Every answer and its explanation appears here once you have finished the path. Each one then links to the matching glossary entry, where the concept is set out in full with its worked example.
1. Two policies are headed 'sovereign contract breach'. What can separate them entirely?
The definition of the loss: one pays on non-payment itself, the other pays only after an arbitral award has gone unenforced
Under the same name, one buys a different product: a cover tied to an award turns a six-month claim into a three-to-six-year file, during which the waiting period has not even begun to run. The other three parameters are real and are compared between quotes; none changes the nature of what is being bought. That is why one reads the definition of the loss before the schedule of terms, and not the other way around.
Glossary entry →2. The cover requires an unenforced arbitral award. The commercial contract gives jurisdiction to the debtor state's courts alone. What becomes of the cover?
It is structurally untriggerable: there is no contractual path to an award, so the trigger is unreachable
Neither the policy nor the contract is at fault taken separately, and neither document read alone shows it: someone read the policy, correct, then the contract, correct, without ever reading them together. The answer equating a local judgment with an award erases exactly the distinction the clause meant to draw, since the point of requiring arbitration is to leave the debtor's courts. The one about exhausting local remedies describes a condition that exists elsewhere and does not replace the absence of a path. What remains is to check whether a bilateral treaty carries consent to arbitration independent of the contract, which is the only way out and is verified before signing.
Glossary entry →3. The module flags an economic imbalance in covers tied to an award. Which one?
The insured funds the arbitration whose benefit largely accrues to the insurer: whoever cannot afford it never triggers their own cover
The insured advances considerable costs to reach a trigger, after which the insurer pays and subrogates into the debt that procedure established. The result is that a company whose cash already carries the unpaid amount may be unable to open the door of its own cover, and that the protection becomes inoperative for those who would need it most. It is a question to raise at placement and to price, not to discover at the claim. Believing the reverse, the insurer funding, describes an allocation that exists in some litigation funding arrangements but not in this structure.
Glossary entry →4. Can a bilateral investment treaty save a file whose contract provides for no arbitration?
Perhaps: it may carry consent to arbitration independent of the contract, provided the operation falls within its definition of an investment, plausible for works built on site and arguable for a simple supply
A treaty's consent is offered to a category, protected investments, and not to every contract concluded with a state. Engineering works performed on site, with assets and duration, look more like an investment than a sale of equipment shipped from France, and that characterization will decide. Answering no without qualification closes a door that exists; answering yes always promises what a treaty does not give. And it is checked before signing the commercial contract, not at the claim, where one merely observes what one does not have.
Glossary entry →5. What is the effect, on a file's timeline, of a cover tied to an award?
The waiting period only starts running after the unenforced award, therefore after three to six years
The two durations add up instead of overlapping, and that is what makes this wording so expensive. The trigger is the failure to enforce the award, and the unpaid invoice is not enough: until that exists there is no loss, therefore nothing that could start a waiting period. An insured reading one hundred and eighty days in its schedule and inferring settlement in six months is out by a factor of ten. The answers running or suspending the period during the procedure assume a loss already born, which is precisely what the definition refuses.
Glossary entry →