Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005
From: Erik Røsæg <email@example.com>
Subject: The draft resolution
Thank you very much for your recent, constructive contributions to the correspondence group. As you clearly state, there is nothing new; the problems you point out were all raised at and considered by the Diplomatic Conference. However, there is a new development in that the feeling among some states may be less optimistic than before in respect of the ability of the insurance market to cover terrorism risks. For that reason and for that reason only we would like go along the resolution avenue as suggested by you. Although we have both formal and substantive objections to the resolution, we feel that this after all may be a way forward that can gather more support than the alternatives we principally prefer. The least desirable result would be regionalization of rules or no international rules at all.
I will come over to London from Monday next week to participate in the discussions on this matter, so that we can be well prepared for the lunch meeting Wednesday and the subsequent discussions in the Legal Committee.
Our support for this avenue is conditional on that the resolution really will solve the problem, i.e. that all other insurance problems can be resolved. We also stress that we wish the resolution to be as limited as possible in scope; and certainly that it should not include other issues than those already included in the draft and your supplementary note 18 April.
If the resolution later proves not successful in the sense that the Athens Convention, 2002, can enter into force, we will revert to our original position.
For information, I would also like to convey to you and the correspondence group the following email of yesterday on aviation insurance from your distinguished insurance colleague of Swiss Re, Mr Fritz Stabinger:
I look forward to see you in London.
- Dear Mr Rösaeg -
- referring to my yesterday's e-mail, and in partial confirmation of what I already commented, here what I heard from my aviation colleagues:
- Terrorism is covered, same as war, up to the combined single limit of the policy (combined single limit being defined also sum insured, all interests combined).
- 3rd party liability
- depending on the assured, there is a maximum limit of US$ 50 to 100 million. The market, however, allows for a separate purchase of a limit going up to 1.000 million. Capital providers: e.g. AIG, Berkshire Hathaway
- Aviation hull
- same rules as for marine (where most aviation war risks are anyway covered): terrorism is covered, same as war.
- Best regards - Fritz Stabinger