Skip to content
←Back to glossarySpace risks

Anomaly investigation clause

Contract clause that makes payment of a space insurance claim conditional on a joint technical investigation establishing the cause of failure.

Definition

The anomaly investigation clause makes payment of a space insurance claim, whether for a launch or an in-orbit loss, conditional on a joint technical investigation. The insured, the manufacturer, the launch provider and the insurers all take part, and nothing is paid until it has established the cause of failure. The step carries weight. The technical cause often sets the amount that can be claimed, decides whether there is recourse against a liable third party, and determines whether sister satellites of the same model stay covered if the failure points to a batch defect. The investigation can take months of telemetry review, simulation and engineering testimony. All that time, the insured does not know whether it will be paid for an asset that may be lost. For the insurer, the clause guards against a hasty settlement on a poorly established cause, in a line where few losses make a solid statistical base. In return it creates tension with the insured, who wants to recover its loss, and that tension runs higher when the event is public and dramatic. How long the investigation lasts, how it is shared between the parties, and what happens to payment if the cause stays undetermined are central negotiating points in any major space policy.

Its 6 cross-references, woven across the glossary's 18 categories
Anomaly investigation clause: Space risks glossary illustration, AlgoPolis
Example

The Falcon 9 explosion on its launch pad on September 1, 2016, destroying the Amos-6 satellite insured for roughly $200 million, triggered a technical investigation lasting several months before any payment was made, with the exact cause of the explosion remaining disputed.

Read next
Put it to work
Related terms
Stay informed

Follow the research

One letter a week. First, the week's underwriting note, when one is published: a dated, argued decision, signed by Paul Bernardski. Then what the observatory published on cyber risk, political risk and insurance. No account, no tracking.

No spam, one-click unsubscribe, no data ever sold.