This article considers how UAE groups that insure Iraqi operations centrally can identify gaps between the named insureds and the entities that actually carry the risk. A policy may refer broadly to the group, yet a claim can turn on whether the Iraqi subsidiary, branch or project company that suffered the loss is actually insured. Ownership of the local company does not answer that question.
Insurance in Iraq is regulated by the Insurance Business Regulation Law No. 10 of 2005, which established the Insurance Diwan as supervisor, and by the insurance contract provisions of the Civil Code No. 40 of 1951, as amended. Iraqi law expects certain risks located in Iraq to be insured with licensed insurers, so the relationship between a local policy and any overseas master programme needs to be understood. The master policy itself requires separate analysis under its terms and governing law.
The insured entity and the underlying interest
The first question is who owns the property, employs the workforce and bears the liability being insured. A parent has an economic interest in its subsidiary but is not usually the party legally liable under the subsidiary’s project contract. A branch of a UAE company and a separate Iraqi subsidiary also require different treatment, because a branch has no separate legal personality while a subsidiary does.
A review of Iraqi corporate structures should be linked to the policy schedule and definitions. References to subsidiaries, affiliates or newly acquired companies may carry conditions such as minimum ownership thresholds or notification deadlines. The actual wording should be checked rather than assuming every entity using the group name is covered.
Project documents and policy descriptions
Project contracts often require particular parties to be insured or named as additional insureds, with waivers of subrogation. These obligations should be reconciled with the insurance actually issued. Certificates are useful evidence but may not match the policy and endorsements, and the policy wording prevails.
The comparison should cover:
- Legal names and registration details of each entity.
- Insured activities, locations and project periods.
- Ownership and contractual responsibility for assets.
- Additional insured clauses and relevant exclusions.
A contractual requirement to procure insurance does not give the beneficiary cover. The endorsement must actually be issued by the insurer.
Local placement and fronting
Where Iraqi law or the project requires a local policy, groups commonly use a licensed Iraqi insurer that fronts the risk and reinsures it into the group’s international programme. The local policy and the reinsurance must be aligned in insureds, limits and wording, otherwise the local insurer may pay a claim it cannot recover, or decline a claim the master programme would have covered. Difference-in-conditions cover can fill gaps, but its interaction with the local policy should be checked.
Restructuring and changes during the project
A change of contracting entity, transfer of equipment or creation of a joint venture may change the insured interest. The group should check notification and endorsement requirements before assuming cover follows the transaction, and distinguish a simple name change from a transfer to a different legal person.
Timing matters. The entity carrying the risk when the loss occurred may differ from the entity presenting the claim later, so historical policies and corporate records should be retained. A renewal schedule showing the current structure may not prove which entities were insured during an earlier loss period.
Claims and coordination between policies
The claimant should identify the policy relied on and its legal basis for payment. Where a local policy and a regional programme both respond, their terms may differ on insureds, limits, deductibles and conditions. The group should avoid giving inconsistent accounts of ownership or responsibility in different submissions, and should note that the Civil Code sets limitation periods for insurance claims shorter than the general period.
Insurance dispute advice in Iraq should address notification, evidence and the treatment of payments made to a different group entity than the one that suffered the loss. Internal allocation of proceeds may be commercially sensible but must be consistent with the policy and the underlying loss. Settlements should identify which insured interests are released, so that one entity does not inadvertently compromise another’s outstanding claim.
Employer’s liability and workforce cover
Insurance for employees working in Iraq raises particular issues. Local employees may be covered by Iraqi social security for work injuries, while expatriates may rely on group medical, life and employer’s liability policies arranged in the UAE. The group should check whether these policies extend to work in Iraq, including any exclusions for high-risk areas, and whether they name the actual employing entity.
Contractors and subcontractors working on group projects may also need to be covered or required to carry their own insurance. Project contracts often require proof of workers’ compensation or employer’s liability cover. A gap in this area can leave the group exposed to claims under the Civil Code’s tort provisions where an injured worker sues the project company or the main contractor directly, regardless of the internal arrangements between group entities.
Conclusion & how Etihad Law Firm can help
Group insurance should be tested against the entities and obligations that actually exist on the Iraqi project, not just the group’s organisational chart.
As Iraq insurance dispute lawyers for UAE-based companies, Etihad Law Firm reviews local and master policies against project and corporate documents, advises on placement and endorsements, and acts in insurance claims and disputes, helping groups identify gaps between named insureds and the companies that own the assets or bear the liability.