RISK MANAGEMENTFORTUNNELSMünchenerRückMMunichReGroupMunich Re–Risk management fortunnels
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsCONTENTSPage1 Introduction32 Loss analysis and Historical tunnel Mont Blanc and Tauern tunnel fires as examples of losses93 Safety concepts for tunnels (road/rail tunnels, 13underground railway and rapid-transit railway systems) Objectives and requirements of construction Fire Escape and rescue Ventilation Tunnel fire departments Fire-extinguishing Conclusion174 Measures to improve the risk standard in tunnels Road tunnels Railway tunnels225 Short-term measures to improve the standard25of safety in road tunnels6 Safety rules for drivers277 Property aspects associated with tunnel Construction Operating phase328 Liability aspects associated with tunnel Example: Gotthard tunnel in Motor third-party Public Liability for tunnel Liability based on fault and strict liability in Germany based on fault and strict liability in Austria based on fault and strict liability in Insurance Product Accumulation in public and product Shortage of covering Possibilities for Summary of liability aspects47Comparison of motor third-party insurance in 48European marketsLiterature54
Munich Re 01Los Angeles, California,
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsINTRODUCTION1 3
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re 02View from the valley station to the tunnel portal of the -km tun-nel of the Kitzsteinhorn glacier railway. A severe fire occurred on 11 November 2000 about 600 m from this portal, killing 155 of the southern entrance to the Gotthard Tunnel nearAirolo. Smoke continued to rise out of the tunnel on the day afterthe catastrophic fire of 24 October 29 May 1999, a collision involving a lorry started a devastatingfire in which many were killed or injured. The intense developmentof smoke and heat made it difficult for rescue teams to reach thescene of the -four hours after a Belgian lorry caught fire, smoke was stillissuing from the Italian side of the Mont Blanc Tunnel. The disasterin 1999 cost 39 and rail tunnels have unfortunately remained aThe loss potential and magnitude will be presented herematter of debate following the catastrophic losses experi-from the point of view of property and third-party liabilityenced in recent years (fires in the Mont Blanc and the Hoheinsurance with the aid of examples. Insurers will have toTauern tunnels, both located in the Alps, as well as in theconsider the safety standards and contractual conditionsKitzsteinhorn glacier railway in Kaprun). Fire protection isfor underwriting the tunnel risk even more closely in in many tunnels, making the rapid evacuationThis will have a major effect on insurability and on pre-of victims almost impossible in some result is frequently a large number of tragic injuriesIt will be crucial to develop a tailor-made risk managementand fatalities, considerable infrastructural damage, liabilityconcept for every single tunnel. Attention will primarilylosses and loss of income due to the break in on the long tunnels with high traffic density. In add-The risk which the accumulation of property and liabilityition to suitable escape and approach routes, as well as effi-losses poses for insurers is difficult to ventilation systems, the requirements for structural,operational and organisational fire protection must also beThe most recent tunnel fires – mentioned above – weretaken into account – as for every involving the loss of numerous lives, althoughother worst-case scenarios are conceivable from the pointof view of property insurance. What was probably thelargest tunnel loss to date occurred in Kabul, Afghanistan,in 1982, when a military vehicle collided with a tanker truckin the 3-km-long Salang Tunnel and caused an explosion. Itwas never established whether the military vehicle wascarrying explosives. According to official statistics, 700people lost their lives, but experts claim the figure to be ashigh as 2000. Large sections of the tunnel collapsed onaccount of the immense
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels02 03 04055
Munich Re 06Major fire in the Mont Blanc Tunnel, 24 March 1999: The enormousheat made it almost impossible for fire fighters and rescue teams toadvance to the scene of the
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsLOSS ANALYSIS AND STATISTICS2 Tunnel structures must be viewed as highly exposed risksaffected. These factors usually prevent the emergencyduring the construction phase and when the completedcrews and fire fighters from reaching the scene of the firerisks cover is in force. The main risks during operation of water, earthquakes, collapse and above all are two main causes for tunnel fires: either they areThe most probable loss scenario for underground trafficcaused by technical defects or they are the result of a trafficfacilities (tunnels, railway stations) is an uncontrollable fire,accident. The former is the more common cause. for instance if a vehicle in a tunnel were to be consumed bya total is 20 times more likely to break out in a road tunnelthan in a railway tunnel. There have been no major firesDepending on the cause, a total fire involving a motor carwith large numbers of people suffering bodily injury in rail-can develop within roughly 10 minutes and within 20 to 30way tunnels in the recent past, although very many peopleminutes in the case of a be affected if a train were to catch fire, as seriousfires in underground railway stations have total vehicle fire in a road tunnel can generate so muchTunnel (country)Length (km)Year opened to trafficheat that the fire may spread to nearby vehicles. The max-Gotthard (CH) heat is reached after roughly half an hour. Experi-Arlberg (A) has shown that a fire spreading from car to car at aFréjus (F–I) of between and m is fairly rare. In the caseMont Blanc (F–I) the 1999 Mont Blanc Tunnel fire, however, the fire spreadPlabutsch (A) rapidly because the lorry was laden with margarineGleinalm (A) flour. The high fire load and ventilation conditions con-Karawanken (A) to the rapid spread of flames to other änder (A), fuel and plastic components in motor cars areSan Bernardino (CH) fire loads leading to high smoke (A) (CH) a fire burns out of control, people are in acute dan-Felbertauern (A) on account of the toxic fumes, immense heat, severelyBosruck (A) visibility, inadequate possibilities for escape andevacuation and as a result of panic on the part of those The following table lists the length of major Alpine tunnels and the yearin which they were opened to traffic. 7
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re BosruckPfänderGleinalmArlbergFelbertauernTauernGotthardKarawankenSan BernardinoGreat Mont BlancSt. Bernard07The map shows the main Alpine tunnels and highlights their infrastructural HISTORICAL TUNNEL FIRESYearTunnelLength No. ofCause (fire load)VictimsLoss(m)tubes1971Vranduk, BosniaTrain derailed, locomotive fire34 killed1972Fukui, JapanKitchen fire in dining car29 killed1978Velsen Tunnel, Netherlands7682Collision5 killed, 4 injured2 lorries, 4 cars 1979Nihonzaka Tunnel, Japan2,0452Collision, lorry (ether)7 killed, 2 injured46 cars, 127 lorries1982Caldecott Tunnel, USA (California)1,0283Tanker truck collision (33,000 litres of fuel)7 killed, 2 injured2 lorries, 1 bus, 1 car1984Gotthard Tunnel, 16,3211Lorry fire (plastic sheeting)None1 lorrySwitzerland1987Gumefens Tunnel, 3402Crash involving 3 lorries and 5 cars (fuel) 2 killed, 5 injured3 lorries, 5 carsSwitzerland1987Underground railway Fire caused by discarded match31 killed, station, King’s Cross,150 injuredLondon, UK1995Pfänder Tunnel, Austria6,7501Crash 3 killed 1 lorries, 1 bus, 2 cars1995Underground railway Short-circuit in the electrical system of 289 killed, tunnel, Baku,one of the wagons270 injuredAzerbaijan1996Tunnel, Palermo, ItalyTanker truck collided with rear of minibus 5 killed, 26 injured1 lorries, 1 minibusand exploded1996Eurotunnel fire on freight trainNoneApprox. France–England50 km 250m1998Gleinalm Tunnel,Austria8,3201Bus fireNoneBus1999Mont Blanc Tunnel, 11,6001Lorry fire (margarine, flour), fire due 39 killed, 23 lorries, 11 cars,France–Italyto technical defect34 injured2 fire engines1999Tauern Tunnel, Austria6,0411Collision between 2 cars and 1 lorry; lorry 12 killed,24 cars, 16 lorriesdoes not come to a halt at road works (paint)49 injured2000Kitzsteinhorn glacier Probably technical defect in heating fan155 killedrailway, Austria2001Gotthard Tunnel, 16,7001Collision between 2 lorries11 killed,19 injured13 lorries ,10 carsSwitzerland 2003Underground railwayFire started in a wagon by an arsonistApprox. 130 killed,tunnel, Daegu, Korea140 injuredThe table underlines the fact that major loss events regularly occur in road and rail tunnels and may claim many
Munich ReRisk management for km1,200 m800 mSide baySide baySide baySide baySide baySide baySide baySide bay171819202122232423 lorriesTwo fire appliances were burnt11 carsFrench entranceItalian entranceFire zone 1,200 m08Mont Blanc Tunnel: The diagram shows the scene of the accident. The temperatures in the -km-long fire zone reached up to 1,200° MONT BLANC AND TAUERN TUNNEL FIRES ASThe French operator switched the extraction system to fullEXAMPLES OF LOSSESpower and reduced the supply of fresh air, while the Italianoperator increased all ventilation systems to maximumIn 1998, million vehicles passed through the Mont Blancpower. This produced a highly unfavourable situation in-Tunnel and million vehicles through the Tauern the tunnel and made things more difficult for the res-The Gotthard Tunnel in Switzerland is one of the longestcue in Europe, with a total length of km. It has onlyone tube, plus a separate rescue tube and a professionalSeveral attempts by both French and Italian fire fighters tofire department at each end of the to the seat of the fire were thwarted by the im-mense smoke and heat. They were able to advance up toMajor fire in the Mont Blanc Tunnel, 24 March 1999, lorry1,200 m from the blazing lorry, but then had to be rescuedfire in turn. The fire load was so great that the bitumen pave-The single-bore Mont Blanc Tunnel was opened to trafficment melted and the tunnel tube of reinforced concreteon 16 July 1965. A French and an Italian company eachwas severely one half of the km long tunnel. The fire burned for 53 hours before it was finally put 1965, there have been 17 lorry fires which, however,Twenty-three lorries, 11 cars, one motor cycle and two firewere all extinguished within 15 minutes on average byengines were consumed by the flames. Thirty-nine peopleeither the driver or the fire their lives, including 29 who were either unable to fleeor fled too late and were burned in their vehicles, sevenShortly before 11 . on 24 March 1999, a lorry laden withsuffocated as they tried to escape, two died in the refuge9 t of margarine and 12 t of flour caught fire roughly in thechamber and one fireman died as a result of his injuriesmiddle of the tunnel, km from the French entrance. Thedespite being rescued. lorry driver was unable to extinguish the fire and fled to theItalian exit, some km away. A small number of vehicleswere able to turn around and leave the tunnel on the Italianside. No-one knew how many vehicles and people werestill inside the tunnel. The core zone of the fire covered alength of km with temperatures reaching up to 1,200°
ShotcreteMunich Re Cross-section ofthe Tauern TunnelConcrete mFresh airExhaustairTo Salzburg5 mSupply line To Villachfor fire-fight-ing mCable ductMain drainage channel09Cross-section of the Tauern Tunnel. During the fire on 29 May 2000,10Because of the high temperatures, not only were vehicles destroyedthe efficiency of the extraction system played a decisive role in en-but the structure of the tunnel was heavily damaged due to spalling ofabling the fire department to combat the fire from both tunnel has the following safety features:tained in the accident and four as a result of the fire. Three– Portable fire extinguishers every 100 mof the victims apparently made no attempt to escape or– Side bays every 300 mtried to flee when it was already too late.– Pressurised refuge chambers for roughly 40 people every600 m, fire-resistant for 2 hours, installed in 1991A roughly 100-m length of tunnel suffered severe damage.– Video surveillance, installed in 1995The high temperatures caused the concrete to spall and– Fire detection system, installed in 1997large chunks of the ceiling collapsed. The tunnel was only– Ventilation system reopened to traffic three months air: maximum 52 m/s per km3Exhaust air: maximum 26 m/s per km A comparison of the fires in the Mont Blanc and Tauern(can conversely also be used as a fresh air supply) Tunnels reveals that the speed with which the fire de-veloped, the high temperatures and the lack of informationMajor fire in the Tauern Tunnel, 29 May 1999, head-to-tailas to the number of vehicles affected by the fire were factorscollisioncommon to single-bore Tauern Tunnel was opened to traffic in1975. Since then, one car fire and four lorry fires have oc-The Mont Blanc Tunnel is operated by two companies, withcurred in the tunnel, with each blaze involving only onethe result that the rescue teams were differently equipped. In the Tauern Tunnel, by contrast, there isonly one control centre, making coordination of the rescueOn 29 May 1999, a lorry was unable to come to a halt inworkers very much time at road works 600 m before the tunnel exit anddrove into the back of four vehicles, including a lorry ladenSince the seat of the fire in the Tauern Tunnel was locatedwith spray paint. Leaking fuel and the high fire load of thenear the north portal, all except four people were able tospray paint helped the blaze to spread rapidly. escape. The recent fire in the Mont Blanc Tunnel had prob-ably also heightened drivers’ awareness of the risk, forThe fire spread from one vehicle to the next. Due to themany of the victims in the earlier tunnel fire had not evenconsiderable heat and smoke, the fire fighters had greatattempted to flee, thus accounting for the large number ofdifficulty in controlling the blaze. The ventilation it possible to fight the fire from both sides. Afterabout 16 hours, the fires were extinguished with the help of22 fire engines. Sixteen lorries and 24 cars were destroyed,12 people lost their lives – eight as a result of injuries sus-10
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels11 In the Gotthard Tunnel disaster, even vehicles located far away12This photograph of the interior of the Gotthard Tunnel in Switzer-from the fire were covered in a thick layer of soot and on 31 October 2001 shows part of the collapsed tunnel and a burnt-out ventilation system was another decisive factor: the sys-Property and business interruption losstem in the Tauern Tunnel was considerably more efficientClosing the single-bore Tauern Tunnel for a single mainand powerful than that in the Mont Blanc Tunnel. In thesummer season can give rise to business interruptionTauern Tunnel the ventilation system was automatically setlosses of around 20m. By way of comparison: the totalto maximum power by the fire detection system. Moreover,cost of building a second tube for the Tauern Tunnel the direction of the exhaust air system was be around factors allowed the fire fighters to search for victimsand to fight the fire from both the probability of a tunnel fire is fairly small – asalready outlined – the extent of the loss is usually consider-The Tauern Tunnel was equipped with the following :– Hydrants and fire-fighting equipment every 106 m– Refuge chambers with two portable fire extinguishers Tunnel Loss of incomeCost of repairsTotaland a telephone every 212 m( )( )( )– Side bays every 848 – Video surveillanceMont Blanc Tunnel*203m189m392m– Fire detection systemTauern – Ventilation system: 4 sectors* estimated(3 fresh air, 1 exhaust air)3Fresh air: maximum 190 m/s per km3Exhaust air: maximum 115 m/s per km11
Munich Re 1312
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsSAFETY CONCEPTS FOR TUNNELS(ROAD/RAIL TUNNELS, UNDER-3 GROUND RAILWAY AND RAPID-TRANSIT RAILWAY SYSTEMS) OBJECTIVES AND REQUIREMENTS OF CONSTRUC-Comparison between tunnels and buildingsTION LAWAustrian regulations stipulate, for example, that the firecompartments in a structure must not be larger than22Head-to-tail collisions in single-bore road tunnels usually1,000m; 1,600 mare permitted in Germany. Applied tooccur at times with high traffic density so that followingtunnels, this means that a fire wall would have to be builtvehicles cannot come to a halt quickly enough. This ex-every 100 or 160 m. The comparison between buildingsplains why such collisions normally involve numerousand tunnels is consequently only valid to a limited extent,vehicles. If a fire breaks out, the consequences can be cata-but it does shed light on the dilemma. Every single buildingstrophic. Escape routes are frequently lacking – especiallyhas to be analysed separately with regard to its fire protec-in older tunnels – and the safety facilities required for fight-tion. This naturally applies all the more to such specialing a blaze tend to be inadequate. The emission of a greatstructures as tunnels. deal of smoke not only makes it more difficult for victims toescape but also obstructs rescuers. Ventilation systems areWhich substitute measures are demanded by Austrian lawfrequently inadequate for such disasters. There is a greatif the fire compartments in a building exceed the permis-build-up of heat, turning the tunnel into a furnace within asible limits? As in Germany, the main points are:very short space of time. The tunnel ceiling collapses as the– Smoke and heat exhaust venting systemstemperature difference between the relatively cool rock – – Automatic fire detection and fire-extinguishing systems a poor conductor of thermal energy – and the great heat– Works fire brigadeinside the tunnel gives rise to tension in the concrete andcauses it to spall. Even when the blaze has been extin-In simplified form and as a rough approximation, the fol-guished or smothered, the heat remains for many rules of thumb apply here:Consequently, the work of the rescue teams often con-– Automatic fire detection systems and exhaust ventingtinues for many days, and it is not always possible to iden-systems for heat and smoke are required for areas of2tify the 1,000 mor more (this corresponds to a 100-mlength of tunnel)2– Sprinkler systems are installed for areas of 4,000 mormore in practice (corresponds to roughly 400 m of tunnel)– Company fire services are prescribed for areas of more2than 8,000 m, . in department stores (correspondingto a tunnel length of roughly 800 m)13
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re Safety measures Building regulations Road tunnels Rail tunnelsUnderground railway tunnelsEmergency exits/25–35 m, depending onEvery 350 m as from aLength of escape route Length of escape routeescape hatchesthe building length of 700 m normally 500 m to thenormally 300 m to thenearest emergency exitnearest emergency exitFire brigade accessFor buildings between To the tunnel entrances To the tunnel entrancesTo the station entrances 7 and 22 m highand emergency exitsand emergency exitsand emergency exitsWall hydrantsOver 30 mEvery 175 mAt each end of the station, each with 60 m of dimen-sionally stable hoseExtinguishing-waterBuilding height: 60 mEvery 175 m as from a From each end of the pipe, dry typetunnel length of 1,050 mstation 100 m into the tunnel with B connectionsevery 50 mResponse time10 minutes from receiving the emergency call to arrivalon the sceneVentilation/smoke exhaustStairwells, specialOver 1,050 m Locks in rescue tunnels ventingstructures in accordance (fire load from 60 to and shaftswith regulations150 MW)The building code for underground structures and the equipment standards in Germany. According to the current regulations in Austria governing– Disaster control (preventing fire from spreading uncon-the construction of road tunnels, cross passages are nor-trollably)mally built every 800 m in twin-tube tunnels. Escape tunnelsare only provided for single-bore tunnels in exceptionalFire protection plans in Germany are based on the VdScases – such as in the Plabutsch Tunnel. There are alreadyguidelines (VdS – Association of Property Insurers) amongmore than 20 single-bore tunnels with an overall length ofothers. Internationally, they are based on NFPA standardsmore than 2 km in Austria. The Arlberg Tunnel is the longest(National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 130, 502), forAustrian tunnel with a length of almost 14 km (Mont : km). The Gotthard Tunnel in Switzerland is evenlonger: km. As far as escape is concerned, tunnels areThe following elements in particular must be reconsideredalmost uncontrollable structures if the worst case scenarioif tunnels are to be effectively protected against fire: fire , escape and rescue routes, ventilation system, fire-extinguishing system and tunnel fire German motorists’ association ADAC regularly investi-gates the safety of road tunnels on the basis of certain FIRE DETECTIONteria: in 2002, 8 out of 30 were considered to be totally or at least fairly inadequate. The mere fact that these surveysIn tunnels, as in the case of buildings, it is essential that aare carried out shows that there is potential for optimisingfire be detected with an accuracy of a few (2–4) metressafety in tunnels. Deficiencies were found above all in thebefore a total fire breaks out in a vehicle, . within a fewstructural fire protection and the possibility of escape. and organisational measures as safe escape tun-nels and chambers, effective smoke extraction systems andThe influence of tunnel winds (up to 10 m/s or more) mustevacuation concepts are therefore central elements in anybe eliminated. Linear heat detectors can detect a rise incomprehensive fire protection plan for not only from the heat convection, but alsofrom the radiated focuses on the following objectives:– Personal protection for victims and emergency personnelWhen a fire is detected, it has proved useful for the control– Protection of property (integrity of the tunnel structure,centre to switch on video surveillance in the area triggeringinfrastructure)the alarm, as this makes it possible to investigate falsealarms and to take appropriate organisational
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels14Rescue teams on 26 March 1999 in Chamonix making the necessarypreparations before attempting to advance to the scene of the acci-dent in the Mont Blanc ESCAPE AND RESCUE VENTILATION SYSTEMSTwo independent escape routes are always required inVentilation systems are the tunnel counterpart to heat andbuildings. People must be able to escape into a safe areasmoke exhaust venting systems in buildings. The ventila-after fleeing for not more than 35 m, for instance (. stair-tion system has a major effect on the propagation of smokewell with fire-resistant separation, emergency exit to theand pollutants following a fire or accident involving haz-outside, etc.).ardous second escape route does not exist in single-bore tun-A burning car naturally produces much less smoke than anels, due to their design. Consequently, the maximum dis-tanker truck. The following table lists a few of the main firetance for escaping cannot be maintained. This makes theparameters. The figures refer to a single vehicle in eachdemand for twin tubes with corresponding cross passagescase:(escape and rescue routes) understandable. As in the caseof buildings, structural substitute measures can also be ap-ParameterMotor carTruck/busTanker truckplied here. As part of a fire protection plan, these includeFire load (GJ) *3–640–90Up to 1,500emergency tunnels, rescue chambers and such supplemen-Fire power (MW) **–520–3050–200tary safety equipment as breathing-air lines or fire andMaximum fire temp. (°C)400–850700–1,0001,200–1,400smoke suppression systems. The Austrian Federal Fire De-3Smoke (m/s)20–4060–90100–300partment Association (ÖBFV) requires a maximum escape* Gigajoules **Megawattsand access distance of 250 m to the nearest safe area forroad figures help to explain why the blaze in the JapaneseNihonzaka Tunnel raged for seven days in 1979. The fireThere are few single-bore tunnels in Switzerland. Even theconsumed 127 lorries, including two tanker trucks -km Seelisberg Tunnel has two tubes. The -kmtrailers, and 46 cars. In the 1999 fire in the Mont Blanc Tun-Gotthard Tunnel at least has a safety tunnel at an axial dis-nel, 23 lorries, 11 cars, two fire engines and a motor cycletance of 30 m for escape and rescue for as long as 53 hours. The incipient phase of a fire lasts 5 to 10 minutes, while thetotal fire period continues for 30 minutes or
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re Particularly the flow conditions prevailing in a tunnel havetrials have yielded the following times required to advancea decisive effect on the course of a fire there. Differences in100 metres in a tunnel:height can give rise to wind speeds of more than 10 m/s(natural convection).– Advance with heavy breathing apparatus: 5 minutes– Advance with a C-pipe (hose with a 48-mm diameter): A distinction is made in ventilation concepts between10 minutesforced ventilation in normal operations (1–2 m/s) and high-– Rescue injured people: 15 minutesspeed ventilation (up to approx. 3 m/s) to dispel smokefrom the tunnel. Longitudinal ventilation, semi-cross venti-Tunnel fire departments have repeatedly demonstratedlation with continuous and local extraction and cross-venti-their proficiency in action over the years. For the fighting lation are the most important smoke extraction underground railway fires, for instance, they take pre-cautions to ensure that the injured can be transported byVisible jet fans (longitudinal ventilation) are generally onlyrail and that radio communications are maintained under-suitable for directional carriageways and relatively shortground. Nevertheless, when a disaster actually does occur,tunnels. In the case of semi-cross ventilation, fresh air islarge numbers of people can only be rescued effectively – blown into the tunnel via a separate ventilation duct (usual-if at all – with tremendous effort, as the time required toly through ventilation slits in the ceiling). The exhaust airadvance with heavy breathing apparatus bears witness. Atand, in the case of fire, the fumes generated stream out ofsuch times, protecting property is of secondary tunnel in longitudinal FIRE-EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMSWith complete cross-ventilation, the blowing in of fresh airand extraction of fumes can be controlled if a fire breaksThe measures outlined above (escape and rescue routes, extraction via the ventilation system) are certainlyexpedient, but none of them help to fight the fire immedi-It is crucial that the ventilation system be suited to the tun-ately after it has broken out and stop it from in question. In the event of a fire, it must delay the fill-ing of the tunnel with smoke effectively enough to allowIf, on the other hand, an automatic fire-extinguishing sys-the victims to escape without assistance. The suitability oftem is activated as soon as a fire breaks out, the fire can various ventilation concepts has been determined in firebe suppressed to such an extent that people are able totests and in some cases also simulated with numericalescape and fire fighters can advance to the seat of the ; the EUREKA project “Firetun” and the fire tests inthe Memorial Tunnel are two such applied fire-fighting water cools the surroundings andprevents the fire from spreading. This also drastically re-Focusing solely on ventilation as the only safety conceptduces the development of fumes. Visibility is largely main-appears questionable, particularly as the latest disasterstained and the victims can escape from the danger zonehave shown that these systems have their limits in terms ofwithout , at which point the accumulation of smokecan no longer be fire-extinguishing system in a tunnel should achieve thefollowing objectives: TUNNEL FIRE DEPARTMENTS– Prevent fire from spreading– Cool the fire gasesCompany fire departments are of particular importance– Wash out aerosols (fumes)when it comes to rescuing victims and fighting fires in tun-– Protect the tunnel structurenels. They can intervene in the fire within minutes. Firefighting is particularly effective during the incipient bodywork parts may prevent automatic systemsWhen the fire has reached a more advanced stage, thefrom fighting the fire at its seat, fires can nevertheless besmoke and heat may have become so intense that it is im-controlled and the aforementioned objectives achievedpossible to advance to the seat of the such apparatus is a factor of paramount importanceThere are various fire-extinguishing systems available onfor fighting tunnel fires and when dealing with accidentsthe market. Their suitability should be established for eachinvolving hazardous substances in tunnels. Reproducible particular situation, possibly in test series. The familiar 16
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels15Fire fighters wearing breathing apparatus working in the Gotthard Tunnel near Airolo on 25 October 2001. Although the salvaging teams hadadvanced to within sight of the scene of the accident in the tunnel, the exact scale of the catastrophe only emerged several days later. On 26 October, the authorities assumed that crews would not reach what was known as the “red zone” until 29 October, where further victims ofthe inferno of 24 October were expected to be and water fog systems are only suitable for use CONCLUSIONtunnels in very special cases on account of the strong aircurrents sometimes recent disasters in tunnels have shown that there aresometimes considerable deficiencies in risk and emergencyDeluge installations are effective in tunnels: they spray fire-management, as well as in the safety of underground trafficfighting water into large tunnel sections as soon as they areinstallations. Although the requirements for buildings can-activated. They can also be activated manually. Extensivenot be directly compared with those for tunnels, the com-trials on the dimensioning of deluge installations have beenparison does help to highlight the problems involved. Indi-carried out in the test tunnel at Hagerbach, safety measures frequently come up against theirlimits in an uncontrollable blaze. For this reason, structural,This relatively inexpensive technology is also supported byoperational and organisational measures must interact sodecades of experience: the costs are estimated to lie be-that the objectives of personal protection, property protec-tween and 1m per kilometre of and disaster control can be installations have already been fitted in a number ofAn integrated safety concept must be developed for everytunnels in Japan (tunnels which are more than 10 km longsingle shorter tunnels with particularly high traffic density) andSweden (Stockholm ring tunnel).17
Munich Re 16Fire fighters accompanying the rescue train in the SchönrainTunnel on the Würzburg-Frankfurt ICE high-speed train routeon 4 July 1998. The derailment of an ICE train was simulatedin the four-kilometre tunnel in the disaster control exercise“Mole 98”. Four hundred relief workers from the Red Cross,fire services, police, German Federal Border Guard and thetechnical relief organisation had the task of rescuing about100 injured passengers from the high-speed train, including a number with serious injuries. 18
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsMEASURES TO IMPROVE THERISK STANDARD IN TUNNELS4 19
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re 17 Constructed according to a new safety concept, the fire engine for the Mont18Worker during a safety test in the Mont Blanc Tunnel. SafetyBlanc Tunnel can travel forwards and in reverse at the same speed. Thesetests began in the tunnel, a major north-south road link, in thefire engines are expected to achieve even greater efficiency when rescuingwake of the catastrophic fire in which 39 lost their lives. Disasterpeople and fighting include the simulation of smoke development ROAD TUNNELS Safety management – Shoulders and breakdown areasThe following measures must be considered in the respect-– Sufficiently wide carriageway and emergency walkwaysive areas (refer also to sections to , above):– Complete video surveillance – Automatic detection of traffic jamsStructural measures– Continuous traffic reports, with the possibility of addition-– Separate tunnel tubes for traffic in each direction and aally relaying news flashesthird tube for use as an escape route and as an access– Loudspeaker system for announcementsroute for rescue teams (with separate ventilation for each– Noise-proof emergency telephonestube)– Automatic activation of a closed-circuit camera and appli-– If the tunnel is built with “only” two tubes, cross-pas-cation of speed limits when an emergency call is madesages should be provided (as closely spaced as possible)– Strict control of vehicle speeds and distance betweenwhich can alternatively be used as escape and rescuevehicles, with drastic fines for all violationsroutes (cross-passages also ventilated separately)– Emergency lighting to identify escape routes (. fluor-– Carriageway of non-combustible material (. concreteescent system)instead of asphalt)– Vehicle counting system with traffic lights to limit thenumber of vehicles in the tunnel (knowing the number ofOrganisational measurespossible victims is important for coordinating the work of– No or only escorted transport of hazardous substancesthe rescue teams)through road tunnelsFire detection systemFire department– Automatic fire detection system: entrances to the tunnel– High standard of training and equipment for fire fightersare closed automatically if a fire breaks out, the fire venti-– Fire departments at each entrance to tunnels over a par-lation system is activated and the fire department alertedticular length – Regular disaster exercises 20
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels19German and Austrian fire fighters extinguishing car fires on 20Two were killed and 11 injured in a pile-up in the 800-m Helbersberg21 September 2001 in the border tunnel near Füssen as part of aTunnel near Salzburg on 12 April 2001. A total of four lorries andjoint exercise. Some 570 relief workers took part in the exercise11cars were involved in the the simulation of a road accident in the 1,284-m fightingThe possibilities suggested here are by no means exhaust-– Deluge installation so that people can be rescued and fireive. Moreover, only selected measures can be realised infighters can advance more easily (the fire is fought in itsany tunnel and integrated into the safety concept. For bothincipient phase, cooling effect in the tunnel with suppres-new and existing tunnels, the development and implemen-sion of smoke)tation of tailor-made safety concepts in consultation with– Continuous pressurised water lines and hydrants at ap-fire protection and risk management experts is a matter ofpropriate distances throughout the tunnelprime importance.– Automatic activation of the fire ventilation system andclosure of the tunnel as soon as a fire extinguisher isremoved from its locationVentilation– Special ventilation programs for activation in the event ofa fire, with due regard for longitudinal air flows– Adequate dimensioning of the fire ventilation system– Functional capability of the fire ventilation systemdemonstrated in fire tests– Automatic activation of the fire ventilation system – Separately ventilated “fire escape hoods” in the emer-gency telephone baysThe points set out above can serve as a guide to improvethe risk standard when drawing up a safety concept for atunnel. More importantly, however, preventive, defensiveand organisational measures must be established so thatvictims can escape from the tunnel. Particularly in caseswith high fire loads or dense smoke, rescue teams canhardly advance at all, or only very slowly. 21
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re 21 Fire fighters in the 1,555-m Fernthal Tunnel in Neustadt/Wied22 Fire fighters laying several kilometres of hosing in the smoky(Rhineland-Palatinate) during a disaster control exercise on the newlyICE tunnel near Jühnde (Göttingen district) on 2 March 1999, inconstructed Cologne-Rhine/Main ICE route. A fire on an ICE 3 wasorder to extinguish a fire on the derailed, burning wagon of asimulated in this scenario, in which 250 people participated. Severalgoods train; an auxiliary tunnel train used to transport the hoseshundred fire fighters took part in this real-life be seen on the RAILWAY TUNNELS Assisted rescue– Safe access to tunnel entrances and emergency exitsRailway tunnels are usually unventilated, meaning that the– Tracks suitable for driving overcourse of the fire depends essentially on flow conditions– Specification of possible helicopter landing areas(natural convection) and the location of the fire in the tun-– Water supply points at a maximum distance of 300 mnel, as well as on the length, gradient and dimensions offrom a rescue area at a tunnel portal and from the emer-the tunnel. Technical defects are rarely the cause of firesgency exits, possibly incorporated in local mains systemshere: vandalism and arson are the most frequent causes.– Dry water pipes from the outside emergency exits to thetunnel tubeThe objective for railway tunnels is to permit self-rescue.– Connections for electric power in tunnels over 1,000 mTime is a factor of decisive importance to the rescue teams,longparticularly in more remote areas. In Germany, the require-– Assured communications (including line telephones)ments to be met with regard to fire protection are set out in– Preparation of plans of action for alarm situations, mis-such standards as DIN 5510: they stipulate, for example,sions, rescue and disaster controlthat only materials of low flammability should be used for– Training and equipment of the rescue services specificallyrail-bound operations in tunnels (. self-contained open-circuitcompressed-air breathing apparatus for sustained use,The following measures must be considered in order to im-heat imaging camera, mobile smoke extractor fans)prove the risk (refer also to Section 3):– Special earthing equipment– Fire-extinguishing systems in important technical cavernsSelf-rescuein the tunnel– Emergency exits spaced as closely as possible– Emergency telephones at the emergency exits and tunnelentrances– Rescue shafts and tunnels where appropriate with locks(space for at least 25 people behind the locks)– Secure emergency lighting and marking of escape routes22
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels23 A burning wagon, laden with cellulose and paper, blocked 24 Fire fighters practising the rescue of an injured man after athe -m tunnel on the high-speed Hanover-Würzburg routesimulated fire in a train on underground line 3 in Hamburg-near Jühnde in the Göttingen district for several hours. The fireMümmelmannsberg on 11 December 2002. In addition to simu-blazed for almost 12 hours before it was finally a tunnel fire, they also practised fighting a fire at a measures:Rapid-transit railway systems, underground railways or– Equipment to detect overheating axles, particularly be-local public transportfore entering long or major tunnels (overheat detection– Emergency brake override by the driver or automaticallysystems)to permit rescue at the station (instead of in the tunnel)– Warning system for detecting protrusions (. displace-– Doors of rail-bound vehicles unlock mechanicallyment of the freight)– Areas with high fire loads (. kiosks, shops, storage– System for monitoring axle and wheel loads (longitudinalareas, restaurants) preferably equipped with automaticdisplacement of the freight)fire-extinguishing installations (mandatory requirement– Emergency brake override in combination with emer-stipulated by the Ordinance on sales outlets, VdS regula-gency running properties so that the rail-bound vehicletions, NFPA, etc.)can leave the tunnel– Automatic fire detection system– Longitudinal tunnel gradient possibly greater than the– Wet wall hydrantsrolling resistance of the trains so that they can roll out ofthe danger area under gravityMeasures designed to improve risk standards and fireprotection in road tunnels can naturally be considered forrailway tunnels too. The points listed above reflect only aselection of the possible approaches. In all cases, it will benecessary to develop a fire and disaster control plan that istailored to the specific tunnel in consultation with fire pro-tection and risk management photographs on this and the previous page give someidea of the difficulty involved in fighting a fire in a railwaytunnel. Access is often difficult, the high fire loads in thewagons feed the fire and crews can only advance withheavy breathing apparatus on “impassable” tracks
Munich Re 2524
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsSHORT-TERM MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE STANDARD OF5 SAFETY IN ROAD TUNNELSIf structural measures cannot be undertaken to consider-Electronic escape route guide systems are another short-ably improve the situation with regard to escape routes –term measure to help people escape. Luminescent infor-and this is the case in many older tunnels – the emergencymation signs and fluorescent arrows should be installed ascall cells should at least be improved as a short-terma minimum requirement. The distance to the nearest should also be indicated at suitable the fire in the Tauern Tunnel showed, these cells canprovide provisional protection against smoke. If a secondtunnel tube cannot be built, they should be converted intogenuine refuge chambers in future. Isolated areas withbreathable air, possibly using excess pressure systems orsystems with chemical oxygen, are also
Munich Re 26Road accident in the Lainberg Tunnel near Windischgarsten (UpperAustria). Two people died and two others were injured following a head-on collision between two
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsSAFETY RULES FOR DRIVERS6 Breakdown, accident, fire – What should I do?Smoke or fire in the tunnelThere is no such thing as total safety. Personal conduct is – Keep calma factor of decisive importance for self-rescue in a tunnel.– Switch on hazard warning lightsGeneral traffic rules should be observed; above all, in-– Pull up to the rightcrease the distance between yourself and the vehicle in– Clear a path for rescue servicesfront (cars approx. 50 m, lorries approx. 100 m). Refuel in– Do not make a U-turn, otherwise you will prevent accessgood time, take off your sunglasses and never cross theby rescue servicesdouble solid line on the road. – Switch off the engine, set the ventilation to recirculation– Leave the vehicle if necessary Traffic jam in the tunnel– Move away from the fire towards the nearest refuge area– Pull up at the side (do not enter the tunnel)or entrance, following the escape arrows– Switch off the engine– Only attempt to fight the fire yourself if it is small. Leave– Stay in the carthe area immediately if dense smoke develops, otherwise– Switch on the radioyou may suffocate– Leave the key in the ignition so that the vehicle can beBreakdown in the tunnelrescued and removed quickly, but take your documents– Switch on hazard warning lightswith you– Pull up to the right– Use the SOS/breakdown area– Call for help, preferably via the emergency call cell topinpoint your location27
Munich Re 27Dresden (Saxony): Extension of the tunnel in Dresden-Dölzschen on27 June 2002 for the planned A 17 motorway. The 1,070-m tunnel ispart of the section extending from Dresden-Gorbitz to the southernsuburbs of Dresden. The costs of constructing this section come toa hefty
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsPROPERTY ASPECTS ASSOCIATEDWITH TUNNEL STRUCTURES729
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re CONSTRUCTION PHASETunnels are not uncommonly prestige projects. In manycountries, the planning is consequently contracted out toDue to the complexity and in many cases also the sheerinternationally reputed engineering companies, but thesize of these projects, changes in the construction workwork itself is often undertaken by local firms. Fierce com-frequently become necessary despite careful and thoroughpetition and high cost pressure increasingly compel firmsplanning. Such changes may be necessitated by unfore-to hire unqualified personnel. Their lack of experience andseen subsoil conditions, for instance. This complexitysometimes inadequate equipment has made many a pro-makes it necessary for many companies and experts toject an expensive affair for the principal and the together on an interdisciplinary basis when planningand building such a project. Adequate insurance coverSimilar situations are not unknown to insurers of tunnelmust therefore be ensured for all concerned: the customer,projects with tight budgets or schedules. The losses hereconstruction contractors, planning engineers, hydrologists,are essentially due to inadequate prior analysis of the routegeologists, structural engineers, architects, visitors, andgeology. Detailed on-site planning during the usually cannot remedy this shortcoming. Securing ofthe foundations based on “empirical values” or the use ofInsurance concepts for tunnel installations during the con-tunnel-driving methods which are not appropriate to thestruction phase and during their subsequent operation areprevailing soil conditions repeatedly cause special feature of tunnel projects is that the con-Risk potential during the construction phasestruction period is often very long so that the investmentThe risk potential for a tunnel is far greater than for othersums and thus also the sums insured are consequentlyconstruction works. First of all, there is the undergroundvery high. Once signed, insurance contracts normally can-routing, which in itself entails a high loss potential. Con-not be terminated, with the result that all parties must enterstantly changing geological conditions are responsible forinto a long-term relationship based on mutual CAR losses, . the collapse of the vault or theingress of water due to water holes, if they are not dis-These examples of the special conditions associated withcovered in good construction show that every project is unique. Theinsurers should therefore be involved in such projects fromConsiderable third-party liability losses may be incurredan early stage so that the required insurance cover can bedue to the settlement of existing buildings particularlytaken into account also with respect to risk managementwhen routing tunnels through built-up areas. operations are often required in order to preventimminent collapse. This applies particularly in the case ofInsurance during the construction phasehistorical buildings, but also in the case of confined routesEngineering insurers in particular offer a large number ofand routes near ground for insuring tunnel construction projects. Theseare listed in the following table, which additionally com-Experience has shown that the temporary diversion of traf-pares German products with the customary internationalfic in conjunction with the open method of building leads to a high loss frequency. Third-party liabil-ity claims are frequently asserted because pedestrians areThe scope of cover of the German and international insur-injured on inadequately secured temporary bridges or as aance terms and conditions can be compared without diffi-result of car accidents due to inadequate illumination of theculty when selecting the appropriate clauses. This willconstruction site, or because construction site safety de-therefore only be mentioned specifically in the followingvices have been removed if there are major discrepancies. The terms andconditions listed in the table are standard products whichDamage to the existing infrastructure is almost inevitablemust be modified or extended for tunnel constructionwhen building tunnels near the surface or using the method: telephone lines are often severed orwater pipes destroyed. This damage is due not so much tonegligence on the part of the contractors as to the absenceor inaccuracy of drawings. Damaged gas pipes in particularhave caused devastating
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsNational products (Germany)International productsGeneral conditions for contractors’ all risks insurance forContractors’ all risks insurance (CAR) (Section l of the CAR policy):new buildings erected by the customer (ABN)combined policy for all parties involved in construction worksGeneral conditions for contractors’ all risksinsurance for contract works (ABU)General conditions for erection all risks (AMoB)Erection all risks insurance (EAR): an EAR policy for the electro-mechanical part can be integrated in CARGeneral conditions for machinery and hull insurance for mobile Machinery breakdown insurance with extended hull insuranceor portable equipment (ABMG 92)(hull inclusion)Exclusion of mechanical and electrical breakdown through Clause 052 Part of the CAR policy or separate construction plant andor machinery part-insurance (MTV)machinery insurance (CPM)Miscellaneous third-party liability covers for all concernedSection II of the CAR policy: third-party liability (TPL)Personal accident insurance of all concerned in construction works Workers’ compensation insurance (WC), insurance for the particular (statutory requirement)projectTunnel insurance productsContractors’ all risks insuranceThe sum insured is initially equal to the planned projectContractors’ all risks insurance (internationally: CAR,value. In order to take account of inflation during extendedSection I) is an all risks cover for all unforeseen propertyconstruction periods and to avoid underinsurance, roughlylosses, . material losses excluding consequential losses,20% must be added to this sum as a safety margin; it will inincurred in the construction work. In other words, all lossesany case be corrected upon completion. The sum insuredwhich have not been explicitly excluded in the terms ofshould be adjusted in the policy if it becomes clear duringinsurance are automatically covered. The German termsthe construction period that the projected costs will be ex-require that fire, lightning strikes and explosions be in-ceeded. Contractors’ all risks insurance should be com-cluded for customer and contractor and should name all the parties involved in the project during the constructionExtended cover based on the first-loss sum is recommend-phase under the heading “Policyholder”. This greatly facili-ed, . a requirement-based sum which is not reinstatedtates the settlement of the term of the policy for– the customer’s property, . existing underground rail-Contractors’ third-party liability insuranceway stations, in conjunction with expansion projects,While German standard terms of insurance require the con-– clean-up costs, . for the removal of subsoil which hasclusion of separate third-party liability insurance for , this Third-Party Liability Insurance, Section II is an integral part of the CAR policy. It covers damage andAs a rule, the design, planning and execution risk can add-losses to third parties resulting from the construction workitionally be insured on the basis of a limit of indemnity, . and for which the contractors are held liable by law. Ex-a specified sum per loss event. However, this cover onlytended cover with agreed first-loss sum or possibly a limitincludes consequential losses caused by defective com-of indemnity for this is recommended for construction be-ponents during the construction surrounding property. The same applies to damage tothird-party property due to a lowering of the groundwater. Extended liability (maintenance) can also be concluded torun on from the CAR policy. There are two types of extend-Insurance against damage to underground facilities, suched liability: the simple variety covers damage to the con-as telephone or power cables, as well as water, gas andstruction works due to maintenance and minor rework tosewage pipes, is also important. The obligation to indemni-the construction. The other variety – also known as extend-fy is usually limited to the repair of damaged property anded maintenance – additionally covers losses incurred dur-does not cover any consequential this period but caused during the construction
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re Cover for delayed commissioning due to property damageThe sum insured is equal to the replacement value of theUnder extended cover, unlike contractors’ all risks insurance,machines, . the last listed price when new. The insuranceonly the customer should be listed as the has a term of one year. For tunnels as long-term con-struction projects, this consequently means that the pre-The sum insured is based on the gross profit lost due to themium is calculated on a pro rata temporis in completion resulting from the damage. In the caseof traffic tunnels, it will be equal to the lost income fromIf a loss occurs, the necessary cost of repairs will be indem-tolls, for example. The gross profit is made up of the netnified without deductions in the case of partial losses. Theprofit, . the actual profit from operating a tunnel, plus theactual value of the machine immediately before the lossfixed costs, . all expenses incurred even when the tunneloccurrence (current value) will be applied in the case of ais not open to traffic (. personnel). The limit of indemnitytotal loss. A special depreciation rate based on the lengthof the policy depends on the agreed period of indemnity: ifof tunnel driven should be agreed for a period of indemnity is two years, for example, the max-imum indemnity under the policy will be equal to twice OPERATING PHASEannual sum insured. Since this sum is of relevance for thePML, this may lead to shortages in capacity for the insurerThe policies listed below are recommended or requiredin the case of major projects. The total liability is thereforeduring operation (not exhaustive):often capped by a limit. Under the German terms, which– Fire policy F/FBI, civil engineering completed risk are based on the MLOP insurance and are modified(CECR)/CECR-LOPthrough corresponding clauses, the deductible applies per– Inherent defects insurance = 10-year liability for construc-loss event. Aggregate limits may also be works (should only be granted in certain countries)– Rolling stock policy: insurance of mobile equipmentToday, however, underwriters are urgently advised to steeradapted in accordance with ABMG, CPM or conditions forclear of this extended cover, since the loss experience withmarine insurance/rolling stock LOPtunnel projects has been extremely negative in terms of– Operators’ liabilityboth the sizes of claims and the long repair times in insurance with extended covers or CECR insurance forproperty cover for tunnel structures is customary inter-Construction machinery insurancenationally. CECR insurance is basically a fire policy withConstruction machinery insurance may include either hullextended only – . extraneous events causing a loss – oradditionally the internal machine losses formerly known asOnly specified risks are covered (no all risks cover). Thesemachine breakdown. The latter is usually waived. This isinclude: fire, explosion, natural perils, landslides, rockfalls,due not only to the high insurance premiums but also toland subsidence and vandalism by individuals. When under-the fact that the majority of losses involve non-indemnifi-writing complex electronic control systems and surveil-able wear parts as a result of operations in extremely roughlance systems, it may be advisable to include covers fromconditions. Such exceptions as pure machine breakdownelectronic equipment insurance. The policy is concluded onare explicitly mentioned. Recommended extended coversan annual basis, with the owner or operating company asinclude protection against theft, burglary and hold-up. the insured party. The sum insured corresponds to the ori-Both German and international terms require that cover forginal manufacturing cost of the tunnel and is adjusted everymachines used underground (such as tunnel-boring ma-year to compensate inflation. The cost of complete restor-chines (TBM)) must be agreed separately. Due to the highation may be applied alternatively as the sum , a TBM should never be insured by itself, the rest of the machinery conditions do not always exist for property coversfor tunnels, as they are frequently insured state perils to be underwritten are mostly technical in origin,with the result that tunnels are often also covered by engin-eering insurance policies. The existing covers are normallyfreely worded
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels28Construction site of the west portal of the Cheung-Ching Tunnel in Hong Kong: the -m tunnel, which has three lanes for each direction, wasexcavated and designed in accordance with the New Austrian Tunnelling Method (NATM).However, the private sector has increasingly displayedmore than 10,000 l of diesel in their tanks. The tyres andinterest in the aforementioned insurance products. At leastfreight exacerbated this disastrous fire. The temperaturesfire or CECR insurance has been concluded for virtuallygenerated by a blaze of such magnitude can cause devas-every privately owned tunnel (road, railway or rapid-transittating damage to the structure. No concrete material canrailway or underground railway tunnels). The same also ap-withstand temperatures of 1,200°C for hours on end. In thisplies to rolling stock insurance, insofar as tunnels are oper-particular case, temperatures of 700°C still prevailed 50ated with private railways. Whether or not the associatedhours after the covers are also underwritten ultimately depends onthe financial capacity of the operating company and on theIn response to this loss experience, the insurance industryestimated length of time for which it can survive a break inis now renegotiating the terms of insurance. These majoroperation. This aspect is increasingly being reconsideredlosses have awoken insurers to the fact that they must ad-by operating companies following the recent major their premium calculation in line with the actual riskThe loss scenarios and project planning data on the basissituation of the tunnel in which road tunnels were planned usually no longer re-flect today’s volume of traffic. Both private traffic andfreight traffic through some tunnels have increased almostfive-fold in the last 20 years. This has led to a dramatic risenot only in the probability of accidents occurring but also inthe fire loads inside a tunnel at any one time. The 23 lorriesinvolved in the 1999 Mont Blanc Tunnel fire were carrying33
Munich Re 2934
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsLIABILITY ASPECTS ASSOCIATEDWITH TUNNEL STRUCTURES835
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re INTRODUCTIONThe blaze in the Gotthard Tunnel spread over a length ofalmost 300 m. The dense smoke and considerable heatThe following sections summarise the legal and insuranceseriously impeded the rescue work. The tunnel ventilationproblems which may arise with regard to liability aspectssystems were unable to control the extensive developmentfollowing a tunnel first point to consider is which rights may be MOTOR THIRD-PARTY LIABILITYagainst the party liable for the loss event and that party’ liabilityMost European countries, such as Germany, Austria,The following elements constituting liability with the corres-France and Switzerland, make a distinction between liabil-ponding types of insurance may be involved:ity based on fault and strict liability.– Motor third-party liability– Public liabilityOther countries, including Italy, however, only provide for– Product liabilitygeneral liability based on fault, but with a presumption offault for the driver of a motor EXAMPLE: GOTTHARD TUNNEL IN SWITZERLAND DefinitionThe following recent example has been chosen to elucidateLiability based on fault applies in cases of culpable actionthe omission, with negligence sufficing for charges offault. Strict liability, on the other hand, applies to certainGotthard Tunnel, loss on 24 October 2001elements which are deemed to be dangerous regardlessof the question of Gotthard road tunnel is a single-bore two-lane motor-way tunnel, km long, through which traffic crosses theThe possibly different limits of indemnity for the differentAlps in both directions. Together with the Brenner pass andliability elements are the decisive difference between casesthe San Bernardino and Mont Blanc tunnels, it is one of theof liability based on fault and cases of strict important north-south connections for freight andpassenger traffic over the Alps. More than 18,000 vehiclesRegulations in Germany, Austria and Switzerland imposepassed through the tunnel every day in 2000, includingthe following limits for strict liability:4,500 of the disasterSecs. 12, 12 a Secs. 15, 16 A lorry registered in Belgium, which was being driven by aStVG (RoadEKHG (Law onTraffic Act)Rail and MotorTurkish driver, collided with an oncoming Italian lorry andThird-Partytriggered a tunnel damage 300,000 145,000No limits Magnitude of the disasterper occurrence– 11 killed (one Swiss, four Germans, two French people,One casualty– Capital sum 600,000 292,000No limitstwo Italians and two Turks)– Pension 36,000 . 17,520– 19 injured, including eight seriously injuredSeveral casualties– 13 lorries and ten cars damaged or destroyed– Capital sum 3,000,000 876,000No limits– Costs incurred for rescue teams, the fire department and– Pension 180,000 : currently ofhazardous goods– Amount of damages claimed by victims and surviving– Personal injury 6,000,000 1,314,000 No limits dependants: not yet known– Property 6,000,000 1,314,000– Economic loss: not yet known(immovable property)36
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels30This photograph, taken by the Swiss police on 24 October 2001,shows the blaze in the Gotthard Tunnel near Airolo (Switzerland),shortly after two trucks collided in the tube. Rescue teams still hadnot managed to reach the scene of the accident some 20 hours afterthe incident occurred. They managed to reduce the temperature of1,000°C, which had been fuelled by burning tyres and plastic sheet-ing, to 200°C on the morning of 25 October, but this was still muchtoo hot for rescue teams to attempt any salvaging is normally no limit to indemnity for liability basedInsurance policies actually concluded:on fault. This is the case in Germany, Austria, SwitzerlandThe number of vehicles in the EU which are not insuredand from % (Finland) to 5% (Great Britain), withIreland as the sole maverick at the top of the scale with 10–13%. In non-EU European countries, Bulgaria andInterim resultThe first criterion for determining the amount of aTurkey rank last with 40% uninsured vehicles each andpossible claim against the driver or owner of a motorEstonia with %.vehicle and that party’s third-party liability insurer is todistinguish between strict liability and liability based onLimits of indemnityMinimum limits of indemnity:fault. The conclusion of motor third-party policies with a min-imum limit of indemnity is usually obligatory in EuropeanInsurance coverObligatory insurance: third-party insurance is obligatory in all countries ofThis is illustrated in the table below, which takes Germany,, Switzerland and France as examples:GermanyAustriaSwitzerlandFrance4 II PflVersGSec. 9 KHVGArt. 3 VVVDecree dated (Obligatory Insurance Law)(Motor Third-Party Liability(Traffice InsuranceInsurance Law)Ordinance)Personal injury per person; 1,090, for personalSfr 3m for personal Unlimited for three orinjury and property lossesinjury and property lossesmore peopleProperty losses 500,000 460,000 Purely financial losses 50,000 10, Not specifiedNot specified37
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re 31A surveyor examining damage to bodywork. In most Europeancountries, the insurer pays the fees for the preparation of an ex-pert’s report if the injured party has arranged this with the insurer of the party who caused the Austria, the sum of 2,180,185 applies to buses with Cover in cases of non-insurance, hit-and-run or bankruptcynot more than 19 seats (not including the driver’of the motor third-party insurers seat) andlorries with between eight and 19 seats (not including theIn such cases, the liability loss is normally covered by guar-driver’ants seat). This sum is augmented by 545,046 for ee funds, although in some countries this means thatevery additional five, or up to five, seats. The minimum limitclaims for property losses will not be indemnity equals 1,090,092 for bus trailers with fewerthan ten seats and increases by 525,046 for every add-Special features in cases with a foreign elementDue to the significance of the large Alpine tunnels as partitional five, or up to five, the main European traffic link, we must also examine theUsual limits of indemnityspecial features pertaining to claims settlement when tun-Regardless of the statutory requirements, higher limits ofnel disasters have been caused by foreign vehicles and/orwhen foreign citizens suffer as a result of the disaster. indemnity have become established in many countries forthe majority of insurance contracts. Motor third-party pol-icies in Germany, Switzerland and France are usuallyThe foreign liable party – “Green Card cases”The rulings of the Green Card system can influence the(roughly 90%) unlimited – certain perils or objects of legalprotection are simultaneously excluded (France: restrictionsum insured under third-party liability property losses; Switzerland: restriction for losses dueto fire or explosion; Germany: limit of per injuredThe Green Card system is a contractual system under inter-person).national private law which governs the settlement of roadaccidents involving local nationals caused by foreigners. Mention must also be made in this context of the incalcul-It is based on the model convention signed in London inable burden for the insurance industry in connection é covers. If, for instance, the driver of a car with anunlimited motor third-party policy is responsible for aThe contractual terms are now applied in 43 countries ofmajor tunnel loss, the property loss alone could easily costthe world. These essentially comprise all the countries ofwestern Europe, plus a few countries in eastern Europe, the insurer over Middle East and North Africa. Other supplementaryconventions, such as that signed in 1972 or the multilateralguarantee convention of 1991 simplifying the system fur-ther, are similarly becoming more
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsWithin the scope of Green Card cover, the motor third-partyThe rulings are based on the 4th Motor Insurance Directiveinsurer provides cover at least equal to the obligatory in-passed by the European Parliament in 2000. These rulingssurance terms and sums applicable in the country to be translated into the national law of each EU Mem-These may be greater or lesser than the obligatory sumsber State by 20 July 2002 and have been in force sinceinsured according to the regulations in the insured party’s20January 2003. Non-EU countries, such as Switzerland,home country. The rulings in the insured’s home countryare also adopting this directive within the framework ofapply if the sums are higher than in the country treaties. With regard to non-EU countries, it has beenagreed that the rulings will apply to accidents in theseThe contractually agreed sums insured also apply if theycountries if they involve countries participating in theare higher than the statutory sums insured in the countryGreen Card system, the victim is a resident of an EUvisited. The law of the country in which the accident occursMember State and the vehicle which caused the accident always normally located and insured in an EU Member to the amount of the obligatory sum insured, claims areThe purpose of the Directive – namely to make it easier forsettled independently by the Green Card office in the coun-people who have suffered injury or damage in a foreigntry visited or by a local insurer. In the case of claims ex-country to assert their claims for damages – is achievedceeding the obligatory sum insured for the country visitedabove all by providing claimants with the name and ad-and for which higher obligatory sums insured or contractu-dress of an office in their own country which will then settleally agreed limits of indemnity apply in the party’s homethe claim. For this purpose, information centres must be country, the company settling the claim in the country visit-set up in each EU Member State to identify the relevant in-ed must obtain the consent of the company paying thesurer, the adjusters of the foreign insurance companies andclaim in the home also policyholder protection boards – in case indem-nification by the adjuster should prove impossible.(Note: In Italy and Greece, victims have a statutory right toclaim sums up to the contractual limit of indemnity directlyThe problems arising from the fact that claims must befrom the company settling the claim. If there is no originalsettled according to the law of the country in which thecontract, this may lead to situations in which the settlingaccident occurred cannot be discussed has no right of recourse against the indemnifyingcompany in the home country for payments exceeding theThe attached table provides a good overview of thestatutory minimum cover.)The attached table provides a good overview of the pre-prescribed minimum limits of indemnity, the usual sumsscribed minimum limits of indemnity, the usual sums in-insured, the average number of uninsured motor vehiclessured, the average number of uninsured motor vehiclesInterim resultand other useful other useful the case of a motor vehicle which is insured abroadand has caused a loss, the available limit of indemnitymust be determined on the basis of the sum insuredunder the original policy in Green Card cases, providedthat this sum is greater than the applicable minimumsum insured in the country in which the foreign victim – 4th Motor Insurance DirectiveUnlike the case with the Green Card system, the rulings ofthe 4th Motor Insurance Directive do not yield any specialfeatures with regard to the available limits of indemnity formotor third-party insurance, since the law of the country inwhich the accident occurred always applies – and thus alsothe limits of indemnity applicable there. For the sake ofcompleteness, however, these rulings are also briefly out-lined here:39
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re PUBLIC LIABILITYThere are numerous technical rules in Germany: the DINstandards are the best known. These technical rules are notMost tunnels – including toll tunnels – in Germany, Austriaformal laws but non-binding private standard rulings in theand Switzerland are publicly owned (the Great St. Bernardform of recommendations. Despite this, however, they playTunnel, however, is an exception).a considerable part when it comes to establishing whetherthe duty to ensure public safety has been violated. The following sections outline the basis of the operatingcompany’s liability for tunnel accidents and the insuranceUnlike rules representing the state of the art, the regulatorycover of technical rules (. DIN standards) need not betechnically and scientifically up-to-the-minute: what is LIABILITY FOR TUNNEL ACCIDENTSmore important is that they are accepted by the scientificworld. There must not be any further scientific dispute Liability based on fault and strict liability inthe regulatory content of these rules. GermanyNot every technical specification is intended to ensure theLiability based on fault for tunnel accidents in Germanyspecific safety of every third party. Some technical rules doTunnels are part of the road structure. In the case of tunnelsnot have any direct effect on third parties but merely serveon German Federal trunk roads, this is specified in thethe purposes of quality assurance and Law on Federal Trunk Roads (FStrG) (Section 1Para. 4 No. 1). The duty to ensure public safety on roads,If an accident occurs in a tunnel due to . the obligation to take steps aimed at safeguarding per-with a technical rule by the authority responsible for roadsons and property, is governed by private law but may alsoconstruction and maintenance, and if the precise purposebe laid down as an official duty by means of a correspond-of the violated DIN standard is to avert damage and injurying regulation (in which case government liability applies to third parties, then the authority responsible for road con-in accordance with Section 839 of the German Civil Codestruction and maintenance will be liable for the loss if all(BGB)). However, if the duty to ensure public safety is gov-the other elements constituting a violation of the duty toerned by private law, liability will be governed by Secs. 823ensure public safety have been seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB). The duty to ensurepublic safety is largely identical in content, however, forLiability for the collapse of a building or other facility linkedprivate and for state subjects of this the property (Section 836 of the German Civil Code),which also comprises tunnels, is another sub-element ofThe content of a duty to ensure public safety is governedliability based on fault. This liability under Section 836 ap-by the general principle of tort law, according to which theplies even to damage caused by falling parts of the buildingowner of a potential hazard must take every possible andor facility and rests with the owner of the property insofarnecessary precaution to avoid endangering third it has violated its duty to maintain the property or hasPrecautions must be taken which, according to the safetyerected the building incorrectly. The fault is assumed, butexpectations of the traffic group concerned, are appropriatethe owner or party contractually liable for the loss (Sectionand economically acceptable in order to protect third par-838 of the German Civil Code) can release itself from thisties from the possible danger associated with conformingliability by proving that the necessary care has been takenor not entirely unexpected non-conforming use. Fault – avert danger to public intent or negligence – is required. The authoritiesresponsible for road construction and maintenance areThe construction and maintenance of federal and regionaltherefore required to ensure safety in tunnels. At the sametrunk roads are the responsibility of the federal or regionaltime, however, the requirements imposed with regard toauthorities. There is no insurance. That is not the case withthis duty must not be roads, for municipal authorities normally obtainthird-party liability insurance for their road system – andNon-compliance with technical rules can also constitute athat naturally also includes the of the duty to ensure public safety. The GermanLaw on Federal Trunk Roads stipulates that the authoritiesresponsible for road construction and maintenance mustensure that their trunk roads and structures meet all the re-quirements in respect of public safety and
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels32Toll points on the Brenner motorway between Austria and Italy. Themotorway operators are also liable for accidents in the tunnel, asthis forms part of the road liability in Liability based on fault and strict liability in AustriaThere is nostrict liability for the authorities responsible for road construction and maintenance in Germany. TheseLiability based on fault for accidents in tunnelsauthorities are only liable in cases of culpable violation ( tunnels are state-owned, and liability for tunnelwilful intent and negligence) of the duty to ensure publicaccidents rests with the state in accordance with its liabilitysafety when operating a defined in Section 1319 a of the General Civil Code (ABGB),which stipulates that the road owner is obliged to indemni-As far as strict liability is concerned, the sole matter of in-fy the loss incurred by any person as a result of the defect-terest in this context is therefore the strict liability of theive nature of the road. Tunnels are included in the definitionrailway operator, which would apply in the case of tunnelof traffic areas subject to liability for roads in accordanceaccidents caused by trains in Section 1319 a of the General Civil Code. Liability forroads is not strict liability but liability for violation of theThe Law on Third-Party Liability (HPflG) stipulates max-duty to ensure public safety. According to Section 1319a ofimum limits of indemnity for railway operators. the General Civil Code, the owner’s liability is limited tocases of wilful intent and gross negligence. Liability basedThese maximum limits of indemnity have been raised sinceon fault is unlimited in August 2002 and are now up to 600,000 per person forlump-sum payments and up to 36,000 per annum perIn Austria, the ÖNormen (Austrian Standards, correspon-person for annuity benefits. There is no restriction on theding to the DIN standards) apply to the content and estab-total limit of indemnity for personal of a duty to ensure public safety. Like the DINstandards, they are also without legislative railway operator’s liability for property damage is up to 300,000 per occurrence. If this sum does not suffice tosatisfy all claims, the individual claims are reduced in pro-portion to their share of the total
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re 33The purchase of the motorway toll sticker known as the “vignette”can also lead to contract-based claims for damages being assertedagainst motorway operators following an accident in a tunnel commissions were set up following the dis-is a case of liability based on assumed fault, which isasters in the Tauern Tunnel and Kitzsteinhorn Tunnel. Theirstricter than the liability of a road have now been published, but they are at best inthe nature of a recommendation and thus have no legisla-Toll tunnelstive in Germany, some Austrian tunnels are toll tunnels(. the Tauern Tunnel). Where toll tunnels are involved,They are therefore disregarded when considering the pres-contractual liability must also be considered along with theent liability situation under Austrian liability described above. It must also be noted thatmotorway tunnels are included in the contractual liabilityTo some extent, this involves a contradiction of the Austrianbetween motorway owner and road user through the ob-Standards, which, as mentioned above, are also withoutligatory road toll (“vignette”). This was determined by thelegislative force but are taken into account by the Supreme Court in the following case (ruling datedThere has not yet been any court ruling on the question of22 February 2001):whether a tunnel accident could have been avoided had theauthorities responsible for road construction and mainte-While driving through the tunnel, the plaintiff collided withnance taken heed of a recommendation by the crash barrier which was lying in the middle of the roadand which normally cordoned off the walkways at the sideLiability based on fault also applies if a protective law isof the tunnel. It was not possible for the plaintiff to avoidviolated. Whether or not a law is a protective law dependsthe object on the road or to come to a halt in good the interpretation of that law. It should be noted that al-The plaintiff sued the financing company for motorwaysthough Austrian Standards are not formally laws, they mayand trunk roads, ASFINAG, for damages under contractualbe looked into in this context in court practice. However,liability. In its ruling, the Supreme Court declared that theevery single Austrian Standard which may have been vio-motorway owner is also liable for minor negligence withinlated must be examined to establish its intended purposethe framework of its contractual liability. In addition, it isand whether it is designed to protect third affected by reversal of the burden of proof pursuant toSection 1298 of the General Civil Code and is liable for theLiability for accidents due to falling objects or the collapsefault of its vicarious agents (Section 1313 a of the Generalof a tunnel is governed by Section 1319 of the General CivilCivil Code).Code. This regulation stipulates that the owner of a struc-ture is obliged to indemnify the losses incurred as a resultThe consequences of this ruling must not be underestimatedof the defective nature of the facility, unless it can provein view of the fact that motorways and many other roads inthat the necessary care was taken to avert the danger. ThisAustria may only be used after paying the obligatory
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsStrict liability In the case of tunnels, inadequate lighting – even duringRoads and tunnels are not subject to strict liability. In con-the day – constitutes a defect in the facility, for with railway tunnels, however, mention must beThe same applies to the ventilation. If basically adequatemade of the railway operator’s strict liability in accordancelighting or ventilation breaks down, the defect in the facilitywith the Law on Rail and Motor Third-Party Liability (EKHG).must be considered from the point of view of liability does not apply if the loss was caused by anunavoidable circumstance. EKHG specifies that indemnityRoads and tunnels are essentially facilities as defined byunder strict liability is limited to the following sums forArticle 58 of the Law of Obligations (OR). Private-law liabil-operators of railways:ity also applies even when the structures are owned by apublic body – as is the case for the majority of roads andLump sum upon death per person: 292,000tunnels: according to a decision by the supreme court, Art-Annuity for injury: 17,500icle 58 OR is a special statutory form of the state liability defined in Article 3 of the Law of the strict liability of a car owner, the railway oper-ator’s liability according to the EKHG is not limited as regardsLiability consequently rests with the owner of the road/tun-the number of people killed and causing the damage or loss – . the public body whichbuilt and maintains the road (construction and Liability based on fault and strict liability in Switzer-ance of national roads being the responsibility of the can-landtonal authorities, which are normally also the owners).Liability based on faultThis is not the case as regards the statutory third-party li-Switzerland initially recognises liability based on fault asability of cable cars requiring a licence, as well as of railways,specified in Article 41 of the Swiss Law of Obligations (OR).rack-and-pinion railways, ski lifts, narrow-gauge railways,This regulation constitutes the basic norm with respect totramways and funicular railways: they are governed by thetort provisions. This is not affected even by the fact thatstrict liability of the Swiss Law on Third-Party Liability oftunnels are almost always operated by the cantonal author-Railway and Steamship Operators and the Swiss Post Of-ities – . under the sovereignty of the state. The Great fice (EHG), although this does not have any practical effectSt. Bernard Tunnel, which is operated half by a Swiss com-on responsibility under liability and half by an Italian company, is an exception tothis. Liability based on fault also applies to culpable INSURANCE COVERtion of the duties to ensure public safety which are linked to the greater risk involved in operating a motor insurance, the obligation to obtain insurancefor public liability is severely liabilityThe most interesting case of strict liability in this connec-In Germany,as already mentioned above, the federal or re-tion is the liability of the owner of the facility according togional government or the municipal authorities are normal-Article 58 Para. 1 of the Law of Obligations (OR). This re-ly responsible for the construction and maintenance ofquires that the owner of a building or other facility must in-roads , including the maintenance and safety of tunnels,demnify the loss incurred as a result of faulty installation,depending on the nature of the road. There is consequentlymanufacture or maintenance. The owner is not only liableno statutory obligation to obtain insurance cover misconduct but also for the defective condition. Theowner of the facility cannot claim any exonerating evidenceInsurance is obligatory, however, under the terms of the or-and is therefore responsible for every loss caused by a de-dinance governing third-party liability insurance for publicfect in the facility, without any possibility of companies. According to this ordinance and thelaw on the amendment of insurance conditions for railways,a minimum sum of 10m is required per Austriathere is no obligation to obtain insurance, noteven for railway operators pursuant to the EKHG (Autobahnen- und Schnellstraßen-Finanzierungs-43
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re GermanyAustriaSwitzerlandStrict liabilityLimited to 85m with aUnlimitedUnlimited with a deductible of 500 bornedeductible of Sfr900 by the injured party in borne by the injured cases of property partydamageLiability based on faultUnlimited liability in Unlimited liability in Unlimited liability inaccordance with the accordance with theaccordance with theGerman Civil Code (BGB)General Civil Code Law of Obligations (OR)(ABGB)Overview of the product liability situation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland AG) (the financing company for motorways and trunk roads)some idea of the costs with which a manufacturer’s productand ÖSAG (Österreichische Autobahnen- und Schnell-liability insurer could be ßengesellschaft) (operating company for Austrianmotorways and trunk roads) are covered by public liabilityObligation to obtain product liability insuranceinsurance. Germany One of the consequences of the tunnel disasters was thatNeither the Law on Product Liability (ProdHG) nor otherthe limits of indemnity for public liability covers were in-laws impose any obligation to obtain , no doubt also in view of the greater exposure toloss resulting from road-owners’ liability and contractualAustria Law on Product Liability requires that manufacturerstake out an insurance policy. However, it does not imposeTunnel and railways operators in Switzerland are similarlyany minimum sums obliged to obtain insurance. The only exception appliesto the operators of aerial cable cars which must be licensed:Section 16 of the Law on Product Liability states: “Manufac-the Federal Swiss Traffic Authority responsible for licensingturers and importers of products shall be obliged to takesuch operations requires that public liability insurance besteps of a kind and magnitude customary in fair businessobtained with a minimum limit of indemnity of Sfr to ensure that the duty to pay compensation in ac-cordance with the present Federal law can be discharged, PRODUCT LIABILITYbe it by obtaining insurance or in any other suitable way”.The supplementary explanations of the judicial committeeProduct liability is the statutory duty to take responsibilitywith regard to this law make it clear, however, that thefor loss or damage caused by defective products (see tablewording does not make insurance obligatory. The duty toabove). This may involve defective materials or techniquesmake provision as manifested in Article 16 can also be dis-when equipping tunnels or faulty vehicles (such as a defect-charged by means other than by obtaining insurance – forive radiator) which could lead to a tunnel accident. Theinstance, by forming appropriate of these products and developers of thesetechniques are consequently also exposed to the risk ofSwitzerlandloss. The statutory form of product liability and the associ-There is no obligatory insurance for product liability casesated limits of indemnity are briefly outlined below to give in this
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels34Through product liability, even small companies in Europe mayhave to contend with damages claims asserted before a US court. ACCUMULATION IN PUBLIC AND PRODUCT LIABILITYFor instance, the lawyers representing German and Aus-trian victims of the Kaprun accident have also brought actionAs the Kitzsteinhorn disaster has clearly shown – particular-before US courts in order to compel various manufacturersly in the light of the court rulings – losses may be incurredwho have been mentioned in conjunction with the cable carunder both public liability covers (tunnel operator) anddisaster to pay damages for pain and suffering and punitiveproduct liability covers (. manufacturer of the heatingdamages which in European terms can only be describedfan) following a tunnel hefty. FORUM SHOPPINGEuropean liability policies should exclude claims under USlaw, to ensure that the risk remains calculable for exposure can be further increased by what is calledforum shopping. In view of the amount of damages SHORTAGE OF COVERING FUNDSpain and suffering and the limited indemnity for strict liabil-ity elements applicable in Europe, a tendency has been ob-The shortage of covering funds is another problem whichserved for some victims and surviving dependants to assertmust be considered in the case of tunnel disasters, whichtheir claims in those courts in which higher sums can prob-are known for their potential to cause considerable be obtained. This phenomenon is known as accident in a road tunnel. Sum insured for the lorryIf potentially liable parties operate branches in the USA,which caused the accident: is now a higher liability risk in that lawyers seek toassert victims’ claims before American courts – particularlyfollowing such spectacular disasters – due to these courts’reputation for pro-victim
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re Possible claims against the lorry’s third-party liabilityclaims in favour of the direct injured parties and a settle-insurer:ment can be reached with the main POSSIBILITIES FOR RECOURSEClaimantItemSumTunnel operatorRehabilitation of the tunnel 10mSituation in the Tauern TunnelTunnel operatorLoss of toll income 5mOn 29 May 1999, traffic was halted by a red traffic lightInjured partiesDamages for pain and suffering, loss of income, etc. 5m600m before the northern tunnel exit. Among the waitingTotal sum claimed 20mvehicles was a lorry laden with spray paint. It was followedby four other vehicles. Another lorry drove into the back ofThis is more than the 6m sum insured – in this particularthe waiting vehicles at high speed. Fuel was spilled, ignitedcase, it is several times more. The result is a shortage ofand caused the paint lorry to explode, producing a disas-covering blaze. Eight people were killed in the collision andfour others on account of personal human error; 49 peopleThis situation is governed by the following statutorysuffered : – Germany – Section 156 III of German Insurance Con-The Austrian insurance industry (steering committee) hastract Law (VVG)resolved that all claims relating to the Tauern Tunnel acci-– Austria – Section 156 III of Austrian Insurance Contractdent should be centrally filed with the insurer of the lorryLaw (ÖVVG) (identical wording)which caused the collision.– Switzerland – Article 69 of Swiss Insurance Contract Law(VVG).Which claims could be in store for the third-party liabilityinsurer of the lorry which caused the collision?In all three countries, the law demands that, if several directclaims taken together exceed the sum insured, the insurer– Recourse by the fire insurer which indemnified the oper-must share out these claims on a pro rata basis. The insurerating company for the property damage caused to themust draw up a reduction and distribution plan for this pur-tunnel and for the business interruption losspose.– Recourse by the workers’ compensation insurers, healthinsurers and employers for performances on behalf of in-Which claims must be satisfied first?jured victimsIn Germany, the injured party has a right to preferential– Recourse by the hull insurerpayment if the sum insured is inadequate. According to a– Recourse by the personal accident insurerruling of the German Supreme Court, subrogation to the– Compensation for property and financial losses sufferedsocial insurance system is excluded if the injured party’sby the people inside the tunnel at the time of the accident,claims with respect to the sum insured were not taken intosuch as, for example, support payments to third partiesaccount in the distribution can no longer be paid due to the death or strict“any occupation” disability of the victim, . cost of con-The situation in Switzerland is the same as in the home, loss of income, funeral costsIn Austria, claims for damages for pain and suffering andClaims of this kind can be asserted against road construc-mutilation are satisfied first of all from the sum authorities, for example, if they have violated theirThe claims of entitled claimants are then reduced commen-duty to ensure public safety (safety defects in the tunnel orsurately with the remaining sum as specified by Sectionviolation of the contract governing use of the tunnel). Claims156, Article 3 of Austrian Insurance Contract Law (ÖVVG).based on state liability may also be asserted against thestate if road works were unlawfully approved in the tunnel,Practical handling of a shortage of covering fundsfor tends to be avoided in practice if there is ashortage of covering funds. This is due to the highly com-plex situation arising when taking all claims into account(including those which are not yet known). Distribution canbe avoided above all if other insurers waive some of their 46
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels35This diagram shows the various claimants a motor third-partyinsurer may have to deal with when adjusting claims following anPersonal Health insurersinsurersInjuredOperatorpartiesMotor third-party insurerWorkers’HullcompensationinsurerinsurerFire SUMMARY OF LIABILITY ASPECTSForum shopping is another factor which may confront liableparties with incalculable costs in the case of tunnel disas-To sum up, tunnel disasters which are caused by partiesters. However, in this respect, liability insurers at least cancovered by liability insurance pose a high risk for insurers –be advised to exclude the assertion of claims under any lawparticularly in conjunction with unlimited indemnity as isother than that which applies in the country in which thealways the case with liability based on fault and frequentlyevent case with elements of strict example of a tunnel disaster can no doubt illustrate theimponderables of illimité cover and the risks associatedwith Green Card covers in countries with a relatively lowclaims level. As outlined above, if a loss is caused by aforeigner whose premium has been calculated on the basisof the relatively low claims level of his/her home country,extremely high damages may be claimed from that personthrough the Green Card system – claims for which the max-imum limits of indemnity must be exhausted or for whichillimité covers may is probably due above all to these scenarios that motorthird-party insurers throughout Europe are now restrictingthe use of illimité
Risk maMnüangcehmenenert Rfoürc tkunnelsRisk-MaMnaugneimche Rnet TunnelComparison of motor third-party liability insurance in European markets (Limits of indemnity; April 2002)AustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaMotor third-party liability insuranceSums insured Minimum sums insuredstipulated by law for– Bodily injuryUnlimited 15,380 per person 189,072 1,090,093 25,633 per event– Material damageUnlimited 10,253 101,288 Sums that are commonly applied 3mUnlimitedAs aboveAs above 6m 10mObligatory insuranceYesYesYesYesSupervision of adherence toobligatory insurance requirement– Registration officexx– Sticker– Policexxxx– Technical Inspection AgencyxPercentage of uninsured vehicles %1%40%3%Obligation to accept risksNoYesYesPolicy period1 year1 year1 year1 year– Automatic renewalYesYesNoNo– Expiry policyNoYesYesClaims handling Direct claimsYesYesYesYesDirect claims settlementNoYesNoNo– If yes,– for bodily injury claims up to–– for material damage claims up to 7,500– Share of participating insurers 98%TariffGovernment control – Requiring approvalNoNoNoYes– Requiring submissionNoYesYesNoTariff structure uniform for theNo No YesYesentire market Bonus-malus system – Number of steps1723Not applied18– Premium rates from ... to ...%50–200%54–200%50–250%– Premium rate for beginners100% 100%100%85% for private persons– Is discount protection possible?No No4848
Risk-MaMnuangiechm Reent TunnelRisk mMaünnacgheemnern tR füocrk t unnelsCzech RepublikDenmarkEstoniaFinlandMotor third-party liability insuranceSums insured Minimum sums insuredstipulated by law for– Bodily injury 582,006 10,896,117 351,492per personUnlimited– Material damage 161,668 2,152,331 102,252 3,300,00Sums that are commonly applied 582,006/ 161,668 (50%)As aboveUnlimited (50%)Obligatory insuranceYesYesYesYesSupervision of adherence toobligatory insurance requirement– Registration officexxx– Sticker– Policexx– Technical Inspection AgencyPercentage of uninsured vehicles Less than 1%%Obligation to accept risksYesYesYesYes Policy period1 year1 year1 year1 year– Automatic renewalYesYesNoYes– Expiry policyNoYes NoClaims handling Direct claimsYesYesYesYesDirect claims settlementNoNoNoYes– If yes,– for bodily injury claims up toUnlimited– for material damage claims up to– Share of participating insurers TariffGovernment control – Requiring approvalYesNoYesNo– Requiring submissionNoNoYesNoTariff structure uniform for theYes NoYesNoentire market Bonus-malus system Varies– Number of steps1217– Premium rates from ... to ...%30–170%40–300%30–100%– Premium rate for beginners120% 120%100%– Is discount protection possible?YesNoNoNo4949
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re FranceGermanyGreeceHungaryMotor third-party liability insuranceSums insured Minimum sums insuredstipulated by law for– Bodily injuryUnlimited per person 500,000 1,233,203 per event– Material damage 460,000 500,000 100,000 2,055,338 Sums that are commonly appliedUnlimited (bodily injury),UnlimitedAs aboveAs abovedifferent limits for 8m per personmaterial damage claimsObligatory insuranceYesYesYesYesSupervision of adherence toobligatory insurance requirement– Registration officexx– Stickerx– Policexx– Technical Inspection AgencyPercentage of uninsured vehicles Less than %%3%3%Obligation to accept risksYesYes (for private risks)YesYesPolicy period1 year1 year1 year1 year– Automatic renewalYesYesYes– Expiry policyNoNoClaims handling Direct claimsYesYesYesYesDirect claims settlementYesNoYesNo– If yes,– for bodily injury claims up to–_– for material damage claims up to 6,100 6,000– Share of participating insurers 99%90%TariffGovernment control – Requiring approvalNoNoNoYes– Requiring submissionNoYesNoTariff structure uniform for theNo NoNoNo entire market Bonus-malus system – Number of steps13%29%Varies14– Premium rates from ... to ...%50–350%30–240%40–250%50–200%– Premium rate for beginners200%Varies100%100%– Is discount protection possible?YesYesYesNo50
Munich ReRisk management for tunnelsIrelandItalyNetherlandsNorwayMotor third-party liability insuranceSums insured Minimum sums insuredstipulated by law for– Bodily injuryUnlimited 774,685 907,560 Unlimited– Material damage 114,276 129,789 Sums that are commonly appliedBI: Unlimited, 2,268,901 PD: Unlimited (private), 114,276 (commercial)Obligatory insuranceYesYesYesYesSupervision of adherence toobligatory insurance requirement– Registration officexxx– Stickerx– Policexx– Technical Inspection AgencyxPercentage of uninsured vehicles 10–13%%%%Obligation to accept risksNoYes NoYesPolicy period1 year1 year1 year1 year– Automatic renewalNoPartlyYesYes– Expiry policyYesPartlyNoClaims handling Direct claimsNoYesYesYesDirect claims settlementNoYesNoYes– If yes,– for bodily injury claims up to–Total amount of damage– for material damage claims up toUnlimited(MDmax. 129,789)– Share of participating insurers 95% TariffGovernment control – Requiring approvalNoNoNoNo– Requiring submissionNoNoNoYesTariff structure uniform for theNo NoNoNo entire market Bonus-malus system – Number of stepsVaries1727– Premium rates from ... to ...%20–190%– Premium rate for beginnersVaries80%– Is discount protection possible?YesYesNo51
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re PolandSlovakiaSloveniaSpainMotor third-party liability insuranceSums insured Minimum sums insuredstipulated by law for– Bodily injury 454,350 per person 153,663 350,000 per person 600,000 – Material damage 119,566 102,293 100,000 Sums that are commonly appliedAs aboveUnlimitedObligatory insuranceYesYesYesYesSupervision of adherence toobligatory insurance requirement– Registration officex– Sticker– Policexxx– Technical Inspection AgencyxPercentage of uninsured vehicles %%Obligation to accept risksYesYes NoPolicy period1 year1 year1 year1 year– Automatic renewalYesYes– Expiry policyNoNoClaims handling Direct claimsNoYesYesYesDirect claims settlementNoNoNoYes– If yes,– for bodily injury claims up to–– for material damage claims up to 96,000 – Share of participating insurers 95% TariffGovernment control – Requiring approvalNoYes (minimum rates)NoNo– Requiring submissionNoYesTariff structure uniform for theNo YesNo entire market Bonus-malus system YesVaries– Number of steps– Premium rates from ... to ...%– Premium rate for beginners– Is discount protection possible?No52
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re SwedenSwitzerlandTurkeyUKMotor third-party liability insuranceSums insured Minimum sums insuredstipulated by law for– Bodily injury 15,421 per personUnlimited 33,198,694 2,044,711 77,103 per event– Material damage 1,713 per vehicle 408,030 3,427 per eventSums that are commonly appliedUnlimitedAs aboveAs aboveObligatory insuranceYesYesYesYesSupervision of adherence toobligatory insurance requirement– Registration officexxxx– Stickerx– Police– Technical Inspection AgencyPercentage of uninsured vehicles 1%%> 40%5%Obligation to accept risksYesYesNoPolicy period1 year3 years1 yearVaries (1 year normal)– Automatic renewalYesYesNoNo– Expiry policyNoNoYesYesClaims handling Direct claimsNoYesYesNoDirect claims settlementYesNoNoNo– If yes,– for bodily injury claims up toYes– for material damage claims up toYes– Share of participating insurers 100% TariffGovernment control – Requiring approvalNoYes YesNo– Requiring submissionNoNoTariff structure uniform for theNo NoYesNo entire market Bonus-malus system Varies7Varies– Number of steps30–350%80–150%Varies– Premium rates from ... to ...%100%100%Varies– Premium rate for beginners– Is discount protection possible?YesYesYes53
Risk management for tunnelsMunich Re Literature Chapter 2:Peter, Frank (Prüfstelle für Brandschutztechnik–Chapter 8:Feyock, Dr. Hans; Jacobs, Peter; Lemor, Ulf Centre for Fire Protection Technology).Commentary on motor insurance. Munich, , 1999)2 April 3:ADAC. Tunnel Test, 2002Marburger, Prof. Dr. Peter. “Die Haftungs- undversicherungsrechtliche Bedeutung technischerBechtel, Parsons, Brinkerhoff. ComprehensiveRegeln” (The significance of technical rulestest report: Memorial Tunnel Fire Ventilationwith respect to liability and insurance law).Tests. Massachusetts Highway Department,VersR-A1983, p. 59 interesting information on tunnels can be found atMägerle, R. “Branddetektion und Löschung vonthe following addresses:Tunnelbränden im Test” (Detecting and extin-guishing tunnel fires under test). S+S Report– World Road Association (PIARC): Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment (OECD): Committee on Road Tunnels. Fire and– Transportation Research Board (TRB): Control in Road Tunnels, – Schweizerische Feuerwehr-Zeitung1/2001, p. 14 , G. “Brandbekämpfungs-Systemfür Tunnel” (Fire-fighting system for tunnels).VdS conference on fire fighting installations,2002. Report of the French committee investigatingthe fire in the Mont Blanc Tunnel, , C. “Energie- und Rauchfreiset-zungsraten bei Tunnelbrandversuchen” (Ener-gy and smoke generation rates in tunnel firetests). Tunnel 5/94, pp. 47– Fire in the Nihonzaka , 7:International Conference on Tunnel Safety andVentilation. Graz, , G. “Brandschutz in Verkehrsanlagen” (Fire protection in traffic installations). VdSConference,
Munich ReRisk management for tunnels© 2003Munich Reinsurance CompanyCentral Division: Corporate CommunicationsKöniginstrasse 10780802 MünchenGermany for the content:Divisional units E1-3, CUGC to contact:Dr. Alfons MaierTel.: +49(0)89/3891-5383Fax: +49(0)89/3891-75383E-mail: amaier@ GunsenheimerTel.: +49(0)89/3891-3934Fax: +49(0)89/3891-73934E-mail: egunsenheimer@ SchultheissTel.: +49(0)89/3891-9331Fax: +49(0)89/3891-79331E-mail: cschultheiss@ credits:Title page: Corbis01 Corbis02/03/04/05 dpa06 Robert Ratzer07 Motor Presse Online10 Mathias Wölfle11 dpa12 dpa13 photonica/Johner14/15/16/17/18/19/20/21/22 dpa23 Stefan Rampfel24 dpa25 Zefa26/27 dpa28/29 Corbis30 dpa31 Getty Images/Kaluzny-Thatcher32 dpa33 Andrea Bernhard34 Getty Images/Ron ChappleOrder No. 302-0308355
56
