FOLLOW US

Insurance Implications: Who Bears the Risk?

The Starshield case opens two key concern-areas: first-party property coverage and third-party liability coverage.

First-Party Property Coverage includes damage to the satellite itself — pre-launch, launch phase and in-orbit operations. Standard space-insurance markets cover launch failure, in-orbit malfunction, collision, etc. However, many policies explicitly exclude risks related to electromagnetic or radio-frequency interference (RFI). As one publication notes: “Under most space insurance policies the risk of electromagnetic and radio-frequency interference is specifically excluded.” HFW

Third-Party Liability Insurance protects the operator for claims arising from damage to other parties — e.g., other satellites, ground-stations, aircraft or terrestrial property. The Liability Convention contemplates state-level compensation, but commercial insurance may be sought for contractual indemnities.

In the Starshield scenario, if an operator alleged that interference from Starshield downlinks caused service disruption or damage, the question arises whether SpaceX (or its insurers) would cover the claim. But if interference falls under exclusions (RFI, spectrum misuse) then insurers may deny coverage. From the research: “In fact, under most space insurance policies the risk of electromagnetic and radio-frequency interference is specifically excluded.” HFW

Therefore, the insurance market may face a “grey zone” liability: a classified constellation, spectrum misuse, potential interference — but no clear precedent for coverage. That raises risk for insurers, for SpaceX, and for any downstream parties who believed they had recourse.

Potential Exposure for Elon Musk and SpaceX

What does this mean for Elon Musk and SpaceX specifically? There are several vectors of exposure:

1. Regulatory/Licensing Risk: If SpaceX did not secure authorization for these down-link transmissions in a spectrum band reserved for uplinks, the FCC and NTIA could investigate, impose fines, revoke licenses or mandate remedial action. Although the transmissions are military/defense oriented (via the NRO), domestic spectrum oversight still applies.
2. Contractual Risk: SpaceX’s contracts with the U.S. government may contain representations about regulatory compliance, interference mitigation and indemnification of the government for unknown risks. If SpaceX breached those representations, it could trigger liabilities to the U.S. government.
3. Insurance Exposure: If SpaceX holds insurance policies that exclude RFI or spectrum misuse, then claims may be uncovered or uninsured losses may arise — either in terms of claims from other operators or from the government contracting entity.
4. Reputational Risk: Even without formal liability, the discovery by amateurs (rather than by SpaceX or government disclosure) of these transmissions undercuts transparency and may trigger Congressional or oversight investigation.
5. State-Liability Risk: Because the U.S. is the launching State, if damage to other space assets could be traced to Starshield, then the U.S. government could be held internationally liable; the U.S. may seek indemnification from SpaceX or otherwise allocate loss internally.

Given the complexity of proving fault or causation, actual large-scale liability under the Liability Convention is unlikely in the near term. But the insurance gap and regulatory uncertainty mean that SpaceX and Elon Musk could face unexpected costs, investigations or contractual defaults.