{"id":30371,"date":"2011-02-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-02-10T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.commercialriskonline.com\/increased-liability-on-uk-s-nuclear-sector-could-result-in-cover-gaps\/"},"modified":"2017-01-24T21:42:11","modified_gmt":"2017-01-24T21:42:11","slug":"increased-liability-on-uk-s-nuclear-sector-could-result-in-cover-gaps","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.commercialriskonline.com\/increased-liability-on-uk-s-nuclear-sector-could-result-in-cover-gaps\/","title":{"rendered":"Increased liability on UK\u2019s nuclear sector could result in cover gaps"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

The planned changes will require operators to carry \u20ac1.2bn of each nuclear site risk, up from \u20ac140m. They will also increase the number of heads of damage for which operators are liable and widen the geographical scope of tho...<\/p>\n <\/div>\n

\n
\n

Want to read this article?<\/h2>\n

Register<\/a> for ultimate access to this article and ALL our premium content<\/p>\n

ULTIMATE ACCESS<\/strong> PROVIDES YOU WITH<\/strong><\/p>\n