Germany's attribution of last month's drone attack on Leipzig airport to Russia may appear to answer one of the most difficult questions surrounding politically motivated attacks: who was responsible.
That does not necessarily answer a different question, however – whether a war exclusion applies.
Alexandra Lyons, partner in the Policyholder Disputes team at Stewarts in London, said government attribution can provide important evidence where responsibility is disputed, but an insurer seeking to decline a claim must still establish that the exclusion has been triggered.
"Attribution to a state does not automatically mean an incident will be treated as war for insurance purposes," Lyons said.
For brokers, that distinction has become increasingly relevant as hybrid incidents raise questions across Germany's critical infrastructure. Identifying an attacker is not the same as establishing whether the circumstances of a loss satisfy the definitions and causation requirements within a policy.
The position becomes more complicated when responsibility for an attack remains disputed.
"Government attribution is likely to be an important piece of evidence, particularly where it is based on intelligence and technical analysis, but it will not necessarily be the final word," Lyons said.
If a coverage dispute reaches court, the wider evidence around the cause and circumstances of the loss can also be considered. That creates an important distinction between proving precisely who carried out an attack and proving that an exclusion applies.
The issue was tested recently in the High Court's ruling on the Nord Stream pipeline explosions. The court was able to reach conclusions about the nature of the incident without determining precisely which party was responsible. That does not, however, remove the insurer's evidential burden.
"The burden of proof is significant," Lyons said. "Under English law, if an insurer seeks to rely on a war exclusion to refuse cover, it is generally for the insurer to prove that the exclusion applies."
For brokers dealing with a disputed claim, that distinction matters. Lack of definitive attribution does not necessarily prevent an insurer from establishing that an exclusion applies, but nor does government attribution automatically establish the insurer's case.
The wording of the exclusion can ultimately be more important than the identity of the attacker.
"The causation wording is equally important, as it determines how closely the loss must be connected to war, terrorism, sabotage or hostile state activity," Lyons said. "If drafted broadly, a relatively loose connection may be required."
Nord Stream gives that point particular relevance. A broadly constructed exclusion can potentially operate without a court resolving the politically contentious question of exactly who carried out an attack.
That changes what brokers need to look for when advising a client faced with a war-related declinature. The headline question of who was responsible may attract the most attention, but the coverage dispute can turn instead on the wording of the exclusion, the available evidence and the causal connection the insurer must establish.
Leipzig therefore presents a different insurance question from the geopolitical one. A state may have been publicly blamed, but that does not itself decide whether a client's loss is an act of war under the policy.
