This whole certification rests on an assumption it states in its title: the asset cannot leave. A plant, a concession, a network stay where the state finds them, and that is what makes their holder vulnerable. A vessel, an aircraft, a drilling rig do not answer that description: they are mobile by construction, and they stop being so on the day an authority decides they will not move. This module takes that exception, because mobility changes the classification, the calculation and above all the question the insurer will ask.
The first difference concerns the nature of the event. An immovable asset is lost through a taking, a decree, a transfer of title, the appointment of an administrator. A mobile asset is most often lost through an immobilisation that does not present itself as a taking: a customs inspection that never ends, a departure clearance whose processing drags on, an entry on a list. Nobody utters the word seizure, ownership is not disputed, and the insured remains owner of property it can no longer use. It is the same mechanism as administrative slowness over currency, applied to an object that is expensive to leave in place.
Policies answer with a mechanism that covers for immovable assets do not know and that must be understood: continuous deprivation for a stated period is deemed a total loss. Six or twelve months depending on the wording, running from the day the insured is deprived of use and control, without interruption. That construction is excellent, because it makes the cover independent of any classification by the state. It nonetheless carries two traps. The period must run without interruption, yet permission to move the property within the port, or a crew allowed on board, can be presented as a partial restitution resetting the clock. And while the period runs, the insured bears costs that are not the loss: crew, moorage, maintenance, hull insurance.
Then comes the question that exists only for this class of asset, and it is the most delicate of the module: could the insured have got it out? An insurer will always look at the period preceding the immobilisation, and it will look for the moment the property could still have sailed. If that moment existed and nothing was done, the duty to mitigate will be raised, with the corresponding deduction. The answer is not to plead that one could not have known: it is to show what leaving would have cost or risked, a breach of a charter contract, cargo on board, a local prohibition on leaving territorial waters, proceedings against the master.
That question has a symmetrical side to be put with equal frankness. Attempting to remove property an authority intends to retain can worsen the situation considerably: sailing without clearance exposes the crew to criminal proceedings, turns an administrative dispute into an offence, and hands the state a ground of seizure of its own that is no longer political at all. An insured taking that risk without informing its insurer acts alone, and one taking it against its express advice puts its cover in difficulty. The decision is therefore taken in three days and in writing, not in the urgency of a telephone call.
One point of calculation finally distinguishes these assets sharply from the others and it favours the insured. A concession has no market; a vessel, an aircraft or a drilling rig do, with published values, comparable transactions and recognised valuers. Value at the date of loss is therefore established without the difficulties seen for an asset one can no longer visit, which greatly simplifies the quantum discussion. The argument then moves to the condition of the property on any restitution, and to the costs incurred during the immobilisation, which are the real grey zone.
It must be added that these assets almost always carry several covers, and that nobody notices before needing them. A hull policy, a war and detainment policy specific to transport, and sometimes a group political risk policy overlap on the same property and the same event. Each has its own deprivation period, its own definition of detention and its own contribution clause. Notifying one and not the others is the commonest failure, and it costs, because each policy has its own duty to notify without delay. The simple rule is to notify everywhere and let the insurers settle between themselves what falls to each.
Three steps close this module and the first is a reading. Know what period of continuous deprivation turns immobilisation into a total loss, and on what date that clock started. Document, from the first day, what prevented departure, because it is the only evidence that will answer the question the insurer will ask. And notify every policy carrying the property, on the same day, without first trying to work out which is the right one.
A semi submersible drilling rig owned by a Norwegian company completes a contract off a West African country on 8 February 2026 and prepares to move to a yard in Brazil. On 11 February customs open a verification procedure concerning the rig's temporary admission regime and refuse to issue the departure clearance. No seizure is pronounced and ownership is not disputed. On 3 April the port authority authorises the rig to move to another berth. On 20 May the crew is halved on local instruction. By 1 September 2026 nothing has changed; costs incurred since February reach 14 million euros. The rig's market value is estimated at 210 million. The group's political risk policy provides that continuous deprivation for six months is deemed a total loss. Where does the insured stand?
The knot of the file is a date, and it must be established before anything else. The six month period runs from the day the insured was deprived of use and control: that is 11 February, the day clearance was refused, and not 8 February. On that count total loss would have been established since 11 August. The insurer will very probably raise the authorised move of 3 April, arguing that it constitutes a partial restitution of control interrupting the period and restarting it on that date, which would push total loss to 3 October. That argument must be fought on substance rather than form: moving a rig from one berth to another within the same port restores neither use nor control, since the object of the deprivation is departure and it remains prohibited. The crew reduction of 20 May in fact cuts the other way and must be produced, since it shows the insured's control diminishing rather than being restored. The second question is the one the insurer will infallibly ask: could the rig have left? It must be answered with documents rather than explanations. The contract ended on 8 February and the procedure opened on 11: there is therefore a three day window that will have to be documented, by establishing the rig's state of readiness, the availability of a tug, the clearances already missing and the normal demobilisation time for a semi submersible, which is not three days. That point is prepared now, with logs and operational exchanges, and will become impossible to establish in a year. Two steps remain, and the second is the one that gets forgotten. The 14 million of costs since February are not the loss of the rig: they are costs incurred during the immobilisation, belonging where applicable to a distinct cover or to sue and labour, and claiming them mixed in with the value would weaken both heads. And one must check immediately which other policies carry this rig, hull and war risks at least, and notify all of them on the same day: each has its own deprivation period and its own duty to notify without delay, and an insured that first works out which policy is the right one loses the others while it thinks.
- 01A mobile asset is rarely lost through a taking and most often through an immobilisation nobody calls a seizure: ownership is not disputed, use has gone.
- 02Continuous deprivation for a stated period is deemed a total loss, which makes the cover independent of any classification by the state; but it must be continuous.
- 03The question peculiar to these assets is the departure not taken: document from day one what prevented it, because that is what the insurer will ask.
- 04Attempting to remove retained property can turn an administrative dispute into a criminal offence and hand the state a ground of seizure that is no longer political.
- 05These assets almost always carry several policies: notify all of them on the same day and let the insurers settle between themselves, each having its own notification duty.