energy - jlt.com.tr · text 02 putting up with plaintiffs text 07 living with litigation text 10...

FOCUS ON: xxxxSUB TITLE

Text

02

Putting up with Plaintiffs

Text

07

Living with Litigation

Text

10

Anaesthetizing the terrorist threat

Text

ENERGYQUARTERLY NEWSLETTER | A JLT SPECIALTY LIMITED PUBLICATION | JANUARY 2017

17Atlantic Named Windstorm update

18Update on Oil Insurance Limited (OIL)

19OIL Optimisation

FOCUS ON: Mergers & Acquisitions - Warranty and Indemnity Insurance

20

In today’s climate more than ever before, parties to a corporate transaction need to focus on the strategic outcomes and minimise their investment risk. Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) insurance can help both buyers and sellers achieve these goals.

2 ENERGY | January 2017

We are pleased to provide our existing,

and potential, clients with our first

quarterly newsletter of 2015.

In addition to our regular features, in this

edition we have a focus on xxx.

We hope that readers will find this

newsletter interesting and informative

and would welcome any feedback

you may have, positive or negative,

which you can email to: john_cooper@

jltgroup.com or pass on to your usual

contacts.

If you are reading this in hard copy or

have been forwarded it electronically,

and would like to be added to our

mailing list or you wish to unsubscribe

from our mailing list, please email john_

[email protected].

John Cooper

Senior Partner & Chief

Operating Officer, Energy

GENERAL STATE OF THE

MARKET OVERVIEWWe are pleased to provide our existing,

and potential clients with our 1st Energy

Insurance Quarterly Newsletter of 2017.

In addition to our regular features,

in this edition we have a ‘focus on’

Mergers & Acquisitions - Warranty

and Indemnity Insurance.

We hope that readers will find this

newsletter interesting and informative

and would welcome any feedback

you may have, positive or negative,

which you can email to: john_cooper@

jltgroup.com or pass on to any of your

usual JLT contacts.

If you are reading this in hard copy or

have been forwarded it electronically,

and would like to be added to our

electronic mailing list, or you wish

to unsubscribe from our electronic

mailing list, please email john_cooper@

jltgroup.com

John Cooper ACII Senior PartnerManaging Director - Technical, Energy DivisionJLT Specialty Limited

GENERAL BACKDROP

“Jenga – a game where players take turns to remove component wooden parts from a brick stack, causing an increasingly unstable structure as the game progresses. The game ends when the tower falls completely.”

As 2016 ends, we draw to a close one of

best environments for insurance buyers

in nearly twenty years, with the added

advantage of financially stronger carriers

who are generally less adversarial in

claims settlements.

As we move into 2017, the brokers are

still driving for double digit reductions,

however there are some signs of a

slowing momentum in the quantum of

reductions available, as a number of

1st January renewals have been bound

with single digit percentage reductions.

Reinsurance renewals are still ongoing

but the signs are that many Insurers

have improved their own insurance

programmes but with a similar slowdown

in the amount of reduction achieved.

In the absence of a large catastrophe

loss or significant withdrawals of

capacity, the outlook for our industry

in 2017 will be a direct reflection of the

industry outlook for our clients. We have

come a long way from USD 26 WTI

futures in early February to the current

fragile stability of this more-than-USD

50 environment, caused in part by the

OPEC/non-OPEC resolutions, as well

as some scepticism about the ability

of the shale players to really fill every

gap in demand once the price reaches

a certain level. There are signs of

increasing activity at this price point, as

well as further potential M&A activity if

the energy producers believe USD 50 is

sufficiently stable.

For the insurance market, uncertainty

prevails as we continue to live in a

world of plummeting rates and dramatic

reductions in premium pools.

As suggested by the Jenga reference

above, the continuing stresses on the

insurance market – chronic overcapacity,

dramatic reduction in underlying activity,

and fierce competition, means that it

is becoming increasingly fragile and

vulnerable to volatility. Despite the benign

environment for clients over the past few

years, we believe that 2017 may become

very turbulent for parties on either side of

the deal.

This relentless downward trend in

premium has had no impact whatsoever

on capacity. Chronic overcapacity still

remains, so we are still seeing some very

dramatic price reductions when new

leaders are put into play, and especially

where captive insurance companies take

up their owner’s share in a joint venture.

The bewildering addition of new capacity

from two MGAs being HDI/Thomas Miller

and elseco suggests that the sector

remains attractive to those not in it.

This relentless downward trend suggests

that the energy insurance industry will

be entering a period of greater austerity,

as the cost base will need to adjust to fit

the dramatically lower premium levels.

Our client base has had to adapt, and

the impact on our own industry is of

course inevitable.

Two sectors of upstream are under

particular stress. The first is drilling

contractors because the dearth of

premium in relation to paid losses

means this is becoming a very marginal

sub-class.

The second is offshore construction

where rating levels not seen since 1999

when the now bankrupt Independent

Insurance Company was quoting lows

of 0.2% on Estimated Contract Value,

are beginning to appear. At that time,

the class ground to halt and only after

WELCAR was introduced and Tim

Burrows of Agnew became the only

leader available in the sector (remember

2.5%?), was the class revived.

The upstream energy class is becoming

increasingly unstable; proceed with caution.

ENERGY CASUALTYThe Energy casualty market has continued to attract new entrants as the

reductions available there have been relatively benign when compared to the

rest of the energy sector and, the rating environment has begun to settle as we

are hitting minimum premium levels for capacity. However, most underwriters

continue to recognize exposure decreases in their pricing, although within

minimum premium constraints.

The London market is still being used to replace Bermuda markets, or at least

pressure Bermuda markets into pricing and wording concessions.

www.jltspecialty.com | 3

INSIDE...

2 GENERAL STATE OF THE MARKET OVERVIEW

5 RECENT QUOTES

6 MARKET MOVES/ PEOPLE IN THE NEWS

7 WHAT’S NEW? NEW PRODUCTS AND

MARKET DEVELOPMENTS

8 BRIEFLY NEWS SNIPPETS

9 UPDATE ON LOSSES

12

13

15

SECURITY RATING UPDATE

SECURITY RATING UPDATE

NEW FEATURE -DEMYSTIFYING COMMON CLAUSES

UPSTREAM ENERGYThe table of Lloyd’s Energy total upstream premium, segregated by risk code,

demonstrates the stark drop in booked income between 2014 and 2016.

Lloyd’s Upstream Risk Codes - USD

As at End of September 2016

Premiums ET/EN EW/EZ EM/EY EC All

2014 952,151,240 366,249,257 192,450,647 275,000,341 1,785,851,485

2015 729,831,850 234,114,827 142,905,941 112,517,391 1,219,370,009

2016 340,905,075 84,601,477 90,125,453 14,226,832 529,858,837

Key:

ET/EN – Offshore Physical damage

EW/EZ – Control of Well

EM/EY – Energy liability

EC – Offshore construction

DOWNSTREAM ENERGY2016 closes with another good year

for downstream buyers. Rating has

continued to come off substantially

with most customers benefiting from

reductions of between 10% and 25%.

Some regional pressures ensured fierce

competition from insurers looking to

remain relevant in those areas and in

certain cases, the rate reductions have

been far greater than the range indicated.

Most downstream and midstream

businesses have seen earnings

depressed throughout 2016 and

although there will likely be an uptick in

2017, the impact on insurable values will

likely not be seen for 12 months due to

the reduced earnings declared in 2016.

Capacity growth continues to impact

although for many insurers this is mainly

pitched toward maximising their business

stream and remaining relevant to brokers

and not necessarily about them looking

to deploy additional capacity across their

portfolio of risks.

Facultative reinsurance remains buoyant

and continues to allow marginal markets

to engage on accounts that would

otherwise not be available to them on

a direct basis. Whereas many buyers

continue to divest elements of risk

and retention it is noticeable that on

a number of large regional accounts,

such as those referred to above, there

is a more broad brush and generalised

approach to offloading the risk with

the single purpose of retaining position

and relationships through the prevailing

market conditions.

The general loss frequency to the market

in 2016 has again been relatively modest

from both fortuities and natural perils.

The largest downstream loss in 2016

which has an initial estimated cost in

the USD 500mm range will largely be

absorbed by retention and within a mutual.

Looking to 2017 it is a difficult to call

the market. The immediate certainties

however are suppressed insurable

values, reduced projects outside of

maintenance CapEx, further industry

consolidation, continued oversupply of

insurance capacity, rate reductions, less

premium for the market and no 2016

counter weights such as defining market

losses or increased treaty reinsurance

costs to put breaks on momentum.

Clearly continued consolidation and

expense reductions are essential from

an insurer perspective but it’s looking

like many have not got too much more

stomach to continue much further down

this particular road. Even considering

impact arguments such as the necessity

of capital flight from the insurance sector

and the elongation of the market cycle,

should we see some of the larger key

market insurers blink and withdraw from

class and we have a more normalised

level and severity of losses the market

may just turn out to be more fragile than

the general perception. It’s a good time

for customers to consider the well used

adage “price is what you pay, value is

what you get” and right now it looks like

pricing has never been so low yet value

has never been so great from the full

practitioner chain.


GENERAL STATE OF THE MARKET OVERVIEW

MARINE ENERGY EXPOSURESThe soft cycle of the Marine Hull market

caused by overcapacity and driven by

an ever decreasing premium volume

continues unabated.

In real terms, Underwriters are definitely

starting to resist the constant pressure to

go overboard with premium reductions,

sometimes contrary to their employer’s

corporate stance of chasing premiums

down to maintain market share.

With many owners and operators of

vessels in the offshore sector suffering

as a result of the downturn, this

continuing soft insurance market rating

environment remains most welcome.

Some owners, even after adjusting

for fleet lay-ups and reduced vessels

values, are spending less than half the

premium they did just a few years ago.

The P&I market, both mutual and fixed, is

not immune to the softening market. For

the first time in many renewal seasons,

reductions across the board appear to

be the norm. However, with most mutual

clubs holding significant reserves, the P&I

market has some way to soften before

this market starts to hurt.

Overall, there still exists numerous

opportunities to improve premium

rating and policy terms, through

continuity credits, no claims bonus

credits, longer term policies, and

lay-up returns, but as the insurance

market continues to weaken, owners

and operators will have less scope to

aggressively pursue these strategies

with existing leaders and still maintain

their long-term and collegiate

relationships.


RECENT QUOTES

RECENT

QUOTESThe following are ‘sound bites’ taken from

speeches, statements or articles by prominent

market figures about the insurance market and

whilst we have tried not to take their words out

of context, the excerpt may not be the entire

speech or article.

TOBY DRYSDALE, ACTIVE UNDERWRITER. ATRIUM SYNDICATE

“The Lloyd’s market will lose money in the near

future as soft pricing continues to pile margin

pressure on carriers. It will be much harder this

year for carriers to continue to be lucky. All the

underwriters you speak to will tell you that now

is not the time to be increasing your investment

in Lloyd’s - the current market conditions are

appalling. Underwriters have been saying this for

years, yet the cheques keep rolling in. It is natural

to ask why this year should be any different.

Because Lloyd’s syndicates continue to produce

satisfactory results it might lead some to think the

soft market is a myth. But the market has not been

experiencing anything like an average loss year.

The reality in the property reinsurance market is this

- today’s rates might not cover an average year of

losses. The myth of a soft market is there because

actually, an average year is unlikely to occur in the

short term, or in any one year. As such, profits

can be made in any one year in isolation, and this

is happening across all short-tail, high-margin

classes. Rates have been driven down to historical

lows, but without the losses we can still make

significant amounts of money. The reality is rates

are unsustainable. I promise you the soft market is

the reality and not a myth. As such, we as a market

will lose money in the near future. This relentless

softening has been driven by overcapacity,

a situation for which we are all equally guilty.

The market doesn’t need more capacity, but we’re

all contributing to it.”

DAVID FLANDRO JLT RE

“It’s [the 1st January treaty renewal date] not going

to be ground-hog day this year. The market seems

to be finding its feet. Whilst the market is not yet at

equilibrium it is more balanced than it was and we are

at a place where the arguments can be heard on both

sides, which hasn’t been the case in recent years.”

BRONEK MASOJADA, GROUP CEO OF HISCOX

“London Market conditions remain difficult. Margins

are evaporating in some areas of the London Market,

and we are adjusting our underwriting accordingly,

actively reducing in areas where rates are under

pressure, particularly in aviation, marine and energy

and US big ticket property.”

TOM HOAD, TOKIO MARINE KILN’S HEAD OF INNOVATION

“Broker facilities have limited durability and will not

be a permanent feature of the market. We may well

have them forever, but I don’t think personally we will

have them forever. The market will look at them and

as the costs keep going up the facilities become less

and less attractive. Facilities stymie innovation in the

industry, and fail to promote the expansion of product

offerings. I think the facilities don’t help innovation.

I can see them being attractive, but I think that they

cause as many problems as they do benefits.”

INGA BEALE LLOYD’S CEO

“The (re)insurance industry should be aiming to tackle

catastrophic cyber risk, rather than passing it on

to the state. It is not good enough for an insurance

industry to be handing it over to the

government and saying this is too

big to for us. Otherwise we are

really undermining our purpose.

Ongoing work into cyber

aggregations at Lloyd’s

suggests cyber exposures

at syndicates are

currently no bigger than

some of the other risks

the market takes on.

It is not yet a concern

that the exposures are

too big.”

Tim Woodhouse of

Starstone Political Violence/

Sabotage & Terrorism team

is moving to Novae

Jo Cousins from Arch has

resigned to join IGI to underwrite their

Sabotage & Terrorism book

Alan Maguire having been President

and CEO of Aegis for 20 years is to

retire. Former Deloitte Advisory Chief

Owen Ryan has been appointed as his

successor. Maguire will remain in contact

with the company in a consulting role

Alex Barnes has been promoted to

Energy Underwriter at Beazley

Angus Wilson has been promoted to

the newly created role of Head of Marine

at Lloyd’s insurer Neon

Graeme Rayner has joined Pioneer

Underwriters as Director of Underwriting,

from MS Amlin where he served as Chief

Underwriting Officer

Mark Appleton is joining Hamilton

Underwriting, Syndicate 3334 as Head

of Marine Liability from Navigators where

he was Marine Liability Class Underwriter

and Energy Liability Underwriter

Catalina Wallis has joined JLT Energy

Risk Engineering in London (reporting to

Paul Clarke). She was previously a risk

engineer with Aon London

Anne Plumb, has resigned as Head of

International Open Market Property at

Novae, to become the active underwriter

for Cobalt’s recently approved Lloyd’s

Syndicate 1438

Varian Bush has left the Aegis Syndicate

(and is apparently taking some time out

of the market)

Falk Schmaler, Head of Onshore /

Mining at Swiss Re London is relocating

to Dubai as Swiss Re’s new Head of

Middle East and North Africa

Richard Dare is returning to Munich Re

Syndicate in London from Singapore. He

is expected to move in March 2017

Ian Green has left Hiscox’s downstream/

power team – destination not yet known

Carl Bennet has left Amlin Mitsui’s

downstream/power team - destination

not yet known

Bernt Hellman (ex-Dual) has started

at Thomas Miller Specialty with his

previous team from Dual. Hellman and

his Dual Underwriting MGA team where

let go from Hyperion / RKH earlier in the

year. The team including James Scott, Jason Wheeler, Parisha Bansil, Kevin

Campbell, Darren Farr and Elizabeth

Wright

Mark Mackay is leaving Allianz where he

was Global Product Leader for Offshore

Energy to set up an energy team in

London for French insurer AXA which will

write Power, Renewables, Midstream,

Downstream and Chemicals

Matt Holmes (who recently left Beazley)

has joined Dubai based MGA elseco in

London

Stuart Davies has stepped down as

Sompo Canopius group CEO with

immediate effect - destination not yet

known

Matt Bilbey at Chubb London will

be moving to their Singapore office

in January to write upstream energy,

currently Chubb only write downstream

out of their Singapore office

Robin Hargreaves, Chairman of the

underwriting board at Tokio Marine

Kiln, is to retire at the end of 2016 after

serving the company for 36 years

Theodore (Ted) Henke has retired

from his role as General Counsel for

The OIL Group of Companies at the end

of the 2016. Matthew Pifer has joined

OIL to succeed him, joining from Paul

Frank + Collins P.C., a law firm based in

Burlington, Vermont where he served as

Practice Leader

Paul Jardine has been appointed as the

CEO of XL Catlin Syndicate 2003. He will

retain his role as Chief Experience Officer

of the XL Catlin leadership team

Stuart Forsyth has joined RSA to head

up their marine hull and construction

team from the Scottish Boatowners

Mutual Insurance Association

Melanie Marwick-Day has resigned

from Ascot to join Neon to underwrite

Upstream Energy

Rob Kuchinski ex AIG Head of Energy

and Engineered Risk who had just

started at AWAC as Head of International

Property has resigned to go to Zurich as

Global Head of Energy

Paul Dilley, Head of Arch Property and

Global Energy book, has resigned to join

broker Towergate

Richard Bardwell has retired from

Navigators

MARKET MOVES/PEOPLE IN THE NEWS


MARKET MOVES/PEOPLE IN THE NEWS


WHAT’S NEW?

WHAT’S NEW? NEW PRODUCTS AND MARKET DEVELOPMENTS

Pool Re (the government backed UK terrorism reinsurance pool) is exploring expanding its terrorism remit to include property

damage as a result of cyber terrorism, with plans due to be announced in January 2017.

Liberty Mutual is to acquire Ironshore from Chinese

conglomerate Fosun. Liberty has said Ironshore will continue

to operate with the same management team and under its

current brand following the closure of the deal in the first half

of 2017.

UK Insurance Premium tax (IPT) will increase from 10%

to 12% from 1st June 2017.

Fairfax Financial (owners of Advent, Brit and Odyssey Re)

have announced they are to acquire Allied World (AWAC).

All but one of the 13 strong International Group of P&I

Clubs have declared zero increases in their GI (General

increases) Advance Calls (premiums) before adjustment

for individual loss records, changes to risk profile, or for

changes in reinsurance costs.

The common theme around these announcements has

been improved underwriting performance and lower than

expected claims, along with recognition of the need to

support owners in difficult trading conditions. The individual

changes are as follows:

Lloyd’s have asked all syndicates to report their exposures

to seven cyber-attack scenarios developed by a Lloyd’s

Market Association (LMA) working group. The LMA have said

that the scenarios are designed to promote awareness and

consideration of systemic cyber-attack across all classes of

business in the market, adding that the scenarios deliberately

range from the more plausible - such as a malevolent

disruption of a cloud computing services provider – to the

currently more speculative, including a co-ordinated malware

attack on the dynamic positioning systems of mobile offshore

drilling units.

American Zero

Britannia Zero

Gard Zero

Japan Zero

London Steamship Owners Zero

North of England Zero

Shipowners To be determined

Skuld Zero

Standard Zero

Steamship Mutual Zero

Swedish Zero

UK Zero

West of England Zero

BRIEFLY

The Lloyd’s Market Association

(LMA) have issued a report ‘Analysis

of common causes of major losses in

the onshore Oil, Gas & Petrochemical

industries’ following a review of 100

major losses in the onshore oil, gas and

petrochemical industries over the past

20 years, along with an accompanying

Power Point Presentation. These can be

downloaded from http://www.oilpera.

com/lma/4589742697

Amendments to the Maritime Labour

Convention (MLC) 2006 come into

force on 18 January 2017 resulting in

ships that are subject to the MLC being

required to display certificates issued

by an insurer (or other financial security

provider) confirming that insurance (or

other financial security) is in place for

liabilities in respect of outstanding wages

and repatriation of seafarers, together

with incidental costs and expenses

and compensation for death or long-

term disability. Some of the liabilities

arising under the certificates will fall

within the scope of standard P&I cover

for crew. For example, P&I will usually

cover compensation for death or long

term disability. Similarly, repatriation

costs and wages following a shipwreck

form part of a standard P&I club cover.

However other liabilities fall outside

the scope of P&I cover, in particular

repatriation costs and wages arising

from abandonment (of the crew). P&I

Clubs in the International Group of P&I

Clubs, have decided that Clubs should

provide the necessary certification and

if payments fall outside the scope of

standard cover, members will be obliged

to reimburse the Club. The International

Group of P&I Clubs has produced a set

of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

on this topic available from the following

link: http://www.igpandi.org/article/

maritime-labour-convention-financial-

security-requirements-circular


BRIEFLY

Lloyd’s have issued a report

titled The Risk of Global Weather

Teleconnections’, in association with

the Met Office, which analyses the

links between extreme weather events

occurring in separate regions of the

world that can take place over a range

of timescales from days to years

(known as teleconnections).

The report’s key findings are as

follows:

• Met Office research found that

the majority of perils are not

significantly correlated, but

identified nine noteworthy peril-

to-peril teleconnections, most of

which are negatively correlated;

• Lloyds’ modelling finds that these

correlations were not substantial

enough to warrant changes to the

amount of capital it holds to cover

extreme weather claims;

• Even when there is some

correlation between weather

patterns, it does not necessarily

follow that there will be large

insurance losses. Extreme

weather events may still occur

simultaneously even if there is no

link between them;

• An assumption of independence

for capital-holding purposes is

therefore appropriate for the key

risks the Lloyd’s market currently

insures; and

• The methodology released in the

report enables scenario modelling

across global portfolios for

appropriate region-perils.

The report, (one of Lloyd’s

Emerging Risk Report series) can be

downloaded from: http://www.lloyds.

com/news-and-insight/risk-insight/

library/natural-environment/met-

report

BRIEFLY


UPDATE ON LOSSES

2016 Energy losses of USD 10mm or more that we are aware of at the time of writing are as follows.

We also show the total of all claims under USD 10mm (with a minimum claim USD 1mm) to give an overall total for the year so far.

2016 Major Upstream Energy Losses (In excess of USD 10mm Ground-Up)

Jan Piling damage during construction Indian Offshore platform USD 51,000,000

Jan Fire Oklahoma Land Rig USD 27,500,000

Jan Collision FPSO Offshore Brazil USD 10,300,000

Jan Anchor Trawl/Jacking Chinese Offshore Pipeline USD 36,400,000

Jan Blowout Mississippi Gas Well USD 11,400,000

Feb Blowout Nigerian Land Well USD 11,000,000

Feb Blowout Dubai Offshore Well USD 20,000,000

Feb Turret Damage FPSO Offshore Ghana (see below) *

Feb Pipe laying Dubai Offshore Pipeline USD 11,490,465

Feb Blowout Kuwait Land Rig USD 44,350,000

Mar Fire & Explosion Gabon Storage Tanks USD 25,000,000

Mar Pipe laying Congo Offshore Pipeline USD 10,000,000

Apr Blowout Malaysian Offshore Well USD 20,000,000

May Pipe laying Chinese Offshore Pipeline USD 30,000,000

May Damage Nigerian Offshore Pipeline USD 10,000,000

May Damage FPSO Riser Offshore New Zealand USD 10,000,000

May Piling Abu Dhabi Offshore Platform USD 11,000,000

Jun Corrosion Canadian Onshore Pipeline USD 15,710,000

Jun Faulty work Californian Onshore Pipeline USD 10,000,000

Jul Pipe Laying Chinese Offshore Pipeline USD 35,000,000

Jul Fire Texas Onshore Drilling Equipment USD 16,000,000

Sep Damage Gulf of Mexico Offshore Cable USD 10,000,000

To date Total under USD 10,000,000 (Minimum of USD 1mm) USD 150,946,680

Total (known) for year (excess of USD 1 million) USD 905,597,145

Source: Willis Energy Loss Database/JLT market knowledge (as of 12 December 2016)Figures shown as “(est)” are estimates from various press or market sources.Figures do not take into account the effect of any self-insured retention, deductible or policy limit and therefore losses are not necessarily those which insurance markets have actually suffered but give a rough guide to the overall magnitude of industry loss.

* Reports would suggest in excess of USD 10 mm

The Jubilee field floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) vessel Kwame Nkrumah loss is currently expected to cost the

market between USD 1.2bn and USD 1.4bn, if the proposed engineering project is successful. If this so-called spread-mooring

exercise to fix the FPSO’s mooring problem is unsuccessful and all BI polices become a full limits loss the loss could easily exceed

USD 2bn, as it is understood that in addition to Physical Damage (estimated at around USD 300mm to USD 350mm) nearly USD 2bn

of BI limit was purchased by the JV partners.


UPDATE ON LOSSES

2016 Major Downstream/Midstream Energy Losses (in excess of USD 10 million ground-up)

Jan Fire & Explosion Canadian Oil Sands Hydrocracker USD 112,000,000

Jan Fire Hungarian Chemical Plant USD 50,000,000

Feb Mechanical Failure Russian Petrochem Plant USD 34,800,000

Feb Faulty work Greek Refinery USD 29,000,000

Mar Mechanical Failure Russian Refinery USD 27,800,000

Mar Fire & Explosion Texas Refinery USD 50,000,000

Mar Damage Iraqi Gas Plant USD 12,000,000

Mar Supply Interruption Taiwan Chemical Plant USD 55,300,000

Apr Fire & Explosion Mexican Petrochemical Plant USD 480,000,000

May Damage Thailand Petrochem Plant USD 145,000,000

Jun Flood Canadian Gas Plant USD 52,000,000

Jun Fire & Explosion Russian Gas Plant USD 31,344,000

Jul Fire Washington Chemical Plant USD 14,500,000

Jul Fire & Explosion Texas Gas Plant USD 20,000,000

Jul Fire Argentinian Refinery USD 11,000,000

Aug Fire Nicaraguan Tank Farm/Terminal USD 40,000,000


Total (known) for year (excess of USD 1 million) USD 1,185,751,000



UPDATE ON LOSSES

2016 Major Power Losses (in excess of USD 10 million ground-up)

Jan Damage New York T&D Power lines USD 40,000,000

Jan Mechanical Failure Ontario Gas Fired Power Station USD 48,200,000

Jan Mechanical Failure Taiwan Gas Power Station USD 23,000,000

Feb Fire Russian Coal Power Plant USD 536,144,000

Feb Fire Venezuelan Gas Power Station USD 12,750,000

Feb Damage Colombian Power Station USD 145,000,000

Mar Flood Texas Gas Fired Power Station USD 58,800,000

Apr Fire New York Coal Power Station USD 28,870,000

May Fire South Korean Coal Power Station USD 50,000,000

May Mechanical Failure Russian Coal Power Station USD 20,000,000

May Damage South African Hydro Power Plant USD 10,000,000

Jun Mechanical Failure Florida Gas Power Station USD 15,000,000

Jul Mechanical Failure Peru Multi-fuel Power Station USD 40,800,000

Aug Fire & Explosion Michigan Coal Power Station USD 42,000,000

Sep Mechanical Failure Thailand Gas Power Station USD 47,000,000


Total (known) for year (excess of USD 1 million) USD 1,324,462,770



SECURITY RATING CHANGES

SECURITY RATING CHANGES

The following rating changes affecting insurers writing energy business have occurred in the past three months or so.

Note: The above are rating moves we thought warrant mention but are not necessarily all rating changes that

have occurred in the past 3 months effecting Insurers that write Energy business and do not include changes

in individual Lloyd’s syndicate’s rating (as Lloyd’s as a whole continues to be rated as an overall entity).

Insurers Name Previous Rating Upgrade/Downgrade New Rating Effective Date

Arab Insurance Group (B.S.C.) (Arig)

AM Best BB+ AM Best A- 21 December 16

Houston Casualty Group AM Best A+ AM Best A++ 3 November 16

Scor Moody’s A1 Moody’s A1 Aa3 30 September 16

The Shipowners’ P&I Club S&P A- S&P A 17 November 16

West of England P&I Club S&P BBB+ S&P A- 17 November 16


LEGAL ROUNDUP

A SEAMAN MAY RECOVER PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR HIS EMPLOYER’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE TIMELY MEDICAL CARE AFTER ILLNESS OR INJURY (IN THE USA)

A Louisiana Court has issued a ruling recognizing that a seaman may recover punitive damages for his employer’s failure to provide timely medical care after illness or injury. Normally, punitive damages are not available to

seamen for unseaworthiness or Jones Act negligence claims. Previously the US courts had made punitive damages available in certain circumstances related to maintenance and cure, but this case potentially expands the availability of punitive damages beyond those for an employer’s failure to provide traditional financial resources for maintenance and cure.

The plaintiff was a relief captain who began to experience flu-like symptoms while offshore. The plaintiff reported these symptoms, which actually were manifestations of congestive heart failure, to his superior and onshore personnel, but his employer allegedly failed to relieve him of his duties or provide any medical assistance aboard the vessel.

Even though his employer promised to have medical personnel available when the vessel arrived in port three days later, none were made available at that time either. The plaintiff was then forced to drive himself to the hospital, despite his deteriorating condition. The plaintiff brought suit against his employer seeking, in part, damages for failure to timely provide medical care because such delay in treatment allegedly worsened his condition and complicated his recovery.

In deciding the case, the court first determined that unseaworthiness and Jones Act negligence claims are not the exclusive remedies available to seamen for a failure to provide prompt medical care. Instead, a seaman whose injuries are aggravated by a failure to provide appropriate care on board ship has overlapping causes of action and can recover damages under a count for Jones Act negligence or breach of the duty of maintenance and cure. The court also determined that the duties of maintenance and cure are broader than a mere financial obligation and historically include the duty to provide medical services to seamen while serving the ship. Thus, a breach of such duty gives rise to an action for breach of the duty to provide maintenance and cure.

LEGAL ROUNDUP

A TRADITIONAL COMMERCIAL CRIME POLICY DOES NOT EXTEND TO ‘SOCIAL ENGINEERING’ FRAUD

An oil production company headquartered in Texas received a call in their Aberdeen, Scotland office from a person claiming to be a representative of a legitimate vendor of the oil company. The caller instructed the employee to change the bank account information

which the oil company had on record for that vendor. The oil company employee advised that such a change request would not be processed without a formal request on the vendor’s letterhead. A week later, the oil companies accounts payable department received an email from a email address very similar to their legitimate vendor’s domain name, advising that the vendor’s bank account details had changed, and included as an attachment a signed letter on what appeared to be the vendor’s letterhead setting out the old and new account numbers and requesting that the oil company use the new account with immediate effect.

An employee of the oil company called the telephone number on the letterhead and confirmed the authenticity of the change request. Within a month, it was discovered that the legitimate vendor had not received payment of approximately USD 7 million which the oil company had transferred to the new account.

The oil company recovered some of the funds, but still incurred a net loss of approximately USD 2.4 million.

The oil company had taken out a Crime Protection Policy which did not include Social Engineering Fraud* coverage. The oil company however claimed under its Computer Fraud coverage, which provided “loss from damage to, money, securities and other property resulting directly from the use of any computer to fraudulently cause a transfer of that property from inside the premises or banking premises: a) to a person (other than a messenger) outside those premises; or b) to a place outside those premises.”

The insurer argued that no indemnity was available because the fraudulent email did not cause the transfers in issue, and because the coverage was limited to losses resulting from hacking and other incidents of unauthorized computer use. The Court agreed with the insurer holding that the email was part of the scheme; but, the email was merely incidental to the occurrence of the authorized transfer of money.

* Social Engineering Fraud is where a fraudster use information often gathered through the internet or other form of social media to convince unsuspecting employees to act voluntarily to divulge sensitive information or to perform some task on the fraudster’s behalf. Social Engineering Fraud coverage for these types of losses is available from JLT Specialty’s Financial Lines team.


LEGAL ROUNDUP

US COURT RULES ON DEATH ON THE HIGH SEAS ACT

A US District Court in

Florida has issued an

opinion recognizing

that the Death on the

High Seas Act (DOHSA)

provides the exclusive

means of recovery for deaths or fatal

injuries which occur on the high seas

regardless of where negligent conduct

takes place before or after the incident.

The case arose as a result of an

incident in which a cargo ship sank

off the coast of Jamaica. The sinking

resulted in loss of life for all individuals

on board, including the vessel’s

captain. In response to the vessel

sinking, the shipowners initiated a

limitation proceeding, and several

claimants began filing wrongful

death and cargo claims against the

shipowner. Many of these claimants

also filed third-party complaints

against the captain’s estate, asserting

negligence claims based on general

maritime law.

The captain’s estate subsequently

filed a motion to dismiss alleging that

the claimants’ third-party complaints

should be dismissed because DOHSA

provides the exclusive means of

recovery against him and all other

claims brought against him on grounds

other than wrongful death under

DOHSA must be dismissed. Claimants

opposed the captain’s estate’s motion

and argued that the negligent conduct

alleged in their third-party complaints

occurred in the Port of Jacksonville

Florida, and in international waters and

therefore they are entitled to recovery

under either general maritime law or

under the Florida Wrongful Death Act.

Further, the claimants argued that

despite all the deaths occurring on the

high seas, DOHSA should not apply

because no negligent acts occurred on

the high seas.

In deciding the motion, the Court

first noted that the claimants failed

to provide any case law that would

support the claimants’ theory.

Further, the judge determined that

case law clearly demonstrates that

DOHSA applies whenever deaths

occur on the high seas, regardless of

where any negligent conduct occurred.

Thus, the location of the injury, not the

location of the negligent conduct, is

the determinative issue of whether

DOHSA applies.

This decision provides clarity as to

when DOHSA applies and helps to

demonstrate the intent of DOHSA,

which is to provide the exclusive means

of recovery for deaths that occur on the

high seas regardless of where negligent

conduct takes place.

NEW FEATURE - DEMYSTIFYING COMMON CLAUSES


NEW FEATURE - DEMYSTIFYING COMMON CLAUSESIn this new feature, we take a look at common clauses found in Energy Insurance that are often not well understood, and try to look at what their intentions are, and what they cover or exclude.

In this first article we look at the Maintenance and Discovery clauses in Offshore Construction policies.

Maintenance and Discovery (M&D) are two distinctly

separate provisions within an Offshore Construction

All Risks (CAR) policy but are often referenced

together, probably because their periods run

concurrently after the expiry date of the rest of the

coverage provided by the policy, and probably

because insurers tend to charge for them together

in one rate.

The Discovery clause in a CAR policy restricts

coverage to claims discovered and reported within a

specified period (12 months as standard).

As the Discovery clause is a restriction on the

otherwise ‘occurrence’ based CAR policy it is not

something we believe can be charged for, as it

would be unfair to have no period after the policy

expires to discover a claim that occurred late in the

policy period and only manifests itself after expiring.

However as referenced above underwriters have

historically charged a ‘M&D’ rate (typically 0.25%

of the Estimated Contract Value for a 12 month

period), although when doing so, in reality we believe

the charge is for the ‘Maintenance Period’ alone.

It is worthy of note that the Discovery period is

purely for the discovery and reporting to insurers

of a claim, and does not require the Assured to

have established the extent of loss or fully present

their claim, or to start or effect repairs within the

Discovery Period.



NEW FEATURE - DEMYSTIFYING COMMON CLAUSES

The Maintenance clause in a CAR policy provides two

extensions to cover being:

1) physical loss or physical damage incurred after the

policy has expired that is caused by faulty or defective

workmanship, construction, material or design that

occurred prior to Maintenance period; and

2) physical loss or physical damage caused by Other

Assureds during the Maintenance Period from work they

are carrying out to comply with their obligations in respect

of maintenance or the making good of defects under the

construction contract.

The Maintenance Period is typically stated as 12 months (within

the common used term ‘12 months M&D’), however it should

be noted that the period of 12 months in such case will be the

maximum period and the actual clause restricts the period to

that of the maintenance period in the construction contract or

12 months whichever the lesser.

Is it absolutely necessary to buy a Maintenance Period in a

CAR policy?

Arguably, it is not necessary to buy a Maintenance Period as

an extension to a CAR policy, because the operational policy

that the constructed asset is transferred to typically does not

exclude the two coverages that the Maintenance Period covers.

However many Assureds choose to purchase it to protect

their operating policy loss record, to continue to enjoy a lower

deductible than their operational policy (if that is the case) or to

satisfy a contractual obligation to purchase.

DISCOVERY CLAUSEClaims under the Policy shall only be recoverable

hereunder if the Assured has discovered and reported

such loss, damage or Occurrence to Underwriters within

12 months from expiry of the Project Period set out in

Item 3 of the Declarations and concurrent with specific

maintenance period(s) set out in Item 3 of the Declarations

and described in Section I, Terms and Conditions,

Clause 19 below.

This clause shall not, however, restrict the time otherwise

allowed for establishing the extent and/or effecting of

repairs and/or presentation of a claim in respect of

such loss and/or damage discovered and reported in

accordance with the foregoing paragraph.

MAINTENANCE CLAUSEThe cover provided hereunder shall be no wider than that

contained elsewhere in the Policy. Coverage under Section

I only shall continue during the maintenance period(s)

specified in individual contracts but not exceeding a further

12 months from expiry date of the Project Period as set

out in Item 3 of the Declarations. During such maintenance

period(s), coverage is limited to physical loss or physical

damage resulting from or attributable to:

a. faulty or defective workmanship, construction, material

or design arising from a cause occurring prior to the

commencement of the maintenance period; and

b. operations carried out by Other Assureds during the

maintenance period(s) for the purpose of complying

with their obligations in respect of maintenance or the

making good of defects as may be referred to in the

conditions of contract, or by any other visits to the site

necessarily incurred to comply with qualifications to the

acceptance certificate.

For ease of reference the two clauses are reproduced below.


ATLANTIC NAMED WINDSTORM UPDATE

The 2016 Atlantic Named Windstorm season produced its 8th clean year for Energy Insurers.

Despite the number of storms forming being above the long-term average and above the early season predictions,

no storm threatened the densely populated Gulf of Mexico oil patch, like Hurricane Ike did in 2008 causing

devastation to offshore facilities, and as did Hurricanes Katrina and Rita 3 years earlier.

See below for the activity to date plotted against earlier predictions and the long term average.

ATLANTIC NAMED WINDSTORM UPDATE

Activity 65 Year NormTropical Storm Risk Colorado University

10

6

TropicalStorms

Hurricanes

IntenseHurricanes

13 13.5

5

15

2

6

2.5

NU

MB

ER

OF

STO

RM

S 7 7

11

33

Stated reasons for this year’s activity include:

• Transitioning El Niño to a weak La Niña in the beginning of

the official Atlantic hurricane season

• Lower vertical wind shear than the last two years in

Caribbean Sea

• Above average sea surface temperature in the Atlantic Basin

• No active tropical systems in July due to excessive Saharan

dust and dry air

• Persistent upper level wind, deviating most cyclones away

from entering western and central Gulf of Mexico

Some interesting highlights of this season include:

• Hurricane Matthew ended a 9 year streak of no Category 5

hurricanes in the Atlantic Basin (i.e., since Hurricane Felix

in 2007)

• Hurricane Matthew’s wind speed rapidly intensified from

70 knots (CAT 1) to 140 knots (CAT 5) within 24 hours

• A January hurricane (Alex) was the earliest to form since

Hurricane One in 1938

• Hurricane Otto was the latest Caribbean hurricane

(November 22) on record

• Surface temperature was the warmest in July on record

2016 Atlantic Tropical Cyclone Tracks to Date

18 ENERGY | October 2015

OIL INSURANCE LIMITED (OIL) UPDATE

OIL INSURANCE LIMITED (OIL) UPDATE

ABOUT OILOIL is a Bermuda based

Energy Industry Mutual

that insures close to

USD 3 trillion of global

energy assets for more

than fifty members with property limits

up to USD 400 million totalling more

than nineteen billion dollars in total

A- rated property capacity. Members

are medium to large sized public and

private energy companies with at

least USD 1 billion in physical property

assets and an investment grade

rating or equivalent. Products offered

include Property (Physical Damage),

Windstorm, Non Gradual Pollution,

Control of Well, Terrorism (including

Cyber Terrorism), Construction and

Cargo. The industry sectors that OIL

protects include Offshore and Onshore

Exploration & Production, Refining and

Marketing, Petrochemicals, Mining,

Pipelines, Electric Utilities and other

related energy business sectors.

For further information on OIL please go to

www.OIL.bm or request JLT’s Guide to OIL

by emailing [email protected]

Oil Insurance Limited (OIL), the Bermuda based Energy Industry owned

mutual, have surveyed their membership asking for feedback on their appetite

for increased limits (USD 500mm or USD 600mm as opposed to the current

maximum of USD 400mm) and for feedback on OIL’s current Designated

Windstorm coverage and pricing mechanism (currently only Atlantic Named

Windstorm is ‘designated’ and is limited to USD 250mm part of USD 150mm and

in a separate pool excess of a USD 300mm aggregate pooled over all members).

This review of their wind cover follows a significant reduction in the number of

participants who have opted to stay in the Excess Offshore Excess Wind Pool

(the majority of those exposed have now pulled out and self-insure or insure in the

commercial market – down to 4 members out of 23 with GOM exposures).

OIL have specifically asked members what would attract them back to OIL

for Designated Wind cover and whether they would be supportive of wider

mutualisation (not just amongst those with wind exposures).

We have been advised by OIL that there will be not be any changes at 1/1/17

(increased limit or changes to wind cover) and the earliest these would come into

effect, if in fact there is appetite from the members, would be 1/1/18.



OIL OPTIMISATION

Membership of Oil Insurance Limited (OIL) is a valuable risk transfer tool for many medium to large Energy companies. However, due to OIL’s unique premium allocation methodology, optimising OIL’s position in an overall risk transfer programme is often a complex exercise.

JLT Specialty’s Energy team are able to help you analyse and optimise your OIL membership

using our extensive knowledge gained from working with OIL for over 25 years (more recently as

consultants to OIL) and our sophisticated OIL modelling capabilities.

We are able to help you better understand the following:

• What drives your OIL premium calculations

• Why OIL generated future premium indications (whether for existing members or new

members) can be considered conservative

• The pros and cons of Pool A only entry

• The pros and cons of Quota Share entries (internal or external) and the ‘Retro’ option

• How the ‘lock-in’ methodology creates a ‘phase in’ of any premium change resulting from

profile changes (limit/deductible elections) that can either be to your benefit or detriment

• The potential increased volatility of the Atlantic Named Windstorm (ANWS) Pools

• Options for ANWS cover and their pros and cons

• How the OIL ANWS definition creates an inherent gap when dovetailing it with a standard

commercial market Named Windstorm definition

• How OIL’s definition of ‘Occurrence’ is different to the commercial market and how it needs

careful dovetailing

• The OIL Experience Modifier and options for insuring this

The JLT Energy team are able to review your OIL entry in relationship with your commercial market

programme, reviewing your limits / deductibles and pool share(s), after which we will provide you

with a written report addressing all the issues above and any others you may have.

All we will need from you is a schematic of your current risk transfer programme, your latest OIL

billing (with premium calculations breakdowns) and your latest Gross Asset declaration to OIL.

We can carry out our review in conjunction with your existing broker or we can do it independently

without interrupting your existing relationships.

OIL OPTIMISATION

For further detail contact your usual JLT Account Executive

or email [email protected]



FOCUS ON

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS WARRANTY AND INDEMNITY INSURANCE

2016 was an unusual year. Brexit, the US elections and

numerous other political, humanitarian and economic events

around the world have left their impressions. Markets have

crashed and rallied and currencies have dropped and soared.

Global M&A activity has found itself in the middle of much of

this turbulence. However, depending on the sector, domicile or

simply the transacting currency, there have been opportunities

to capitalise on the market forces in play.

M&A in the energy sector has been affected by the

rollercoaster ride more than most. Extraordinary volatility in

the price of oil over the last two years has left many uncertain

about the right time to invest or sell. Banks tightened lending

and confidence around the right price for any assets coming

to market has led to a prolonged depression in the number of

reported Energy transactions.


In today’s climate more than ever before, parties to a corporate transaction need to focus on the strategic outcomes and minimise their investment risk. Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) insurance can help both buyers and sellers achieve these goals.


With the recent OPEC decision around oil production and the

expected improvement / stabilisation of the price, we anticipate

M&A activity to return to the energy sector. Private Equity and

corporates will be better able to model investments and deals

will start to flow again, whether this is through consolidation

plays or disposals of non-core subsidiaries.

However, regardless of any meaningful return in activity,

maximising the outcome of deals is a key focus. Over the

last 3-4 years the insurance market has seen a boom in the

use of all types of M&A insurance, but none more so than the

emergence of Warranty and Indemnity (W&I) insurance.

These policies can now bring effective and tangible benefits to

parties seeking to buy or sell a business.

These specialist one-off policies are used to mitigate risks

but, more importantly, they are now highly flexible and have

numerous strategic applications that can help deal planning,

aid in negotiations and even improve the overall outcome and

purchase price achieved.

It is this use of policies as strategic tools that has driven the

huge growth of this sector of the insurance market in recent

years. The expansion in the US has been most prolific of all.

Insurance capacity (the policy limit available per deal) now

stands well above USD 1bn – at least 100% higher than 5 years

ago. This means that even the mega deals can benefit.

Strategic uses - why use these policies?

• Seller clean exit – sellers agree a deal with minimal or nil

liability in the sale agreement offering to pay for or contribute

to a buyer insurance policy in lieu of a clean exit


“When a deal is being structured and tactics established, M&A insurance can give you an edge at the negotiating table or even improve the overall outcome of the deal”

• Management rolling over – buyers prefer to claim for

breaches of terms of the sale agreement from an insurer

rather than their own “new” management team acquired in

the deal

• Seller covenant strength – buyers negotiate and secure

protection from the seller for breaches of the terms of the

sale agreement but the long term financial strength or even

existence of the warranting party is in debate

From a technical perspective, policies last up to 7 years,

premiums are one-off and give protection against liabilities

stemming from the deal that fall into two baskets; unknown

risks or known risks.

• Unknown risks: Warranty & Indemnity or W&I insurance is

the most widely used solution and is designed to cater for

the unexpected loss suffered post completion stemming

from a breach of the warranties (statements about the

target business) given by the seller in the sale agreement.

• Known risks: where a specific matter has been identified

and scoped during a buyer’s due diligence process,

insurance can be used to take that long term potential

liability off the table. These policies are frequently used to

cover tax liabilities. If the problem is big enough, insurance

can make the difference between a successfully closed deal

and one that falls through.

Those who employ M&A insurance to the greatest effect

no longer think solely about risk transfer. Rather, the highly

flexible concepts are taken into account at the planning stage

and throughout the marketing and sale process with the

key question being; “How might we use insurance capital to

facilitate our negotiation and improve the eventual outcome

of our deal?” In a very real sense, the costs of an M&A

insurance policy can be recovered many times over through the

improvements achieved within the deal construction or in

the negotiation.

The focus is on a bespoke policy, reflecting the fact that each

deal is different. In fact, M&A insurance is not sector specific

and Private Equity and other institutional investors have known

about the benefits for years. Now, well advised corporates with

an eye on strategic growth also frequently consider their use

and application. JLT M&A predicts that more and more energy

deals will be insured in 2017 and beyond as activity returns.



“If a negotiation leaves you short of your ideal deal goal, M&A insurance could be the tool to bridge the gap”




For more information on Mergers & Acquisitions insurance please contact:

[email protected] or [email protected]

CASE STUDY• A JLT client was purchasing an energy trading platform

• Due to a highly competitive auction process our client was required to accept a nominal level of seller liability for breaches of the sale agreement (circa 1% of the deal value)

• Financing parties were unable to accept this limited recourse and required additional protection to lend on the deal

• M&A insurance provided this comfort and our client was able to complete the deal

ABOUT JLT SPECIALTYJLT Specialty Limited provides insurance broking, risk management and claims consulting services to large and international companies. Our success comes from focusing on sectors where we know we can make the greatest difference – using insight, intelligence and imagination to provide expert advice and robust – often unique – solutions. We build partner teams to work side-by-side with you, our network and the market to deliver responses which are carefully considered from all angles.

It’s this approach that inspires our clients’ trust and confidence, which has led us to provide broking services for eight of the world’s top 10 oil companies and for JLT Group to become the largest broker of Energy insurance business into Lloyd’s. JLT Specialty Limited is a member of Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group plc, a company listed on the FTSE250 index of the London Stock Exchange and one of the world’s largest providers of insurance and employee benefits related advice, brokerage and associated services.

This newsletter is compiled and published for the benefit of clients of JLT Specialty Limited. It is intended only to highlight general issues relating to the subject matter which may be of interest and does not necessarily deal with every important topic nor cover every aspect of the topics with which it deals. It is not designed to provide specific advice on the subject matter.

Views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of JLT Speciality Limited unless specifically stated otherwise.

Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the content of this newsletter, neither JLT Specialty Limited nor its parent or affiliated or subsidiary companies accept any responsibility for any error, omission or deficiency. If you intend to take any action or make any decision on the basis of the content of this newsletter, you should first seek specific professional advice and verify its content.

If you are interested in utilising the services of JLT Speciality Limited provide you may be required by your local regulatory requirements to obtain the services of a local insurance intermediary in your territory to export insurance and (re)insurance to us unless you have an exemption and should take advice in this regard.

JLT Specialty Limited The St Botolph Building 138 Houndsditch London EC3A 7AW www.jltspecialty.com

Lloyd’s Broker. Authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. A member of the Jardine Lloyd Thompson Group. Registered Office: The St Botolph Building, 138 Houndsditch, London EC3A 7AW. Registered in England No. 01536540. VAT No. 244 2321 96.

© January 2017 273012

CONTACTIf you require any further information or have any feedback on this edition, please email [email protected]

energy - jlt.com.tr · text 02 putting up with plaintiffs text 07 living with litigation text 10...

Documents