255, 3524
195 626
4 902
178 123
2.5
9.8
19.0
A++
2
3 834
ООО "Страховое общество "Помощь" /
157 356
0
140 173
0.0
12.3
15.3
A
3
2239, 3447
Страховая группа "Альфастрахование" /I
nsurance group "Alfastrakhovanie"
60 396
728
66 330
1.2
-8.9
5.9
A++
4
3 300
OJSC Insurance Group "Spasskiye Vorota"
49 939
0
6 589
0.0
657.9
4.9
A+
5
1 209
Insurance OJSC "RESO Garantia"
49 043
250
47 328
0.5
3.6
4.8
A++
6
1 641
46 455
4 994
25 186
10.8
84.4
4.5
A
7
928, 3823,
3837, 2708,
4189
Group "INGO"
45 875
24
44 491
0.1
3.1
4.5
A++
8
3 799
ООО "Британский Страховой Дом"/
44 217
8
45 606
0.0
-3.0
4.3
A
9
3 116
ОАО НАСКО /
ОJSC "NASCO"
43 230
530
36 971
1.2
16.9
4.2
A+
10
1 834
ОАО "САК "ЭНЕРГОГАРАНТ"/
"ENERGOGARANT"
33 445
1 713
23 126
5.1
44.6
3.2
A++
11
1 083
ООО "Зетта Страхование" (бывш. ООО СК
"Цюрих" ) /
"Zetta Insurance " Ltd. (former Insurance
Company "Zurich" Ltd.)
33 193
3 197 ***
46 497
9.6
-28.6
3.2
A
12
3 398
ООО СК «ВТБ Страхование» /
Insurance Company "VTB Insurance" Ltd.
31 999
156
48 476
0.5
-34.0
3.1
A++
13
1, 977, 3984, ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал /
1298, 3175 Group of companies ROSGOSSTRAKH and
KAPITAL
29 405
н.д. / n/a
27 713
н.д. / n/a
6.1
2.9
A++
14
3 229
28 535
0
14 186
0.0
101.1
2.8
A
15
3 487
25 923
1 320
2 061
5.1
1 157.8
2.5
A
16
461
АО «СГ МСК» /
JSC «Insurance Group MSK»
22 964
259
32 901
1.1
-30.2
2.2
A+
17
3 438
ООО "ПРОМИНСТРАХ" /
"PROMINSTRAKH" Ltd.
18 022
344
17 685
1.9
1.9
1.8
A
18
3 857
ООО "ССГ" /
"SSG" Ltd
17 200
529
23 098
3.1
-25.5
1.7
B++
141
Место /
Position
рег. №/
Reg. No.
Взносы,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB,
thousands
RUB
Выплаты,
тыс. руб. /
Payments,
thousands
RUB
Взносы,
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
19
1 621
ОАО Страховое Общество "ЯКОРЬ" /
13 690
0
9 276
0.0
47.6
1.3
A
20
212
АО "Цюрих надежное страхование" /
JSC "Zurich Reliable Insurance" Ltd.
8 817
0
0
0.0
-
0.9
нет / n/a
21
3 295
ООО "Национальная страховая группа –
"National Insurance Group "ROSENERGO" Ltd.
6 408
0
5 724
0.0
11.9
0.6
нет / n/a
22
2 877
ООО "Страховая компания "Мегарусс-Д" /
5 824
0
22 002
0.0
-73.5
0.6
нет / n/a
23
1284, 3972
4 259
0
7 213
0.0
-41.0
0.4
A++
24
290, 141,
3828, 2890
Group Alliance
3 845
237
16 729
6.2
-77.0
0.4
A++
25
907
ЗАО Страховая компания "Инвестиции и
Финансы" /
CJSC Insurance Company "Investments and
Finance"
3 701
0
1 818
0.0
103.6
0.4
A
26
983, 3987,
2326
3 067
129
2 397
4.2
28.0
0.3
A+
27
3 099
ОАО "ОТКРЫТИЕ СТРАХОВАНИЕ" /
2 976
15
0
0.5
-
0.3
A+
28
3 193
ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "АРСЕНАЛЪ" /
2 350
0
3 417
0.0
-31.2
0.2
A
29
1216, 4001,
3957
2 323
24
5 579
1.0
-58.4
0.2
A+
30
177, 3879
2 117
139
489
6.6
332.9
0.2
A+
31
1 675
OJSC "Liberty Insurance"
1 999
33
2 781
1.7
-28.1
0.2
A+
32
915
1 931
18
1 423
0.9
35.7
0.2
A+
33
88
ПАО "Межотраслевой страховой центр" /
OJSC "Inter-Industry Insurance Centre"
1 518
0
2 437
0.0
-37.7
0.1
B++
34
1 307
1 338
0
1 699
0.0
-21.2
0.1
A++
35
3 983
OJSC "RSK Sterkh"
1 331
0
4 409
0.0
-69.8
0.1
A+
36
1427, 2226,
4013
1 323
0
2 508
0.0
-47.2
0.1
A++
37
3 598
ООО "Страховая компания ФЬОРД" /
1 001
0
0
0.0
-
0.1
A
38
2 496
Informational Insurance Company "Euro-Polis" Ltd.
987
0
4 405
0.0
-77.6
0.1
A+
142
Место /
Position
рег. №/
Reg. No.
Взносы,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB,
thousands
RUB
Выплаты,
тыс. руб. /
Payments,
thousands
RUB
Взносы,
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
39
1 908
ОАО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "РЕГИОНГАРАНТ" /
OJSC Insurance Company "REGIONGARANT"
862
39
824
4.5
4.6
0.1
A+
40
3211, 3204,
4014, 1894
854
21
4 269
2.5
-80.0
0.1
нет / n/a
41
159
Insurance OJSC "Russian Insurance Centre"
838
0
397
0.0
111.1
0.1
нет / n/a
42
2 947
ЗАО СК "РСХБ-Страхование" /
CJSC Insurance Company "RSHB Insurance"
503
0
3 418
0.0
-85.3
0.0
A++
43
2 144
ЗАО "Страховая компания АСКО-Центр" /
CJSC Insurance Company "ASKO-Centre"
364
0
330
0.0
10.3
0.0
нет / n/a
44
2 243
Insurance Company "YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd.
359
27 000
397
7 520.9
-9.6
0.0
A
45
2 792
ООО «Страховое общество "Купеческое" /
346
0
529
0.0
-34.6
0.0
нет / n/a
46
3 127
ООО "Страховое общество "Сургутнефтегаз" / 231
94
501
40.7
-53.9
0.0
A+
47
3 847
ООО СК "Независимая страховая группа" /
Insurance Company "Independent Insurance
Group" Ltd.
185
0
0
0.0
-
0.0
A+
48
3 941
146
0
67
0.0
117.9
0.0
A
49
3 390
АО «Страховая Компания "ПОЛИС-ГАРАНТ" /
JSC "Insurance Company "POLIS-GARANT"
145
0
37
0.0
295.6
0.0
нет / n/a
50
2 619
ОАО "Страховая компания "Астро-Волга" /
OJSC "Insurance Company "Astro-Volga"
144
0
473
0.0
-69.6
0.0
A
51
630
ПАО "Страховая компания "ГАЙДЕ" /
89
0
6 780
0.0
-98.7
0.0
нет / n/a
52
3 568
ООО "ПСА" /
"PSA" Ltd.
69
0
1 017
0.0
-93.2
0.0
B++
53
397
ООО Страховая Компания "Гелиос" /
"Insurance Company "Helios" Ltd.
6
0
81
0.0
-92.6
0.0
A+
54
518
1
0
0
0.0
-
0.0
нет / n/a
55
1 574
ООО "Страховая компания "Советская" /
0
0
499
-
-100.0
0.0
нет / n/a
56
2 290
Insurance Company "Moskoviya" Ltd.
0
0
29
-
-100.0
0.0
B++
143
Таблица 4. Страхование ответственности в рамках СРО, 2014 г.
Table 4. Liability insurance in terms of SRO, 2014
Место /
Position
рег. №/
Reg. No.
Взносы,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB,
thousands
RUB
Выплаты,
тыс. руб. /
Payments,
thousands
RUB
Взносы,
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
1
3 799
ООО "Британский Страховой Дом" /
379 543
7 437
351 433
2.0
8.0
19.1
A
2
621
САО "ВСК" /
Insurance JSC "VSK"
285 396
13 923
324 639
4.9
-12.1
14.4
A++
3
1208, 3825,
3230, 1864,
3255, 3524
216 969
6 052
227 647
2.8
-4.7
1.2
A++
4
928, 3823,
3837, 2708,
4189
Group "INGO"
171 385
19 208
180 978
11.2
-5.3
8.6
A++
5
3 834
ООО "Страховое общество "Помощь" /
102 687
502
85 340
0.5
20.3
5.2
A
6
1 834
"ENERGOGARANT"
101 657
135
75 325
0.1
35.0
5.1
A++
7
1, 977, 3984, ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал /
1298, 3175 Group of companies ROSGOSSTRAKH and
KAPITAL
75 482
н.д. / n/a
87 331
н.д. / n/a
-13.6
3.8
A++
8
1 641
73 815
1 949
68 667
2.6
7.5
3.7
A
9
1 307
65 655
1 812
91 702
2.8
-28.4
3.3
A++
10
2239, 3447
Страховая группа "Альфастрахование" /
Insurance group "Alfastrakhovanie"
61 805
3 977
43 850
6.4
40.9
3.1
A++
11
983, 3987,
2326
57 593
42 841
80 140
74.4
-28.1
2.9
A+
12
2 496
36 427
Informational Insurance Company "Euro-Polis"
Ltd.
62
27 736
0.2
31.3
1.8
A+
13
1284, 3972
28 875
43
23 366
0.1
23.6
1.5
A++
14
1427, 2226,
4013
28 196
152
32 392
0.5
-13.0
1.4
A++
15
1 574
ООО "Страховая компания "Советская" /
24 070
0
15 095
0.0
59.5
1.2
нет / n/a
16
3211, 3204,
4014, 1894
23 638
1 404
41 966
5.9
-43.7
1.2
нет / n/a
17
461
19 837
1 729
99 526
8.7
-80.1
1.0
A+
18
915
15 865
12
6 004
0.1
164.2
0.8
A+
19
3 398
ООО СК "ВТБ Страхование" /
Insurance Company "VTB Insurance" Ltd.
13 614
25
4 297
0.2
216.8
0.7
A++
144
Место /
Position
рег. №/
Reg. No.
Взносы,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB,
thousands
RUB
Выплаты,
тыс. руб. /
Payments,
thousands
RUB
Взносы,
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
20
3 857
ООО "ССГ" /
"SSG" Ltd.
12 933
1 000
14 482
7.7
-10.7
0.7
B++
21
3 116
ОАО "НАСКО" /
ОJSC "NASCO"
12 088
68
11 210
0.6
7.8
0.6
A+
22
2489, 3999
Страховая группа "АСКО" /
7 823
33
4 546
0.4
72.1
0.4
A
23
3 193
ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "АРСЕНАЛЪ" /
7 005
0
724
0.0
867.5
0.4
A
24
319
ОАО "Страховая группа "ХОСКА" /
OJSC "Insurance Group "HOUSKA"
6 402
0
5 531
0.0
15.7
0.3
A
25
1 577
ООО "БСК "Резонанс" /
"BSK "Rezonance" Ltd.
5 496
127
2 181
2.3
152.0
0.3
A
26
2 619
ОАО "Страховая компания "Астро-Волга" /
OJSC "Insurance Company "Astro-Volga"
5 121
48
5 983
0.9
-14.4
0.3
A
27
907
ЗАО Страховая компания "Инвестиции и
Финансы" /
CJSC Insurance Company "Investments and
Finance"
5 067
14
4 743
0.3
6.8
0.3
A
28
3 983
OJSC "RSK "Sterkh"
4 973
22
4 789
0.4
3.8
0.3
A+
29
1216, 4001,
3957
4 614
0
3 679
0.0
25.4
0.2
A+
30
3 390
АО "Страховая Компания "ПОЛИС-ГАРАНТ" /
JSC "Insurance Company "POLIS-GARANT"
4 491
66
3 777
1.5
18.9
0.2
нет / n/a
31
2 877
ООО "Страховая компания "Мегарусс-Д" /
3 709
61
6 501
1.6
-42.9
0.2
нет / n/a
32
1 908
OJSC Insurance Company "REGIONGARANT"
3 503
7
3 532
0.2
-0.8
0.2
A+
33
2 792
ООО "Страховое общество "Купеческое" /
3 115
150
2 145
4.8
45.2
0.2
нет / n/a
34
3 300
OJSC Insurance Group "Spasskiye Vorota"
2 930
0
3 133
0.0
-6.5
0.1
A+
35
3 127
ООО «Страховое общество
2 358
878
12 308
37.2
-80.8
0.1
A+
36
3 295
ООО "Национальная страховая группа –
"National Insurance Group "ROSENERGO" Ltd.
1 629
108
5 258
6.6
-69.0
0.1
нет / n/a
37
2 182
САО "Надежда" /
Insurance JSC "Nadezhda"
1 552
24
3 738
1.5
-58.5
0.1
A+
38
159
Insurance OJSC "Russian Insurance Centre"
1 469
0
1 375
0.0
6.8
0.1
нет / n/a
145
Место /
Position
рег. №/
Reg. No.
Взносы,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
thousands
RUB,
thousands
RUB
Выплаты,
тыс. руб. /
Payments,
thousands
RUB
Взносы,
2013 г.,
тыс. руб. /
Premiums,
2013,
thousands
RUB
Уровень
выплат, % /
Level of
Payments, %
Темпы
прироста
взносов, % /
Rate of
premium
increase, %
Доля
рынка*,
%/
Market
share, %
Рейтинги
RAEX
("Эксперт
РА") на
08.05.2015**/
RAEX strength
ratings "RA
Expert" by
May 08, 2015
39
630
ПАО "Страховая компания "ГАЙДЕ" /
945
0
869
0.0
8.7
0.0
нет / n/a
40
518
907
0
953
0.0
-4.8
0.0
нет / n/a
41
3 598
ООО "Страховая компания "ФЬОРД" /
323
0
257
0.0
25.7
0.0
A
42
1336, 3959
Группа компаний Капитал-полис /
Group of Companies "Capital Polis"
320
0
2 017
0.0
-84.1
0.0
A
43
2 290
Insurance Company "Moskoviya" Ltd
94
0
429
0.0
-78.1
0.0
B++
44
3 229
0
0
14 279
-
-100.0
0.0
A
45
92
Insurance Company "YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd.
0
0
63
-
-100.0
0.0
A
Оценка объема рынка выполнена RAEX («Эксперт РА») с использованием статистических данных ЦБ /
Рейтинг присвоен на одну (крупнейшую) или несколько компаний группы /
146
Reunion AG, Zug, Switzerland established in 2009, provides
international insurance and reinsurance brokerage as well as consulting
services in insurance, reinsurance and corporate risk management
for clients in Russia and CIS countries. The company has a seat in Zug,
Switzerland. We specialize in servicing of property interests of large
corporations associated with insurance and risk management including
the field of investment construction projects.
Реюнион АГ, г. Цуг, Швейцария учреждено в 2009 г. и осуществляет
международные страховые и перестраховочные брокерские
услуги, а также консультационные услуги в сфере страхования,
перестрахования и корпоративного управления рисками (рискменеджмента) для клиентов в России и странах СНГ. Компания
имеет центральный офис в г. Цуг, Швейцария. Наша специализация
— обслуживание имущественных интересов крупных корпораций,
сопряженных со страхованием и риск-менеджментом, в том числе
в сфере инвестиционных строительных проектов.

5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

Lebenslauf von Nikolai Bagdassarov Stand: März 2003

curriculum vitae

Programa beber controlado

BHADRAKUMAR-Putin`s-red-line

Para onde caminha o setor de brinquedos, as novas

First name Name 18

Economic Forecast 2015

Full Article

German Comedy from Page to Stage Overview Course Structure

Transcending or Defending the World of States? The United Nations