5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable. June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia

Transcription

1 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia

2 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 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. Chapter 9. Insurance of system installation of wind turbines and wind farms; insurance of construction of solar parks Last year s experience and performance features of the pre-insurance survey in the Moscow metro Analytics th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia

3 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 This publication may also be downloaded from our website Best regards, Igor Prandetsky, CEO Reunion AG 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 2

4 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 3

5 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 Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 44

6 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 55

7 Claims overview 1 chapter Igor Prandetsky 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. Daniil Cherepanov 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 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 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 6

8 7

9 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 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 8

10 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 9

11 Claims overview 1 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 10

12 11

13 12

14 13

15 14

16 15

17 16

18 17

19 18

20 19

21 20

22 21

23 22

24 23

25 24

26 25

27 Exclusion of insurance expenses from the construction contracts consequences for the insurance market 2 chapter Igor Prandetsky 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? 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. Oleg Romanov 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 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 26

28 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 In Western markets the lender usually insists insurance protection is provided. Are lenders in Russia not concerned about the lack of insurance? 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 27

29 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 28

30 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 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 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 29

31 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% % 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 30

32 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 Thank you very much, Francesca. I will ask Vadim to share ideas on that. 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. Igor Prandetsky 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? Franco Ciamberlano 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 31

33 32

34 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. Igor Prandetsky 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. Peter Tailby 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 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 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. Igor Prandetsky 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 33

35 3 Inherent Defects Insurance (IDI), opportunities and the application of this type of insurance in Russia 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 34

36 35

37 36

38 37

39 38

40 39

41 40

42 41

43 42

44 43

45 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 44

46 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 45

47 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? 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 46

48 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 47

49 4 Assembly from mega-modules a new concept of the construction 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 48

50 49

51 50

52 51

53 52

54 53

55 54

56 55

57 56

58 57

59 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 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, 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 58

60 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 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 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 59

61 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 60

62 61

63 Turbine losses technical and economic challenges 5 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 62

64 63

65 64

66 65

67 66

68 67

69 68

70 69

71 70

72 71

73 72

74 73

75 74

76 75

77 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 76

78 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/ 595,000 removal (7%) 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, Two adjacent Melting 50% 20,000,000 Furnaces, No. 1 and No Melting Shop Building 30% 3,000, Debris Clearance and 7% of 3,010,000 Removal Costs Items 1-3 Total, : 46,010,000 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 77

79 78

80 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 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%): х 1.07 = $ 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 th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 79

81 80

82 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 81

83 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 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. Oleg Romanov Brokers are optimists by nature. Pavel Shaptsev 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. Igor Prandetsky So the risk insured is that of a mistaken/inadequate PML estimation? Pavel Shaptsev It s about third party property damage/personal injury. It s not a legal entity s professional indemnity insurance 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. Igor Prandetsky So PML becomes MFL? Radiy Suleymanov 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 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 82

84 83

85 6 Evaluation of PML for civil and industrial engineering construction case study 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 84

86 85

87 86

88 87

89 88

90 89

91 90

92 91

93 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 92

94 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. Igor Prandetsky 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 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? Oleg Romanov 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. Stefan Saur 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 We have policies covering the EXPO 2017 facilities. The exhibition will take place in Kazakhstan in 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 The president said: I know there will be unfinished jobs, so let s make it by December 31, 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. Igor Prandetsky Thank you. I am pleased to hear that the risks are placed in the hands of good, reliable, people, and remain under control. Sergey Lavrentyev The truth is that in many projects (in Kazakhstan as well 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 93

95 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. Peter Tailby 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. 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 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 Jean- Francois 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. Svetlana Chepeleva 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 94

96 recommendations regarding the reinforcement of structures. Everything was successfully insured, with all the conditions, clauses and recommendations included. Everything was built to completion. Oleg Romanov 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. 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 would look at the terms under which you suspended the cover and want to extend it. If we accept your 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. Radiy Suleymanov 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 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. Igor Prandetsky We now move to a more theoretical subject related to coverage of modern technology. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 95

97 Cessation of works 7 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 96

98 97

99 98

100 99

101 100

102 101

103 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 102

104 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 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 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 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 103

105 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 104

106 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 105

107 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? 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 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. Oleg Romanov 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. 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 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. Igor Prandetsky 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. Igor Prandetsky Still, as long as there is the potential for such risks it is useful to be informed. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 106

108 107

109 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 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 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 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 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, 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); 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 108

110 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 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 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, 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 109

111 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, 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 110

112 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? 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. 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? 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 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 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 So the insurant s behavior was recognized as acceptable given the circumstances but this resulted in a lower compensation? Ulrich Werwigk 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 111

113 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 112

114 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 , 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. 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 113

115 Insurance of system installation of wind turbines and wind farms; insurance of construction of solar parks 9 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 114

116 115

117 116

118 117

119 118

120 119

121 120

122 121

123 122

124 123

125 124

126 125

127 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 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 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 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 Generally on the market, the average index value fell from 44,2% in 2013 to 43,5% in 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 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 Insurance premiums on insurance of construction and erection risks (CER) will be reduced in 2015 by 3-7%, to 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 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 126

128 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 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 127

129 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No. 1 1, 977, 3984, 1298, , 3825, 3230, 1864, 3255, , 3823, 3837, 2708, 4189 Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал / Group of companies ROSGOSSTRAKH and KAPITAL Страховая Группа СОГАЗ / Insurance Group SOGAZ Группа "ИНГО" / Group "INGO" ОСАО "РЕСО-Гарантия" / Insurance OJSC "RESO Garantia" , 3447 Страховая группа "Альфастрахование" / Insurance group "Alfastrakhovanie" САО "ВСК" / Insurance JSC "VSK" ООО СК "ВТБ Страхование" / Insurance Company "VTB Insurance" Ltd ООО СК "Сбербанк страхование жизни" / Insurance Company "Sberbank Life insurance" Ltd ООО "СК "Согласие" / Insurance company "Soglasie" Ltd , , 141, 3828, , 3987, 2326 Группа Ренессанс Страхование / Group Renaissance Insurance Группа Альянс / Group Alliance Страховая группа "УРАЛСИБ" / Insurance Group "URALSIB" Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % н.д./ A n/a A A A A A A A A A A A+ Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 128

130 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No , 2226, , 4003, 0092 Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies Страховая группа МАКС / Insurance Group "MAKS" Группа ЖАСО / ZHASO Group АО "СГ МСК" / JSC "Insurance Group MSK" ОАО "САК "ЭНЕРГОГАРАНТ" / JSC "Insurance Joint-Stock Company "ENERGOGARANT" АО "Страховая Компания Метлайф" / JSC "Insurance Company Metlife" , 3879 Страховая компания ЭРГО / Insurance Company ERGO ООО "Зетта Страхование" (бывш. ООО СК "Цюрих" ) / "Zetta Insurance" Ltd. (former Insurance Company "Zurich" Ltd.) , 3204, 4014, , 4079 Страховая группа "Югория" / Insurance Company "Yugoria" СОСЬЕТЕ ЖЕНЕРАЛЬ СТРАХОВАНИЕ / SOCIETE GENERALE Insurance ООО "Страховая компания "СиВ Лайф" / Insurance Company "CiV Life" Ltd.) ООО "Страховое общество "Сургутнефтегаз" / Insurance Society "Surgutneftegas" Ltd ОАО НАСКО / ОJSC "NASCO" ООО "СК "РЕСПЕКТ-ПОЛИС" / Insurance Company "RESPECT POLICE" Ltd. Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % A A A A A A *** A Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a нет / n/a нет / n/a A A B+ 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 129

131 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No ЗАО "АИГ" / JSC "AIG" Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ООО "СК "Райффайзен Лайф" / Insurance Company "Raffeizen Life" Ltd ООО "СК ЮЖУРАЛ-АСКО" / Insurance Company "YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd , 3993 Группа страховых компаний "Русский Стандарт" / Group of Insurance Companies "Russian Standard" ЗАО СК "РСХБ-Страхование" / CJSC Insurance Company "RSHB Insurance" , 4001, 3957 Страховая группа "Чулпан" / Insurance Group Chulpan ОАО "Либерти Страхование" / OJSC "Liberty Insurance" , 3999 Страховая группа АСКО / Insurance Group "ASKO" ООО "ППФ Страхование жизни" / "PPF Life Insurance" Ltd ООО СК "Независимая страховая группа" / Insurance Company "Independent Insurance Group" Ltd ОАО "ОТКРЫТИЕ СТРАХОВАНИЕ" / OJSC "OPEN INSURANCE" ООО "Страховое общество "Купеческое" / Insurance Society "Kupecheskoye" Ltd ООО «Страховое общество "Помощь" / Insurance Society "Pomosch" Ltd. Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % A A A A A A A A A A A+ Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a A 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 130

132 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ОАО "Страховая компания "ПАРИ" / OJSC Insurance Company "PARI" ООО "ИСК Евро-Полис" / Informational Insurance Company "Euro-Polis" Ltd ООО "БИН Страхование" / "BIN Insurance" Ltd ООО Страховая Компания "Гелиос" / Insurance Company "Helios" Ltd ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "АРСЕНАЛЪ" / "INSURANCE COMPANY "ARSENAL" Ltd АО САО "Гефест" / Insurance JSC "GEFEST" ООО "Страховая компания "Мегарусс-Д" / "Insurance Company "Megaruss-D" ltd ЗАО Страховая компания "Инвестиции и Финансы" / CJSC Insurance Company "Investments and Finance" ООО "Страховая компания "ВСК Линия жизни" / "Insurance Company "VSK Lifeline" ltd СОАО "Русский Страховой Центр" / Insurance OJSC Russian Insurance Centre ООО "Британский Страховой Дом" / "British Insurance House" Ltd ОАО Страховое Общество "ЯКОРЬ" / OJSC Insurance society "Yakor" Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % A A A A A A Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a A A нет / n/a A A 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 131

133 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ООО Муниципальная страховая компания "СТРАЖ" им. С. Живаго / "Strazh" Municipal Insurance Company named after S.Zhivago Ltd САО "Надежда" / Insurance JSC Nadezhda ЗАО "Страховая бизнес группа" / CJSC Insurance Business Group ООО "ПРОМИНСТРАХ" / PROMINSTRAKH Ltd ПАО "Межотраслевой страховой центр" / OJSC Inter-Industry Insurance Centre ООО СПК "Юнити Ре" / Insurance and Reinsurance Company "Unity Re" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания "Независимость" / "Insurance Company "Nezavisimost" Ltd ПАО "Страховая компания ГАЙДЕ" / OJSC "Insurance Company "GAYDE" , 3959 Группа компаний Капиталполис / Group of Companies "Capital Polis" АО "Цюрих надежное страхование" / JSC "Zurich Reliable Insurance" Ltd ООО "Национальная страховая группа "РОСЭНЕРГО" / "National Insurance Group "ROSENERGO" Ltd. Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands 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 **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a A A A B A B нет / n/a A нет / n/a нет / n/a 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 132

134 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ООО "Перестраховочное общество "КАМА РЕ" / "Reinsurance Society "KAMA RE" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания "Советская" / "Insurance Company "Sovietskaya" Ltd ОАО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "РЕГИОНГАРАНТ" / OJSC Insurance Company "REGIONGARANT" ООО "Национальная противопожарная страховая компания" / National Anti-Fire Insurance Company Ltd ООО "ПСА" / "PSA" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания "ТИТ" / "Insurance Company "TIT" Ltd ОАО "Транссибирская перестраховочная корпорация" / OJSC "Transsiberian Reinsurance Corporation" ОАО СГ "Спасские ворота" / OJSC Insurance Group "Spasskiye Vorota" ООО СК "Московия" / Insurance Company "Moskoviya" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания "Сибирский Дом Страхования" / "Insurance Company "Siberian Insurance House" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания "Кредит Европа Лайф" / "Insurance Company "Credit Europe Life" Ltd. Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % A Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a A нет / n/a B A A A B нет / n/a A+ 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 133

135 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ЗАСО "Европейское Туристическое Страхование" / CJS Insurance Society "European Touristic Insurance" ЗАО "Д2 Страхование" / CJSC "D2 Insurance" АО "Страховая Компания "ПОЛИС-ГАРАНТ" / JSC "Insurance Company "POLIS-GARANT" ЗАО СК "Сибирский Спас" / CJSC "Sibirsky Spas" ОАО "РСК "Стерх" / OJSC "RSK Sterkh" ОАО "Страховая компания "Астро-Волга" / OJSC "Insurance Company "Astro-Volga" ООО "Страховая компания Екатеринбург" / "Insurance Company "Ekaterinburg" Ltd ООО "Страховая фирма "Адонис" / "Insurance Company "Adonis" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания "СЕРВИСРЕЗЕРВ" / "Insurance Company "CERVICERESERVE" Ltd ЗАО "Страховая группа АВАНГАРД-ГАРАНТ" / CJSC Insurance Company "AVANGARD-GARANT" ООО "ССГ" / "SSG" Ltd АО "СК "Колымская" / JSC "Insurance Company "Kolymskaya" ОАО СК "БАСК" / OJSC "Insurance Company "BASK" ООО Страховая компания "Свисс-Гарант" / "Insurance Company "Swiss- Garant" Ltd. Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % A A Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a A A A A A A нет / n/a B нет / n/a нет / n/a B 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 134

136 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ОАО "Страховая группа "ХОСКА" / OJSC "Insurance Group "HOUSKA" ООО "Страховая компания "Ангара" / "Insurance Company "Angara" Ltd ООО Страховая компания "Селекта" / "Insurance Company "Selecta" Ltd ООО "БСК "Резонанс" / "BSK "Rezonance" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания ФЬОРД" / "Insurance Company "FYORD" Ltd ООО СК "Экип" / Insurance Company "EQUIP" Ltd ЗАО "Страховая компания АСКО-Центр" / CJSC Insurance Company "ASKO- Centre" ЗАО ВТБ Страхование жизни / CJSC VTB Life Insurance ООО "Региональная страховая компания" / "Regional Insurance Company" Ltd ООО "СМП-Страхование" / "SMP-Insurance" Ltd ООО СК "РОСИНКОР Резерв" / Insurance Company "ROSINCOR Reserve" Ltd ЗАО страховая компания "Железнодорожный страховой фонд" / CJSC Insurance Company "Railway Insurance Fund" ОАО Акционерная страховая компания "Ингвар" / OJSC Joint Stock Insurance Company "Ingvar" Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % A A Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a A A B нет / n/a нет / n/a A A нет / n/a B нет / n/a 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 135

137 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 / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies Взносы, всего, тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, thousands RUB В том числе: / Including: Прямое страхование (без ОМС) / Direct insurance (without obligatory health insurance) Входящее перестрахование / Incoming reinsurance Взносы всего, 2013г., тыс. руб. / Premiums, total, 2013, thousands RUB Выплаты всего, тыс. руб. / Loss payments, total, thousands RUB Темпы прироста взносов, % / Rate of premium increase, % Доля рынка*, % / Market share, % ООО "Промышленная A Перестраховочная Компания" / "Industrial Reinsurance Company" Ltd АО "Страховая компания A+ "Чувашия-Мед" / JSC Insurance Company "Chuvashiya-Med" ЗАО "Страховая компания B++ "АКОМС" / CJSC "Insurance Company "AKOMS" Ltd ООО Страховая компания B++ "РОСЛЕС" / "Insurance Company "ROSLES" Ltd ООО Страховое общество B++ "ВЕРНА" / Insurance Society "VERNA" Ltd. * 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 Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 136

138 Таблица 2. Страхование строительно-монтажных рисков (имущество), 2014 г. Table 2. Insurance of construction and erection risks (property), 2014 Место / Position рег. / Reg. No , 3825, 3230, 1864, 3255, 3524 Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies Страховая Группа СОГАЗ / Insurance Group SOGAZ ОАО НАСКО / JSC "NASCO" ЗАО "Страховая бизнес группа" / CJSC "Insurance Business Group" , 3447 Страховая группа "Альфастрахование" / Insurance group "Alfastrakhovanie" ООО "Страховое общество "Помощь" / Insurance Society "Pomosch" Ltd. 6 1, 977, 3984, 1298, 3175 ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал / Group of companies ROSGOSSTRAKH and KAPITAL ОСАО "РЕСО-Гарантия" / Insurance OJSC "RESO Garantia" САО "ВСК" / Insurance JSC "VSK" ООО "Британский Страховой Дом" / "British Insurance House"Ltd , 3823, 3837, 2708, 4189 Группа "ИНГО" / Group "INGO" ОАО "САК "ЭНЕРГОГАРАНТ" / JSC "Insurance Joint-Stock Company "ENERGOGARANT" АО САО "Гефест" / Insurance JSC "GEFEST" ОАО Страховое Общество "ЯКОРЬ" / OJSC Insurance society "Yakor" ООО "ПРОМИНСТРАХ"/ PROMINSTRAKH Ltd ООО СК "ВТБ Страхование"/ Insurance Company "VTB Insurance" Ltd ООО "СК "РЕСПЕКТ-ПОЛИС" / Insurance Company "RESPECT POLICE" ООО "СК "Согласие" / Insurance company "Soglasie" Ltd ООО "ССГ"/ "SSG" Ltd , 141, 3828, 2890 Группа Альянс / Group Alliance 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, % A A A A A н.д. / n/a нет A A A A A A A A A A B A B A++ Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 137

139 Таблица 2. Страхование строительно-монтажных рисков (имущество), 2014 г. Table 2. Insurance of construction and erection risks (property), 2014 Место / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ЗАО "Д2 Страхование" / CJSC "D2 Insurance" ООО "Страховая компания "Мегарусс-Д" / "Insurance Company "Megaruss-D" ltd АО "Цюрих надежное страхование"/ JSC "Zurich Reliable Insurance" Ltd ОАО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "РЕГИОНГАРАНТ" / OJSC Insurance Company "REGIONGARANT" ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "АРСЕНАЛЪ" / "INSURANCE COMPANY "ARSENAL" Ltd АО "СГ МСК" / JSC "Insurance Group MSK" , 2226, 4013 Страховая группа МАКС / Insurance Group "MAKS" , 3972 Группа Ренессанс Страхование / Group Renaissance Insurance ОАО "Страховая компания "ПАРИ" / OJSC "Insurance Company "PARI" , 3987, 2326 Страховая группа "УРАЛСИБ" / Insurance Group "URALSIB" ООО СК "Независимая страховая группа" / Insurance Company "Independent Insurance Group" Ltd ООО "БИН Страхование" / "BIN Insurance" Ltd ООО "Зетта Страхование" (бывш. ООО СК "Цюрих" ) / "Zetta Insurance" Ltd. (former Insurance Company "Zurich" Ltd.) ООО "ИСК Евро-Полис" / Informational Insurance Company "Euro-Polis" Ltd ЗАО СК "РСХБ-Страхование" /CJSC Insurance Company RSHB Insurance СОАО "Русский Страховой Центр" / Insurance OJSC Russian Insurance Centre ОАО "Либерти Страхование" / OJSC Liberty Insurance 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, % A Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a нет / n/a A A A A A A A A A *** A A A нет / n/a A+ 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 138

140 Таблица 2. Страхование строительно-монтажных рисков (имущество), 2014 г. Table 2. Insurance of construction and erection risks (property), 2014 Место / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ООО "Страховое общество "Купеческое" / Insurance Society "Kupecheskoye" Ltd ООО "Страховое общество "Сургутнефтегаз" / Insurance Society "Surgutneftegas" Ltd , 3204, 4014, 1894 Страховая группа "Югория" / Insurance Company "Yugoria" ПАО "Межотраслевой страховой центр" / OJSC "Inter-Industry Insurance Centre" ЗАО Страховая компания "Инвестиции и Финансы" / CJSC Insurance Company "Investments and Finance" , 3879 Страховая компания ЭРГО / Insurance Company ERGO ООО "Национальная страховая группа "РОСЭНЕРГО" / "National Insurance Group "ROSENERGO" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания Екатеринбург" / "Insurance Company Ekaterinburg" Ltd ОАО "РСК "Стерх" / OJSC "RSK Sterkh" , 4001, 3957 Страховая группа "Чулпан" / Insurance Group "Chulpan" ЗАО "АИГ" / JSC "AIG" ОАО "ОТКРЫТИЕ СТРАХОВАНИЕ" / OJSC "OPEN INSURANCE" ООО "Страховая компания "Советская" / "Insurance Company "Sovietskaya" Ltd ОАО СГ "Спасские ворота" / OJSC Insurance Group "Spasskiye Vorota" ООО "СМП-Страхование" / "SMP-Insurance" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания ФЬОРД" / "Insurance Company "FYORD" Ltd. 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 надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a A нет / n/a B A A нет / n/a A A A A A нет / n/a A A A 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 139

141 Таблица 2. Страхование строительно-монтажных рисков (имущество), 2014 г. Table 2. Insurance of construction and erection risks (property), 2014 Место / Position рег. / 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 надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, ООО "СК ЮЖУРАЛ-АСКО" / A Insurance Company "YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd САО "Надежда" /Insurance JSC A+ Nadezhda АО "Страховая Компания "ПОЛИС нет / n/a ГАРАНТ" / JSC "Insurance Company POLIS- GARANT" ООО Страховая Компания "Гелиос" / A+ "Insurance Company "Helios" Ltd ПАО "Страховая компания ГАЙДЕ" / нет / n/a OJSC "Insurance Company "GAYDE" ОАО "Страховая компания "Астро A Волга" / OJSC "Insurance Company Astro- Volga" , 3999 Страховая группа АСКО / A Insurance Group "ASKO" ООО "Страховая компания B+ "Независимость" / "Insurance Company "Nezavisimost" Ltd ЗАО "Страховая компания АСКО нет / n/a Центр" / CJSC Insurance Company "ASKO- Centre" ООО СК "Московия" / B++ Insurance Company "Moskoviya" Ltd ООО "СК ЮЖУРАЛ-АСКО" / A Insurance Company "YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd ОАО СК "БАСК" / нет / n/a OJSC "Insurance Company "BASK " * 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 140

142 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 , 3825, 3230, 1864, 3255, 3524 Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies Страховая Группа СОГАЗ / Insurance Group SOGAZ ООО "Страховое общество "Помощь" / Insurance Society "Pomosch" Ltd , 3447 Страховая группа "Альфастрахование" /I nsurance group "Alfastrakhovanie" ОАО СГ "Спасские ворота" / OJSC Insurance Group "Spasskiye Vorota" ОСАО "РЕСО-Гарантия" / Insurance OJSC "RESO Garantia" АО САО "Гефест" / Insurance JSC "GEFEST" 7 928, 3823, 3837, 2708, 4189 Группа "ИНГО" / Group "INGO" ООО "Британский Страховой Дом"/ "British Insurance House" Ltd ОАО НАСКО / ОJSC "NASCO" ОАО "САК "ЭНЕРГОГАРАНТ"/ JSC "Insurance Joint-Stock Company "ENERGOGARANT" ООО "Зетта Страхование" (бывш. ООО СК "Цюрих" ) / "Zetta Insurance " Ltd. (former Insurance Company "Zurich" Ltd.) ООО СК «ВТБ Страхование» / Insurance Company "VTB Insurance" Ltd. 13 1, 977, 3984, 1298, 3175 ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал / Group of companies ROSGOSSTRAKH and KAPITAL ЗАО "Страховая бизнес группа" / CJSC "Insurance Business Group" ООО "БИН Страхование" / "BIN Insurance" Ltd АО «СГ МСК» / JSC «Insurance Group MSK» ООО "ПРОМИНСТРАХ" / "PROMINSTRAKH" Ltd ООО "ССГ" / "SSG" Ltd 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, % A A A A A A A A A A *** A A н.д. / n/a н.д. / n/a A A A A A B++ Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 141

143 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. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ОАО Страховое Общество "ЯКОРЬ" / OJSC Insurance society "Yakor" АО "Цюрих надежное страхование" / JSC "Zurich Reliable Insurance" Ltd ООО "Национальная страховая группа "РОСЭНЕРГО" / "National Insurance Group "ROSENERGO" Ltd ООО "Страховая компания "Мегарусс-Д" / "Insurance Company "Megaruss-D" ltd , 3972 Группа Ренессанс Страхование / Group Renaissance Insurance , 141, 3828, 2890 Группа Альянс / Group Alliance ЗАО Страховая компания "Инвестиции и Финансы" / CJSC Insurance Company "Investments and Finance" , 3987, 2326 Страховая группа "УРАЛСИБ" / Insurance Group "URALSIB" ОАО "ОТКРЫТИЕ СТРАХОВАНИЕ" / OJSC "OPEN INSURANCE" ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "АРСЕНАЛЪ" / "INSURANCE COMPANY "ARSENAL" Ltd , 4001, 3957 Страховая группа "Чулпан" / Insurance Group "Chulpan" , 3879 Страховая компания ЭРГО / Insurance Company ERGO ОАО "Либерти Страхование" / OJSC "Liberty Insurance" ОАО "Страховая компания "ПАРИ" / OJSC "Insurance Company "PARI" ПАО "Межотраслевой страховой центр" / OJSC "Inter-Industry Insurance Centre" ООО "СК "Согласие" / Insurance company "Soglasie" Ltd ОАО "РСК "Стерх" / OJSC "RSK Sterkh" , 2226, 4013 Страховая группа МАКС / Insurance Group "MAKS" ООО "Страховая компания ФЬОРД" / "Insurance Company "FYORD" Ltd ООО "ИСК Евро-Полис" / Informational Insurance Company "Euro-Polis" Ltd. 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, % A Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a нет / n/a нет / n/a A A A A A A A A A A B A A A A A+ 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 142

144 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. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ОАО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "РЕГИОНГАРАНТ" / OJSC Insurance Company "REGIONGARANT" , 3204, 4014, 1894 Страховая группа "Югория" / Insurance Company "Yugoria" 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, % A+ Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a СОАО "Русский Страховой Центр" / нет / n/a Insurance OJSC "Russian Insurance Centre" ЗАО СК "РСХБ-Страхование" / A++ CJSC Insurance Company "RSHB Insurance" ЗАО "Страховая компания АСКО-Центр" / нет / n/a CJSC Insurance Company "ASKO-Centre" ООО "СК ЮЖУРАЛ-АСКО" / A Insurance Company "YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd ООО «Страховое общество "Купеческое" / нет / n/a Insurance Society "Kupecheskoye" Ltd ООО "Страховое общество "Сургутнефтегаз" / A+ Insurance Society "Surgutneftegas" Ltd ООО СК "Независимая страховая группа" / A+ Insurance Company "Independent Insurance Group" Ltd ООО "СМП-Страхование" / A "SMP-Insurance" Ltd АО «Страховая Компания "ПОЛИС-ГАРАНТ" / нет / n/a JSC "Insurance Company "POLIS-GARANT" ОАО "Страховая компания "Астро-Волга" / A OJSC "Insurance Company "Astro-Volga" ПАО "Страховая компания "ГАЙДЕ" / нет / n/a OJSC "Insurance Company "GAYDE" ООО "ПСА" / B++ "PSA" Ltd ООО Страховая Компания "Гелиос" / A+ "Insurance Company "Helios" Ltd ОАО СК "БАСК" / нет / n/a OJSC "Insurance Company "BASK" ООО "Страховая компания "Советская" / нет / n/a "Insurance Company "Sovietskaya" Ltd ООО СК "Московия" / B++ Insurance Company "Moskoviya" Ltd. * 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 143

145 Таблица 4. Страхование ответственности в рамках СРО, 2014 г. Table 4. Liability insurance in terms of SRO, 2014 Место / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ООО "Британский Страховой Дом" / "British Insurance House" Ltd САО "ВСК" / Insurance JSC "VSK" , 3825, 3230, 1864, 3255, , 3823, 3837, 2708, 4189 Страховая Группа СОГАЗ / Insurance Group SOGAZ Группа "ИНГО" / Group "INGO" ООО "Страховое общество "Помощь" / Insurance Society "Pomosch" Ltd ОАО "САК "ЭНЕРГОГАРАНТ" / JSC "Insurance Joint-Stock Company "ENERGOGARANT" 7 1, 977, 3984, 1298, 3175 ГК Росгосстрах и Капитал / Group of companies ROSGOSSTRAKH and KAPITAL АО САО "Гефест" / Insurance JSC "GEFEST" ООО "СК "Согласие" / Insurance company "Soglasie" Ltd , 3447 Страховая группа "Альфастрахование" / Insurance group "Alfastrakhovanie" , 3987, 2326 Страховая группа "УРАЛСИБ" / Insurance Group "URALSIB" ООО "ИСК Евро-Полис" / Informational Insurance Company "Euro-Polis" Ltd , 3972 Группа Ренессанс Страхование / Group Renaissance Insurance , 2226, 4013 Страховая группа МАКС / Insurance Group "MAKS" ООО "Страховая компания "Советская" / "Insurance Company "Sovietskaya" Ltd , 3204, 4014, 1894 Страховая группа "Югория" / Insurance Company "Yugoria" АО "СГ МСК" / JSC "Insurance Group MSK" ОАО "Страховая компания "ПАРИ" / OJSC "Insurance Company "PARI" ООО СК "ВТБ Страхование" / Insurance Company "VTB Insurance" Ltd. 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, % A A A A A A н.д. / n/a н.д. / n/a A A A A A A A A++ Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a нет / n/a A A A++ 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 144

146 Таблица 4. Страхование ответственности в рамках СРО, 2014 г. Table 4. Liability insurance in terms of SRO, 2014 Место / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies ООО "ССГ" / "SSG" Ltd ОАО "НАСКО" / ОJSC "NASCO" , 3999 Страховая группа "АСКО" / Insurance Group "ASKO" ООО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "АРСЕНАЛЪ" / "INSURANCE COMPANY "ARSENAL" Ltd ОАО "Страховая группа "ХОСКА" / OJSC "Insurance Group "HOUSKA" ООО "БСК "Резонанс" / "BSK "Rezonance" Ltd ОАО "Страховая компания "Астро-Волга" / OJSC "Insurance Company "Astro-Volga" ЗАО Страховая компания "Инвестиции и Финансы" / CJSC Insurance Company "Investments and Finance" ОАО "РСК "Стерх" / OJSC "RSK "Sterkh" , 4001, 3957 Страховая группа "Чулпан" / Insurance Group "Chulpan" АО "Страховая Компания "ПОЛИС-ГАРАНТ" / JSC "Insurance Company "POLIS-GARANT" ООО "Страховая компания "Мегарусс-Д" / "Insurance Company "Megaruss-D" ltd ОАО "СТРАХОВАЯ КОМПАНИЯ "РЕГИОНГАРАНТ" / OJSC Insurance Company "REGIONGARANT" ООО "Страховое общество "Купеческое" / Insurance Society "Kupecheskoye" Ltd ОАО СГ "Спасские ворота" / OJSC Insurance Group "Spasskiye Vorota" ООО «Страховое общество "Сургутнефтегаз" / Insurance Society "Surgutneftegas" Ltd ООО "Национальная страховая группа "РОСЭНЕРГО" / "National Insurance Group "ROSENERGO" Ltd САО "Надежда" / Insurance JSC "Nadezhda" СОАО "Русский Страховой Центр" / Insurance OJSC "Russian Insurance Centre" 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, % B A A A A A A A A A+ Рейтинги надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, нет / n/a нет / n/a A нет / n/a A A нет / n/a A нет / n/a 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 145

147 Таблица 4. Страхование ответственности в рамках СРО, 2014 г. Table 4. Liability insurance in terms of SRO, 2014 Место / Position рег. / Reg. No. Компания / группа компаний Company / Group of companies 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 надежности RAEX ("Эксперт РА") на **/ RAEX strength ratings "RA Expert" by May 08, ПАО "Страховая компания "ГАЙДЕ" / нет / n/a OJSC "Insurance Company "GAYDE" ОАО СК "БАСК" / нет / n/a OJSC "Insurance Company "BASK" ООО "Страховая компания "ФЬОРД" / A "Insurance Company "FYORD" Ltd , 3959 Группа компаний Капитал-полис / A Group of Companies "Capital Polis" ООО СК "Московия" / B++ Insurance Company "Moskoviya" Ltd ЗАО "Страховая бизнес группа" / A CJSC "Insurance Business Group" ООО "СК ЮЖУРАЛ-АСКО" / A Insurance Company "YUZHURAL ASKO" Ltd. 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 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 5th Reunion Engineering Insurance Roundtable, June 8-10, 2015, Moscow, Russia 146

148 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.