The one class where the statute requires not compensation but remediation: returning the environment to its previous state, whatever it costs and whether or not anybody claims.
Environmental liability works on a different logic from the rest of the programme. Under general liability, somebody is harmed, they claim, and the policy indemnifies. Here the duty falls on the operator and the duty is to remediate: to return natural resources to the state they were in, even where there is no injured third party claiming and even where the cost far exceeds the value of the land affected.
The second difference is that the statutory obligation is to hold a financial guarantee, not insurance. Article 24 of Law 26/2007 requires operators of the activities listed in its Annex III to hold a guarantee enabling them to meet that liability, and the guarantee may take the form of a policy, a bank guarantee or a technical reserve. The minimum amount is set by the competent authority according to the intensity and extent of the damage the activity may cause.
Speak to a technical adviser: 932 419 400
Environmental liability does not fit the logic of the rest of the programme, and conflating them is what leaves many companies exposed. Under general liability there is an injured party who claims and an insurer who indemnifies. Here there is an operator obliged to remediate: to return natural resources to the state they were in, through primary, complementary and compensatory measures, even where nobody claims anything.
That duty is measured not by the value of the asset affected but by the cost of the works needed to restore it — and it is precisely what general liability policies exclude.
Law 26/2007 on environmental liability provides in article 24 that operators of the activities listed in its Annex III must hold a financial guarantee enabling them to meet the environmental liability inherent in their activity. That guarantee may be a policy, a bank guarantee or a technical reserve, and its minimum amount is set by the competent authority according to the intensity and extent of the damage the activity may cause.
Article 28 is the one worth reading before quoting anything, because it lists the exemptions:
Working out which of those the installation falls into is the first job, and it frequently changes the conversation entirely.
The first is the date the damage began. In gradual pollution it is almost never clear, and which policy responds turns on it. Without pre-existing conditions cover and without a prior site study, a finding in due diligence ends up negotiated into the price of the deal.
The second is the scope of remediation. Many companies assume the exposure is the value of the land, and it is not: it is the cost of the restoration measures, which can be a multiple of it.
The third is mitigation costs. The statute requires urgent measures where damage is imminent, before any damage even exists. That outlay is immediate, and not every policy covers it with the same headroom.
As a brokerage registered with the Spanish insurance regulator, the Dirección General de Seguros y Fondos de Pensiones, under reference J0140, New Brokers acts on the client's mandate, not on any insurer's behalf.
In this class the work starts with a question that is not about insurance: whether the activity sits in Annex III and whether an exemption reaches it. Answering it properly avoids buying more than necessary and, above all, avoids discovering late an obligation that is free-standing and prior to any loss. From there, it is a market with limited capacity where the technical information taken to it — soil characterisation, inventory of substances, distance to watercourses — weighs as much as the risk itself.
The cost of returning natural resources and the services they provide to their baseline condition, which is the central duty the statute imposes.
The measures required where primary remediation does not fully restore, or to compensate interim losses until the environment recovers.
Damage occurring progressively rather than through a sudden event. It is the exposure general liability policies expressly exclude.
A discharge, leak or one-off emission, including one arising from a breakdown or an accident in the operation.
Urgent measures to stop imminent damage from occurring, which the statute requires be taken even before any damage exists.
Harm to habitats, species and waters within the scope of the rules, whose remediation is valued on technical rather than market criteria.
Claims by private parties for personal injury or property damage arising from the pollution event, distinct from the duty to remediate owed to the authority.
The cost of taking part in the file opened by the competent authority, which starts long before any civil claim exists.
The technical studies needed to establish the extent, the origin and the date of the damage, which in gradual pollution is the most disputed item of all.
Contamination pre-dating inception, covered only where expressly bought and normally after a site characterisation study.
| Item | Statutory regime |
|---|---|
| Mandatory financial guarantee (art. 24.1) | Operators of Annex III activities |
| Minimum amount guaranteed (art. 24.2) | Set by the competent authority |
| Exemption by potential damage (art. 28.a) | Remediation assessed below €300,000 |
| Exemption with EMAS or ISO 14001 (art. 28.b) | Between €300,000 and €2,000,000 |
| Nature of the obligation | To remediate, not merely to indemnify |
This table sets out the regime established by Law 26/2007 on environmental liability, not the terms of any particular policy. The exemption in article 28(b) requires evidencing, through a certificate from an independent body, permanent and continuous adherence to EMAS or to the current UNE-EN ISO 14001 standard. The scope of each section is governed in every case by the specific conditions of the policy.
New cover
We analyse your activity and your real exposure before approaching the market.
Request a proposalExisting client
Your certificates, policies and requests are available in the client area.
Go to the client areaIn this class the exclusions turn on a question that is hard to answer years later: when exactly did the contamination begin.
Contamination pre-dating inception, unless pre-existing conditions cover is bought after a site characterisation study.
Deliberate breach of the environmental permit or of authorised discharge and emission limits.
Administrative fines and penalties imposed on the operator, as distinct from the cost of remediating.
Damage arising from installations operating without the environmental permit they require.
The cost of improvements and upgrades the authority imposes going forward, as opposed to remediating damage already caused.
Loss in land value beyond the cost of decontaminating it.
Damage caused by waste handed to an authorised manager, once title has validly passed.
Damage arising from undeclared activities or from substances other than those notified to the insurer.
Due diligence ahead of selling a warehouse detects hydrocarbons in the subsoil. Nobody knows whether the discharge belongs to the current activity or to the previous one.
What it means
The date the damage began decides which policy responds, if any does. Without pre-existing conditions cover and without a prior site study, the cost of decontamination ends up being negotiated into the price of the deal rather than with an insurer.
A tank failure causes a discharge reaching a watercourse, and the river basin authority opens a file and demands immediate measures.
What it means
Three things operate at once: mitigation costs, which the statute requires be incurred immediately; remediation of the damage to the resource; and defence in the administrative proceedings. Only the third resembles a classic liability claim.
The company appears in Annex III of the statute and has neither provided a financial guarantee nor evidenced that it is exempt.
What it means
The first cost is not the damage, it is the breach: the guarantee is a free-standing obligation. Checking whether the installation falls within Annex III, and whether any of the article 28 exemptions reaches it, comes before any quotation.
We establish whether the activity appears in Annex III and whether any article 28 exemption applies, starting with the potential damage threshold and with EMAS or ISO 14001 certification.
We review present and past use of the land, any characterisation studies available, and proximity to watercourses, aquifers and protected sites, which is what drives how the damage is valued.
We work from risk scenarios and their associated remediation costs, which is the method by which the amount is set, and compare wordings in a market with limited capacity.
We issue the policy, help evidence the guarantee to the competent authority where required, and update cover if the activity or the site changes.
It excludes gradual pollution and ecological damage, which is precisely what this policy covers. Without it, nobody takes that stretch.
Damage to your own installation after an environmental incident belongs to the property policy; damage to the environment, to this one.
An environmental breach creates liability for the company and, in parallel, possible personal liability for those who should have overseen it.
Contaminated ground found during earthworks can stop a site and is not covered by contractors' all risks.
A spill while carrying dangerous goods engages this liability on top of the carrier's.
The statute does not require buying insurance, it requires holding a financial guarantee, and only from operators of the activities listed in Annex III of Law 26/2007. That guarantee may take the form of a policy, a bank guarantee or a technical reserve. Article 28 also sets exemptions: operators whose activities could cause damage whose remediation is assessed below €300,000 are outside it, as are those between €300,000 and €2,000,000 who evidence, through an independent body's certificate, permanent adherence to EMAS or to the current UNE-EN ISO 14001 standard.
Only in part, and rarely the part that matters. General liability policies usually cover sudden and accidental pollution towards third parties, but exclude gradual pollution and, above all, the duty to remediate ecological damage owed to the authority. That remediation duty is the one that can reach disproportionate figures, and it is exactly what this policy covers.
It is the key to this class. Indemnifying means compensating someone who has suffered damage and claims for it. Remediating means returning the natural resource to its previous state, through primary, complementary and compensatory measures, regardless of whether any third party has been harmed. Which is why the cost is set not by the value of the asset affected but by the works needed to restore it.
Article 24.2 provides that it is set by the competent authority according to the intensity and extent of the damage the operator's activity may cause, following the method to be established by regulation. That method works from risk scenarios and the remediation costs associated with each, not from turnover or company size.
Only where pre-existing conditions cover is expressly bought, and normally after a site characterisation study. It is the most delicate delimitation in this class, because in gradual pollution the date damage began is rarely clear, and which policy responds turns on it. It is worth settling at inception, not when the soil report arrives.
A description of the activity and whether it falls within Annex III, the environmental permit if you hold one, the inventory of substances and tanks, any soil characterisation studies available, proximity to watercourses and protected sites, and any EMAS or ISO 14001 certification, since it may give rise to an exemption.
Spain's Law 26/2007 requires companies to prevent, avoid and remedy environmental damage. We examine environmental liability insurance, the mandatory Annex III financial guarantee and cover for gradual and accidental pollution.
Read→This information is for guidance only and is not binding. Covers, limits and exclusions are governed in all cases by the specific terms of each policy. New Brokers Correduría de Seguros, S.L., registered with the DGSFP under reference J0140.