Executive Summary

A major offshore energy casualty rarely produces a single dispute. One physical occurrence - a platform fire, a dropped heavy lift, a well-control incident - generates project and maritime claims, several partially overlapping towers of insurance coverage disputes, and reinsurance proceedings behind them. Because the governing arbitration clauses are drafted in different transactions, by different participants, under different institutional and specialist frameworks, individually rational proceedings become collectively incoherent. Tribunals are constituted under incompatible agreements; accelerated and ordinary proceedings move at different speeds; insurers and reinsurers cannot participate where operative facts are decided; and confidentiality can prevent later tribunals from seeing the record they need. This article compares how eleven generalist, maritime, and specialist insurance frameworks handle expedited procedure, consolidation, joinder, and confidentiality, and shows that existing rules are coherent within contractual layers but cannot cure fragmentation across them. It proposes a consent-based Casualty Coordination Protocol - not a super-tribunal - that preserves each arbitration's seat, governing law, and separateness while enabling notice, controlled disclosure, aligned calendars, common records, and disciplined treatment of earlier awards.