A devastating fire destroyed the Oceana waterpark construction site at Liseberg amusement park on February 12, 2024, just before its planned opening. Now, Liseberg is suing the insurance company Trygg-Hansa, which has refused to pay out over one billion Swedish kronor in compensation, claiming Liseberg lacks an insurable interest.
Lawsuit Filed Against Trygg-Hansa
Liseberg has filed a lawsuit at the Stockholm District Court against Trygg-Hansa, seeking compensation of 1.02 billion Swedish kronor for damages caused by the February 12, 2024, fire at the Oceana construction site. The park also demands interest on overdue payments and coverage of legal costs. Andreas Andersen, CEO of Liseberg, states that the lawsuit is necessary because Trygg-Hansa denies compensation despite Liseberg having purchased the project insurance and owning the damaged property. “It is incomprehensible that Liseberg is denied insurance compensation because the insurer believes other parties acted negligently,” Andersen says.
Extensive Damage from the Oceana Fire
The fire broke out just before Oceana’s scheduled opening, when construction was nearly complete. It caused significant property damage, with estimated costs for demolition, cleanup, decontamination, and restoring the construction state exceeding one billion Swedish kronor, approximately 92 million euros. Liseberg, the sole owner of the damaged property, is financing the project’s rebuilding, which was planned as a major construction endeavor involving multiple contracted firms.
Insurance Dispute Over Compensation
Liseberg secured a comprehensive all-risk insurance policy with Trygg-Hansa for the Oceana project to cover property damage. This project insurance was designed to protect against financial risks in a large-scale construction project with multiple contractors. After the fire, Liseberg requested compensation, including costs for rebuilding. On June 30, 2025, Trygg-Hansa rejected the claim, arguing that Liseberg has no insurable interest in Oceana and thus no right to compensation. “That Trygg-Hansa is now trying to evade responsibility by claiming Liseberg suffered no loss is hard to understand,” Andersen emphasizes.
Trygg-Hansa’s Position
Trygg-Hansa does not consider Liseberg to have acted negligently. Instead, the insurer justifies its refusal by stating that two contractors hired by Liseberg caused the fire through gross negligence. Consequently, Liseberg has no claim to insurance benefits, despite owning the destroyed property and holding the insurance policy. Andersen finds this reasoning incomprehensible, as the insurance should cover such scenarios. He stresses that Trygg-Hansa’s refusal to take responsibility is difficult to grasp, forcing Liseberg to seek judicial review of its rights.
