Frontier Insurance

Overview

A leading international contractor operating in high-risk regions experienced a catastrophic loss when its remote operations camp was overrun during an armed insurgency.

The incident resulted in the near-total destruction of the site and significant disruption to operations, with estimated losses exceeding USD 12 million. The client had been under the impression that it was covered by a Political Violence (PV) insurance policy placed through a global insurance broker. However, following the loss, the client was informed that no such policy had been formally placed.

Challenge

Upon initial investigation, the client was faced with a disjointed and contradictory narrative:

The broker had failed to correctly place the PV policy with underwriters, despite collecting premiums and issuing documentation suggesting coverage was in force.

‍

The broker attempted to deflect liability by advising the client to pursue a claim under an unrelated Property Policy, despite the PV nature of the event.

‍

The insurer later agreed to retroactively accept the PV policy – a rare and complex move – but then questioned the validity of the claim based on notification timelines and proximate cause.

‍

Meanwhile, legal proceedings initiated by the client’s external counsel added layers of procedural risk and inadvertently triggered a defensive posture from the broker’s parent company, a major global insurance group.

Our Approach

Frontier Insurance & Reinsurance Brokers was retained to: 

Conduct an independent investigation and produce a comprehensive claim file.
Establish proximate cause through satellite imagery, police reports, site visit documentation, and verified media sources.
Quantify Business Interruption and Property Damage losses in line with industry standards.
Highlight the broker’s procedural failures and the resulting prejudice to the client’s recovery.
Strategically engage with both the broker and the insurer to reopen and reposition the claim.

Strategy

Key Strategies Implemented

Claims Advocacy: Frontier demonstrated the existence of a valid claim despite the policy’s retroactive acceptance by presenting overwhelming evidence that the loss stemmed from political violence and direct physical damage.
Tactical Restraint: Advised the client on how premature legal accusations (e.g., broker fraud) could prejudice other avenues of recovery, including access to the broker’s professional indemnity insurance.
Interdisciplinary Coordination: Worked in parallel with the client’s legal team to ensure claims submissions and communication strategies were aligned with broader litigation risk management.
Documentation Pressure: Pressed the broker and insurer to release key loss adjuster reports (McLarens and Integra) and internal communications to clarify their evolving positions.

‍

Outcome

Despite legal complexity and internal shifts in the client’s strategy, Frontier succeeded in:

Repositioning the claim as a Political Violence event.
Forcing acknowledgment of procedural failures in policy placement.
Preserving access to potential compensation under multiple policies and legal avenues.
Maintaining momentum on recovery efforts despite external legal constraints.

‍

Takeaways

Key Takeaways

Broker oversight and procedural lapses can materially impact coverage outcomes, especially in high-risk jurisdictions.
Retaining an expert intermediary with technical, legal, and strategic experience is critical when navigating post-loss ambiguity.
Coordination with legal counsel must be carefully managed to avoid undermining viable claims pathways.
Persistence and evidence-based advocacy can reopen doors—even in retroactively validated policies.

Recovering a Multimillion-Dollar Political Violence Claim Amid Broker Mis- representation and Policy Ambiguity.