Amid the backdrop of increasing scrutiny and societal awareness around sexual abuse litigation, insurance carriers are reviewing their portfolios for potential Sexual Misconduct Liability (SML) exposure. Consequently, non-renewals, exclusions, and policy restrictions for SML-related incidents are becoming more frequent. This article explores how organizations can secure a robust standalone policy and improve their risk mitigation against SML-related exposures.  Developments within SML standalone coverage  Exclusions and policy restrictions are increasing for insureds in multiple industries, such as religion, education, leisure, transportation, and healthcare. And many organizations across the US discover too late that their general liability policy contains restrictions, leaving them exposed when they need protection most. Previously, coverage may have been ‘silent’ or included as an additional sub-limit for very little cost, which is often inadequate for the exposures involved. Changes in insurers’ appetites are forcing insureds to explore standalone SML options alongside their other insurance renewals.  Standalone SML coverage is designed to: Provide financial protection for legal defense costs Cover settlements and judgments related to allegations Support affected parties with resources for healing Help implement preventative measures and training However, standalone SML insurers recognize that simply providing insurance isn’t the optimal method of operating in this space, nor does it make a positive difference for their clients. In response, insurers can provide additional, complementary risk management resources and crisis response services – helping enhance organizational safety of their insureds.  Keeping pace against evolving risk exposures  SML is considered a severity class, not a frequency class. While organizations – regardless of size – may go decades without a claim, they should remain fully focused on their evolving exposures in this space.  For example, an educational institution may have constructed a thorough abuse prevention and risk management plan in 2015. However, in the following decade, the development and integration of online video software, such as Teams and Zoom, has reshaped learning for individuals and classes. It is imperative that existing policies and procedures are remodeled to ensure they are ‘fit for purpose’ to counter this new digital exposure and create the safest possible environment for their students. Furthermore, there is a growing use of AI in SML-related incidents, typically involving the use of ‘deep fake’ imagery – a development which would have been completely unheard of 10 years ago. For SML risks, it is crucial businesses consider all technological exposures to ensure they have safety nets in place to prevent potential online abuse and grooming.  How to approach a renewal with your broker  Before engaging with insurers, business leaders must be prepared to provide as much risk exposure and risk management information as possible. Attaining affirmative coverage and safeguarding the future of your organization will require an increased level of scrutiny of your organization from insurers.  Typically, alongside the submission itself, underwriters will request evidence of all policies and procedures surrounding abuse prevention and how they are enforced across your organization – regardless of how complex and large your operations are. Telling your safety story can completely transform how underwriters view your risk exposures. A thorough, proactive approach can demonstrate you care about all aspects of abuse prevention and will be beneficial in obtaining optimal renewal options in a difficult coverage class. Warning signs for underwriters  When reviewing your operating policies and procedures, underwriters will be concerned if businesses display any of the following tendencies:  Exhibiting complacency and assuming abuse incidents will not occur because background checks are conducted on employees. Lack of robust preparation to deal with potential future incidents. Reliance on historical claims history or successes from similar entities as a safeguard against future incidents. Lack of willingness for organizational development, learning, and improvement in case of previous incidents. Underinvestment of both time and financial support into abuse risk management.  What does good practice look like?  Good practice involves displaying a company-wide robust and ongoing commitment to abuse prevention. This is achieved through both policies and their implementation, with clear standards set for appropriate interactions with all members of society – particularly minors and vulnerable adults, both in person and online. Underwriters are keen to see strong policies in the following areas:  Training standards 
Insurers want to understand the frequency of and how your employees are trained against SML-related risks. Are staff trained to look out for warning signs of grooming and abuse? Comprehensive and repeated training on abuse prevention as exposures evolve – with continuous reviews and enhancements – should also be established. Continuous improvement
Underwriters appreciate insureds who are proactive and habitually looking to learn and improve. In the eyes of insurers, crafting an abuse prevention plan and ‘holding it on file’ is insufficient. Policies and procedures should be consistently reviewed and revised. Organizations serving vulnerable groups should consider having a dedicated team to monitor and control protection efforts, while implementing continuous enhancements. Employee screening 
A thorough hiring and screening process for all organization-associated individuals should be established – regardless of ‘status’. It is important you hold all people affiliated with your company, such as employees, contractors, and volunteers, to the same high standards. It is also advantageous to show you repeat background checks regularly, as many available background checks have a limited lookback. Remedial action 
If you have experienced an SML related incident or claim, underwriters will want to see lessons learned, any remedial actions taken, and a thorough, immediate investigation into how this incident occurred. In the aftermath of an incident, organizations that conduct a detailed review and reformation of their policies and procedures, plus those who acquire consultation with an external abuse risk management provider, can access more favorable quote options.  Reporting standards 
Evidencing strong reporting capabilities is pivotal in SML-related insurance discussions. You should seek to instill a strong, open reporting culture, and organization-wide knowledge of how to report incidents and suspicions – that holds all individuals, regardless of seniority, to account. Organizations should implement clear and accessible methods for employees, volunteers, and the public to report concerns, including red flag behavior, transgressions, or suspected/actual abuse. 
Policies and procedures must outline these methods in detail, specifying the reporting chain of command and expected timelines for raising concerns. As confidentiality is a crucial factor that may limit whistleblowing, you could consider an anonymous internal reporting option to protect the identity of reporters, or a third-party hotline to facilitate the reporting of potential incidents. Mitigating third-party exposure 
Organizations must also consider their potential third-party exposures. Leaders should not disregard or underestimate vulnerabilities to maintenance/ construction contractors on site or hiring facilities out to external companies. To counter this, policies and procedures should be brought in line to mitigate specific threats. Businesses should also consider what contractual requirements they issue third-parties with to ensure they are adequately covered.  Find out more on how to conduct an SML renewal here, or by contacting a Lockton London Casualty team member.

Amid the backdrop of increasing scrutiny and societal awareness around sexual abuse litigation, insurance carriers are reviewing their portfolios for potential Sexual Misconduct Liability (SML) exposure. Consequently, non-renewals, exclusions, and policy restrictions for SML-related incidents are becoming more frequent.

GettyImages-1043785660

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/5c8565d9-e3fd-46ee-991b-1a614f2c30ea/GettyImages-1043785660

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/5c8565d9-e3fd-46ee-991b-1a614f2c30ea/GettyImages-1043785660

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/5c8565d9-e3fd-46ee-991b-1a614f2c30ea/GettyImages-1043785660

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/5c8565d9-e3fd-46ee-991b-1a614f2c30ea/GettyImages-1043785660

SML coverage: evolving risks and how to approach a standalone renewal

As part of a global push towards a decarbonised grid, renewable project developers and investors are navigating increasingly complex risks, often beyond what standard project planning and contractual counterparty negotiations can manage. Proactive risk framing and insurance partnership strategies can help project developers and investors to better manage uncertainty and make their assets more bankable and tradable. The new risk landscape for renewables Emerging variables such as technology volatility, extreme weather, and global supply chain lag are reshaping the traditional trinity of risk (political, regulatory, and construction). While none of this is new to developers, what is changing is how insurers interpret these risks and how that interpretation affects everything from premium pricing, insurable terms and conditions, and asset valuation. Common risk blind spots we see across solar, wind and Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) projects include: Thermal runaway spacing in BESS: tight spacing between neighbouring BESS and key equipment can significantly alter insurer appetite and premium outcomes. Solar panel fragility: thinner modules and limited stow protocols in locations with high hail exposure are leading to more severe claims, and reduced market confidence. Wind turbine scale: aggregated large-capacity turbines carry complex business interruption implications, especially with long component lead times. Critical spares planning: lack of spare parts increases business interruption exposures and corresponding insurance rates, cost blowouts, and may lead to higher deductibles. NatCat design assumptions: insurers are more rigorously interrogating 1-in-100 and 1-in-250-year assumptions, especially in wildfire zones. How your project benefits from a risk narrative Insurers are no longer just pricing risk; they are making value judgements about your engineering, planning and operations. A poorly communicated project, or one with gaps in documentation, can face longer insurance placement timelines, narrower capacity, and sometimes full insurer withdrawal. This isn’t just about insurance costs. It affects: Due diligence confidence for equity and debt stakeholders. M&A outcomes where asset resilience is under review. Grid operator trust when operational continuity is in doubt. Insurers aren’t risk-averse; they are information-hungry. ‘Data is king’ in the insurance industry, and the best way to meet this is with a proactive strategy that treats risk as a story, not a disclosure. Mitigate early, communicate often A few suggestions for developers and investors looking to get ahead: Meet insurers before financial close, not just during it. Early engagement lets them influence risk design before it’s fixed. Show your work. For example: What’s your wildfire mitigation plan? What’s your thermal event scenario? What drove your design and original equipment manufacturer selection? A slick data room means nothing if your risk assumptions are fuzzy. Influence your indemnity periods. Can you demonstrate spares on site? This matters to your deductible structure and ultimately your valuation and corresponding premiums. Model against real-world return periods, not legacy standards. 1-in-50 flood return period models do not hold up anymore. Treat your insurance as part of your capital stack. An optimised insurance program is a strategic asset, not just a compliance box. Selling the risk before you sell the asset Ultimately, we need to stop viewing insurance as a procurement process and start framing it as a credibility tool. If you want to sell your project to an infrastructure fund, a state government, or a global independent power producer, for example, they need to trust that risk is embedded in your thinking, not an afterthought. In a world of tight margins and volatile conditions, it’s not just about doing the work, it’s about proving it. As one of the leading insurance brokers within the renewable energy arena, Lockton’s Energy team has extensive experience placing targeted, accurate cover and effective risk management solutions for clients. Find out more by contacting a member of our team.

As part of a global push towards a decarbonised grid, renewable project developers and investors are navigating increasingly complex risks, often beyond what standard project planning and contractual counterparty negotiations can manage. Proactive risk framing and insurance partnership strategies can help project developers and investors to better manage uncertainty and make their assets more bankable and tradable.

GettyImages-1712546884

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/329710fd-9fed-4543-8c7d-a36eabf1fdc0/GettyImages-1712546884

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/329710fd-9fed-4543-8c7d-a36eabf1fdc0/GettyImages-1712546884

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/329710fd-9fed-4543-8c7d-a36eabf1fdc0/GettyImages-1712546884

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/329710fd-9fed-4543-8c7d-a36eabf1fdc0/GettyImages-1712546884

Why risk needs to be part of your renewable project narrative

Both the frequency and sophistication of ransomware attacks are rising. Affected businesses can be tempted to authorise requested ransom payments to renormalise operations as fast as possible. However, this is not a decision any company should hastily take without thorough consideration and due diligence.  Building on advice published by the International Counter Ransomware Initiative (CRI), this article explores the key issues surrounding ransom payment. Additionally, recommendations are also offered on how organisations can build robust cyber incident responses to mitigate ransomware threats. Considerations if declining payment 
Typically, national governments will strongly discourage organisations from making ransom payments. Authorities believe paying ransom treats criminals as business partners and, arguably, promotes criminal activity of this type, as well as, inflating future ransom figure demands. Payment does not guarantee that hackers will provide decryption keys, and if they are provided, there is no certainty they will work. Generally, it is in the cyber criminals’ interest to deliver a working decryption key to ensure the longevity of this type of criminal action. While studies suggest the majority of organisations that had their data encrypted regained access, the process is not always straightforward. Furthermore, authorities also consistently warn the promise of criminals to delete victim data after ransom payment cannot be trusted. For example, after investigating LockBit, law enforcement officials discovered that the criminals were retaining data they had pledged to delete after receiving payment. Considerations if electing to pay 
There may be occasions where a victim decides that paying a ransom is the better option. However, decisions about payment should be informed by a comprehensive understanding — as much as is possible — of the incident’s impact and how payment could change potential outcomes and repercussions.  If the targeted company does not have a secure and separate backup, recovery without a decryption key may be complicated or impossible. Reaching this decision may require the help and assessment of specialised consultants. Ransom payments can sometimes be lower than the costs and business interruption losses associated with a system’s downtime. However, decryption keys are not a magic bullet and it may take several weeks for a company to get back online. It is therefore important to have requisite backups, and this should be part of your incident response plan. Fees associated with forensic and data recovery largely depend on company size and the scale and complexity of attacks. As not all insurance policies cover such incidental expenses, nor the ransom payment itself, businesses must carefully check the exact wording of any cyber policy before making decisions. Advice for affected companies 
Following a ransomware attack, companies should fully assess the situation to gain a clear understanding on the nature of the attack. Ideally, the targeted company should have a thorough and rehearsed crisis response plan they initiate. A key first step of this will be notifying their insurers of the attack. Depending on policy, the insurer may instruct a third-party cyber-security incident response team to conduct forensics, assess the extent to which the systems are affected, and the viability of recovering systems and processes from backups. Additionally, the affected company could hire a ransomware specialist to negotiate with malicious actors. This may involve asking for a reduction of the payment on the basis that not all systems need to be decrypted. The expert may also seek evidence the proposed decryption key works, by requesting a decrypted file as proof. A robust cyber insurance policy could cover these costs, and the underwriter’s breach response team will also assist in the practical implementation of these measures. Businesses should seek specialist legal advice on conducting their response. Legal professionals will be able to help organisations understand and carry out their required contractual and regulatory obligations in event of a ransomware incident. To limit the consequences of an attack and ensure remediation is straightforward, companies should keep good security hygiene and system health practices. To build resilience against cyber threats, organisations should: Maintain offline backups of any critical data  Update operating systems to the latest version and shorten patch cycles Use multifactor authentication and complex unique passwords for each login Disable any unnecessary network services For further advice, the aforementioned CRI guidance provides help on what companies should aim to do. Liaising with your insurer or broker 
Before making hasty decisions, any business falling victim of a ransomware attack should consult with its broker or cyber insurer, legal counsel, and, where appropriate, law enforcement authorities. Regardless of decisions taken on whether to pay ransom or not, companies must consider their legal and contractual obligations to customers, partners, and relevant third parties. For further information, please visit the Lockton Cyber and Technology page, or contact a member of our team. 

Both the frequency and sophistication of ransomware attacks are rising. Affected businesses can be tempted to authorise requested ransom payments to renormalise operations as fast as possible. However, this is not a decision any company should hastily take without thorough consideration and due diligence.  

African American businessman working in empty office

GettyImages-606354445

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/05043941-d624-46b7-bcfb-b46ffa780aca/GettyImages-606354445

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/05043941-d624-46b7-bcfb-b46ffa780aca/GettyImages-606354445

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/05043941-d624-46b7-bcfb-b46ffa780aca/GettyImages-606354445

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/05043941-d624-46b7-bcfb-b46ffa780aca/GettyImages-606354445

Payment considerations following ransomware attacks

The consistent evolution in the risk, breadth, and nature of cyber-attacks has solidified cyber risks as a key topic in many boardrooms. Beyond businesses suffering immediate financial losses and operational disruption, directors and officers may face shareholder litigation alleging negligence – potentially exposing them to personal liability. Cybersecurity responsibilities of a board 
The liabilities and duties regarding a company’s cyber-related protocols are increasingly becoming blurred between those of the company and those of the board of directors. Regulators are seeking to hold the board accountable for data, privacy, or network security governance failures and, subsequently, cyber events regularly rank highly in board surveys of directors’ risk. Typically, the board of directors is responsible for overseeing accurate and timely reporting of cyber risks, appropriate cybersecurity policies, and data protection controls. Furthermore, in the event of a cyber-attack, senior management must notify the relevant authorities and persons/businesses who may be affected. Under GDPR, for example, organisations must notify a relevant supervisory authority of certain personal data breaches within 72 hours of becoming aware of them. If the breach poses a high risk to individuals, they must also notify those individuals without undue delay.  Potential D&O fallout from a cyber-attack 
The consequences of a cyber event could be exacerbated by the following actions from the board of directors: Poor preparation and risk management Slow or ineffective response Legal and regulatory non-compliance Poor stakeholder communication Inadequate recovery planning Cultural and leadership failures If a cybersecurity event occurs, the board may be scrutinised for failures, errors, or weaknesses in their business’ response to the event, or its assessment of cyber-related risk and insurance purchasing decisions beforehand. This can stem from reasons including: Breach of duty Negligence/mismanagement Failure to comply with regulatory requirements Drop in share price/revenues Insolvency/financial losses Securing inappropriate cyber insurance or insufficient periodic review Insurance considerations 
A comprehensive insurance programme, addressing both D&O and cyber risks, is crucial for optimal risk mitigation. Transferring risk via cyber insurance offers an effective risk management tool to safeguard against catastrophic losses, and the costs associated with a cyber event. However, policies must be habitually reviewed to ensure coverage meets evolving threats and risk exposure. Event-driven D&O claims are not a new phenomenon. However, recent high-profile breaches in the UK have highlighted the potential for cyber events to result in regulatory actions, civil lawsuits, and criminal proceedings — arguably transforming the breadth and scope of D&O-related responsibilities and liabilities. For mismanagement claims arising out of a cyber incident specifically, D&O insurance may provide coverage for: Costs associated with regulatory investigations Potential civil fines from regulators Defence costs associated with shareholder litigation Costs related to third-party liability Insurance recommendations 
It is critical that organisations pay close attention to how both their D&O and cyber policies are structured and correlate. Both forms of coverage have distinct differences, and terms and wordings need to be carefully reviewed to avoid potential gaps and needless overlaps. In particular, industries with heightened exposure to cyber-attacks should seek alignment between their D&O and cyber insurance. While cyber risks involve technical complexities that require specialised knowledge and robust controls, D&O insurance is primarily used for protecting board members from liability related to managerial decisions and should be reflective of the current legal environment. Board members may also face legal challenges alleging their cyber insurance programme is not fit for purpose. D&O policyholders must gain a clear understanding of how their policy will respond in the event of a cyber incident as D&O policies can contain cyber exclusions. Furthermore, clear wordings in both policies and stress testing their reactions in anticipation of an incident is crucial as cyber-attacks become more sophisticated. Taking the following steps can help boards strengthen resilience and turn cybersecurity into a competitive advantage: Make cybersecurity a strategic priority, through embedding it within governance structures and routinely assessing security policies and compliance frameworks. Particularly for sensitive data, robust data loss protection (DLP) and data classification is key to show responsible data protection management.  Ensure employee training and awareness of cyber threats is comprehensive and periodically refreshed. Allocate sufficient financial and technological resources to cybersecurity initiatives. Highlighting that senior management has taken appropriate steps and made every effort to prevent an attack/data breach, is likely to positively impact potential investigations, fines, and penalty amounts following an event. Maintain a centralised register of third parties in the supply chain and partners — ensuring their cybersecurity protocols are continuously vetted and monitored. Establish and rehearse thorough contingency, crisis, and business interruption plans in case of cyber event.  Consider appointing a director with a cyber background or forming a separate committee dedicated to cyber risk management. Liaise with brokers and other insurance professionals regarding cyber and D&O coverage, and how they interact with each other for optimised coverage. 

The consistent evolution in the risk, breadth, and nature of cyber-attacks has solidified cyber risks as a key topic in many boardrooms. Beyond businesses suffering immediate financial losses and operational disruption, directors and officers may face shareholder litigation alleging negligence — potentially exposing them to personal liability.

GettyImages-183132173

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/a9588144-9801-4216-a6ed-9a773ecc138d/GettyImages-183132173

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/a9588144-9801-4216-a6ed-9a773ecc138d/GettyImages-183132173

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/a9588144-9801-4216-a6ed-9a773ecc138d/GettyImages-183132173

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/a9588144-9801-4216-a6ed-9a773ecc138d/GettyImages-183132173

How D&O insurance can help protect against cyber related liability

Lithium-ion batteries have become both ubiquitous and essential to our modern lives. Utilised in our homes, workplaces, and transportation, lithium-ion batteries provide a readily available and reliable source of power for devices, such as cars, e-bikes, computers, and mobile phones. However, lithium-ion batteries have introduced new fire and explosion hazards to our built environment. A UK fire brigade recently stated that lithium-ion batteries present the ‘fastest growing’ risk of fire — causing 100 fires in South Wales in the last two years alone.  To help address this, a new Lithium-ion Battery Safety Bill is currently going through the UK Parliament with actions to stop unsafe or non-compliant products from reaching consumers and with new rules to ensure their safe disposal. An existing EU Batteries Regulation requires all waste batteries to be taken back by producers and producer responsibility organisations free of charge for consumers — regardless of the chemical composition, condition, country of origin, or brand of the waste battery. Similar rules are in place elsewhere in the world such as in some US states. To mitigate threats associated with the storage and handling of lithium-ion batteries, robust property risk controls are essential for the commercial retail sector, especially when dealing with returned batteries from consumers. Understanding the risk of ‘thermal runaway’ 
Lithium-ion batteries have a higher energy density than more traditional battery types, providing both a convenient and lightweight source of power. However, if battery cells generate more heat than they can dissipate, a ‘thermal runaway’ can occur; a rapid and uncontrolled release of energy and flammable products that can cause a fire or explosion. Potential causes of thermal runaway include manufacturing defects causing internal short circuits, mechanical damage, exposure to excessive heat, or charging problems.  The resulting fire can be intense — potentially releasing flames, smoke, and hazardous chemicals, and spreading fire to nearby combustible materials. Such fires can escalate quickly and be difficult to extinguish, requiring larger quantities of water for suppression — which may also challenge traditional fire extinguishing technologies and methods. Rapid fire development may also introduce challenges for evacuation; particularly if fire occurs close to an evacuation route.  The charging of batteries generally presents the highest risk of fire in normal use due to the potential for overheating and thermal runaway. However, if the battery is damaged, this can also result in thermal runaway. The higher the level of charge, the higher risk. Typically, packaged products will have a lower level of charge when first received, but returned products may have a higher level of charge and/or damage, increasing the fire risk. In 2024, in the UK, 1.1 billion electrical items containing lithium-ion batteries were discarded — resulting in over 1,200 fires in bin lorries and waste sites, according to not-for-profit organisation Material Focus. In May 2025 alone, a private waste management provider, Island Waste, reported seven fires in two weeks at its processing plant, caused by lithium-ion batteries. Batteries in power tools present a particular problem, but other domestic products like vacuum cleaners and Bluetooth speakers are also an issue. Mitigating risks during lithium-ion battery returns 
The assessment of property risks and associated control measures will depend on a range of factors including, the type and size of batteries, if they are stored in bulk or within consumer products, charge level, and storage location and quantity.  Some considerations for commercial storage and retail facilities are provided below: Risk assessment 
Review and update the fire risk assessment to ensure battery related hazards are assessed and controlled in accordance with local fire safety legislation, such as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and Dangerous Substances and Explosive Atmospheres Regulations 2002 (DSEAR). Ensure any obligations for the return of damaged and waste batteries from consumers, such as The Waste Batteries and Accumulators Regulations 2009, are correctly understood and implemented. Property protection and business resilience 
Reinforce existing risk assessments by considering property protection and business resilience features (including a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan) to help keep losses small and improve recovery of the business. Liaise with your broker and property risk engineering provider to discuss any planned changes and control strategies. Management systems 
Develop a management system for receipt, storage, handling, transit, and charging of lithium-ion batteries including, in particular, processes for the return of and/or damage to batteries or products containing batteries. The management system should consider standard operating procedures, storage arrangements, staff training, and emergency procedures. All changes should be managed though a Management of Change procedure.  Transportation 
Utilise hauliers with experience in carrying potentially hazardous goods, with transportation of any damaged batteries conducted in line with local regulations or legislative requirements, including use of suitable containers, packing, and signage.  Goods receipt 
Where damaged or faulty lithium-ion batteries are received, provide an appropriate handover area which is clear of combustible goods, has clear evacuation routes, is shielded from direct sunlight, and has adequate access for emergency services. Arrange immediate inspection of the items with clear definitions provided to classify damage and the corresponding actions to be taken. Storage 
Minimise the storage quantity and duration of any damaged, returned or recycled batteries. Arrange prompt collection and removal. Store such products in an external, non-combustible facility or container a good distance from buildings or critical infrastructure. If space separation is not possible, provide robust fire compartmentation between structures. Avoid internal storage of any damaged, returned or recycled batteries. Where this is not practicable, provide a dedicated fire rated storage cabinet or room. Higher fire resistance ratings should be provided depending on the quantity of damaged batteries or products which are stored. Suitably approved fire doors, shutters and fire stopping products should be used. Appropriate heating/cooling systems should provided to maintain temperatures within manufactures guidelines. Consider the need for explosion venting, depending on the quantity of batteries stored. Ensure damaged or faulty lithium-ion batteries are not placed in general waste or standard ‘battery bins’ with other batteries.  Charging 
Prohibit charging of any batteries which are physically damaged or show signs of bulging, unusual odours, heavy cracking, or damage to the casing. Where batteries have lower levels of damage or faults, avoid charging of the batteries. Where this cannot be avoided, identify a safe area for charging operations and seek to minimise the number of batteries under charge at any one time. Ideally utilise an external, sheltered area, a good distance from buildings and critical infrastructure. Where this is not possible, prepare a dedicated internal area with safeguards such as fire rated compartment, clear of combustible construction and contents, clearly identified, provided with overcharge protection devices, ventilation, continuous occupancy during charging activities, and a clear strategy for fire detection and control. Proprietary ‘fire’ cabinets for the charging of lithium-ion powered battery devices are now available. Charging devices should be suitable, following manufacturers’ guidelines and regulatory requirements, suitably rated for the devices being charged, with surge protection and electrical inspections. Thermographic inspections could be used to identify any overheating of components or equipment. Self-inspections 
Arrange daily inspections to check for instability or signs of distress. Any batteries or associated products of concern should be removed, if safe to do so, to an external ‘safe’ area a good distance from buildings and critical infrastructure and contacting the emergency services if smoke, gas or thermal runaway is observed. In addition, any batteries dropped or damaged during work activities on site should also be treated as ‘suspect’ and moved, if safe to do so, to a safe area. Thermographic cameras can be a useful aid to the inspection process. Emergency response 
Develop a clear strategy for the detection, evacuation, and control of a fire event. Considerations include provision of automatic fire detection (ideally Category L1 or P1 to BS5839-1:2017) and alarm, automatic sprinkler protection to a recognised property protection guideline where practicable, off-gassing detection, interlocks to charging equipment, emergency response plans, liaison with the fire brigade, and fire water supplies.  Further help and advice available 
The return of damaged or faulty lithium batteries presents a risk of fire or explosion which is increased at higher states of charge. Robust property risk control measures to identify, monitor, and segregate products of concern will help to reduce the risk of loss to the business enterprise. A Need-to-Know Guide on Lithium-ion Battery Use and Storage has been prepared by RISCAuthority, providing risk control measures for lithium-ion batteries. Various additional resources providing further guidance are available from insurers and other organisations. For further information, please contact a member of our team or visit the Lockton Risk Control page. 

Lithium-ion batteries have become both ubiquitous and essential to our modern lives. Utilised in our homes, workplaces, and transportation, lithium-ion batteries provide a readily available and reliable source of power for devices, such as cars, e-bikes, computers, and mobile phones. 

Close up of old used lithium polymer batteries of mobile phones preparation for recycling

GettyImages-1271378528

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/4b037a58-1519-44e4-a625-62f049e7f46f/GettyImages-1271378528

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/4b037a58-1519-44e4-a625-62f049e7f46f/GettyImages-1271378528

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/4b037a58-1519-44e4-a625-62f049e7f46f/GettyImages-1271378528

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/4b037a58-1519-44e4-a625-62f049e7f46f/GettyImages-1271378528

Inside Risk: lithium-ion battery returns – managing property fire risk in the retail sector

The recent grounding of the MSC Antonia near the Eliza Shoals off Jeddah on 10 May 2025 has brought into sharp focus the real-world consequences of cyber-physical attacks in the maritime sector – and particularly within the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. Analysis by respected maritime intelligence firms such as Pole Star Global and Windward indicate that the vessel's navigational systems were likely compromised by GPS jamming, leading to incorrect positioning data and ultimately to the grounding incident. This event underscores the growing cyber threat to vessel movement in the region – one with potential outcomes including groundings, collisions, and environmental harm. For MENA, where critical trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal are lifelines of global commerce, the implications are particularly serious. Regional security dynamics, increased reliance on digital systems, and proximity to cyber-capable nation-state actors elevate both the frequency and severity of these risks. Despite this, in our work with marine clients across the Middle East and North Africa, we continue to observe a significant disconnect between emerging cyber threats and existing risk transfer arrangements. That gap must close before the next incident occurs. A sector exposed by design Cyber risk in the marine space is not simply a by-product of digitisation, it is an inherent consequence of how the industry now operates. From voyage planning and propulsion control to port logistics and remote diagnostics, the reliance on connected systems has grown rapidly. But security has not kept pace. Several structural factors make the sector especially vulnerable: Operational technology (OT) fragility – many vessels rely on legacy systems that were never designed for connectivity or cyber resilience. Global interdependence – a single vessel may interface with dozens of third-party systems across jurisdictions, each with different security standards. This interconnected nature means that a cyber incident affecting one operator can trigger global disruption, particularly if it impacts a critical shipping lane or chokepoint like the Suez Canal, Strait of Hormuz, or Panama Canal. Limited cyber hygiene – basic cybersecurity practices remain uneven across fleets and port infrastructure. Network segmentation, patching, and access control are not universally implemented. Malicious actor intent – criminal groups, nation-state actors, and proxies increasingly target maritime assets. Whether to extract ransom, disrupt trade, or escalate geopolitical tensions. Cyber attackers are no longer just breaching databases. They are actively interfering with navigational systems, manipulating Automatic Identification System (AIS) data, and threatening vessel control – raising the stakes from financial loss to physical catastrophe. From digital risk to real-world consequences The MSC Antonia is the latest in a growing pattern of cyber-physical incidents affecting the maritime sector. The industry has already witnessed escalating attacks that have disrupted operations and threatened the integrity of global trade routes: In 2017, Maersk was crippled by the NotPetya malware, resulting in over $300 million in losses and widespread disruption across its terminal network – including operations in key MENA ports such as Jebel Ali and Salalah. In 2021, Iranian port systems were reportedly targeted in a state-sponsored cyber retaliation, underscoring the role of maritime infrastructure in modern geopolitical conflict and highlighting the vulnerabilities of critical infrastructure within the region. AIS spoofing, GPS jamming, and satellite interference are increasingly frequent in areas of geopolitical tension – many of which are located in or near the MENA region. These activities directly impact navigational systems and pose a heightened risk to vessels transiting chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea. What differentiates the Antonia incident is the strong likelihood of cyber-induced physical loss – a vessel grounding potentially triggered by digital interference. This challenges long-standing assumptions in marine underwriting and underscores the need for a more urgent and region-specific conversation around cyber risk and insurance preparedness. Regulatory pressure is mounting In parallel, regulators are stepping up expectations on maritime cyber preparedness: The IMO’s Resolution MSC.428(98) mandates the integration of cyber risk management into Safety Management Systems (SMS). The EU’s NIS2 Directive expands obligations for operators and ports, demanding proactive cyber resilience and incident reporting. The US Coast Guard now enforces minimum cyber security standards for vessels and port facilities as a condition of access. In the MENA region, regulatory development is gaining momentum. Authorities in key maritime hubs such as the UAE and Saudi Arabia are increasingly aligning with international standards, while also launching their own national cybersecurity frameworks to enhance the resilience of critical infrastructure. Port operators and shipping companies in the region are now expected to demonstrate active cyber risk management and incident response capabilities, both as part of regulatory compliance and as a commercial necessity. These changes are reshaping both operational requirements and liability exposures. Compliance is no longer optional. Failing to meet regulatory standards could impact not only reputation but also insurance recovery in the event of an incident. Rethinking risk transfer: closing the coverage gap As brokers, we see the full complexity of this risk. For clients, the core concern isn’t just whether a traditional cyber policy will pay to restore data. It’s whether existing marine insurance programmes will respond to physical damage, cargo delays, third-party liabilities, or environmental clean-up costs caused by a cyber event. Herein lies the challenge: since the Lloyd’s “silent cyber” mandate, insurers have been required to clearly state whether cyber risk is covered or excluded. In practice, this has led to wide-scale application of cyber exclusions across hull, cargo, and non-International Group mutual P&I policies, regardless of format. That means many marine operators today are unknowingly exposed. A cyber-triggered grounding, port disruption, or environmental spill could result in losses that are explicitly uninsured under their current programme. In a worst-case scenario, a cyber-physical incident could threaten business continuity altogether. To manage this risk effectively, organisations must: Engage their brokers proactively to review and clarify cyber exclusions across all policies. Work with marine cyber specialists who understand both the operational realities and the insurance implications of cyber-physical risk. Consider dedicated cyber insurance solutions that cover physical damage, third-party liability, business interruption, and crisis response arising from cyber events. Explore combined shoreside and marine solutions, which typically have terms and conditions similar to traditional cyber policies, but with broader language offering supplemental coverage for maritime exposures. The modern cyber threat is no longer just digital – it’s physical, financial, and strategic. And it requires a risk transfer solution that is equally multidimensional. Building true resilience Managing cyber risk in the marine sector cannot be left solely to IT teams or compliance checklists. It demands a holistic, enterprise-wide strategy that integrates security, operations, and insurance. To build genuine resilience, marine organisations should: Map vulnerabilities across both shipboard and port-side systems. Clarify roles and escalation plans in the event of a cyber incident. Invest in cyber hygiene, segmentation, and scenario-based contingency planning. Ensure insurance coverage reflects actual operational exposure – not just regulatory tick boxes. The MSC Antonia may well be a turning point. As the nature of disruption evolves, so too must our approach to risk and resilience at sea. These threats are no longer abstract; they are impacting vessel operations, regulatory obligations, and financial outcomes. Not every incident is preventable. But with the right preparation, clear response plans, and appropriate insurance in place, recovery is achievable. At Lockton, we help clients navigate these complex risks. If you would like to explore your options, discuss the latest insurance products, or arrange a call with our marine cyber specialists, we would be pleased to support you.

The recent grounding of the MSC Antonia near the Eliza Shoals off Jeddah on 10 May 2025 has brought into sharp focus the real-world consequences of cyber-physical attacks in the maritime sector – and particularly within the MENA region. Analysis by respected maritime intelligence firms such as Pole Star Global and Windward indicate that the vessel's navigational systems were likely compromised by GPS jamming, leading to incorrect positioning data and ultimately to the grounding incident.

This event underscores the growing cyber threat to vessel movement in the region – one with potential outcomes including groundings, collisions, and environmental harm. For MENA, where critical trade routes such as the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal are lifelines of global commerce, the implications are particularly serious. Regional security dynamics, increased reliance on digital systems, and proximity to cyber-capable nation-state actors elevate both the frequency and severity of these risks.

Despite this, in our work with marine clients across the Middle East and North Africa, we continue to observe a significant disconnect between emerging cyber threats and existing risk transfer arrangements. That gap must close before the next incident occurs.


GettyImages-1339300117

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/43241d7e-2cf2-4b7a-924f-1d9045f34fff/GettyImages-1339300117

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/43241d7e-2cf2-4b7a-924f-1d9045f34fff/GettyImages-1339300117

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/43241d7e-2cf2-4b7a-924f-1d9045f34fff/GettyImages-1339300117

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/43241d7e-2cf2-4b7a-924f-1d9045f34fff/GettyImages-1339300117

Cyber-physical risk in the marine sector: a wake-up call from the MSC Antonia

The recent US import tariff changes have created significant trade disruption in the cargo market: goods were expedited prior to expected tariff increases, or after the announcement, diverted to other destinations, or held in storage awaiting improved tariff conditions. As trade deal negotiations with major trading partners are ongoing, businesses trading goods between the US and the rest of the world need to be prepared for further sudden tariff changes. If these prompt shipping schedule adjustments, this may affect the risk profile of the transported goods and consequently, need to be addressed in the cargo policies to avoid underinsurance.    Scenario 1: Clients cancel order due to tariff increase whilst in transit  In this case, the goods may be diverted to the next best port where it will be stored while awaiting redirecting to a different destination. Potential cargo policy consequences may include:   If the new storage location does not meet the safety requirements of the policy, goods may be out of cover.  Shippers/insureds should notify their broker partners and insurers as soon as practicable to ensure that no exceptions in cover apply under the Marine Extension Clauses.  Cargo policies are intended to only cover physical losses, not financial losses. While some policies will respond for warehousing, transshipping, forwarding and other expenses incurred by the insured, there may be exceptions and applicable sub-limits.   Scenario 2: Clients cancel orders before they are shipped  In this case, goods may be stored at the production facility or an alternative storage until a new buyer is found. Potential cargo policy consequences may include:   The unexpected storing of a larger quantity of goods in one location may cause aggregation risk.  The aggregation risk may mean that if a loss event occurs at the storage location, the losses may be higher than expected, potentially exceeding the coverage limit agreed in the policy contract.  The insurance buyer may be able to adjust limits subject to the insurers’ risk appetite and capacity.  Scenario 3: The client does not cancel the order despite tariff rise   In this case, the value of the goods may be substantially higher than originally stated in the policy contract. Potential cargo policy consequences in case of a loss may include:   The policy is likely to cover the high value of goods in case of loss, but only up to the applicable limit stated in the policy.   The claim may be significantly higher than predicted by the insurer.  The insurer may apply the "average principle" and reduce the payout on a claim because the property or asset is insured for less than its actual value.  Each scenario will have different consequences for the cargo policy holder, but they will depend on the specific wording of each individual policy. It is therefore crucial that insureds stay in close contact with their broker and insurer to make sure that cargo policy terms remain appropriate following a change in the trading conditions. In most cases, insurance buyers wouldn’t be able to foresee tariff changes and therefore the insurer wouldn’t be able to argue that the values stated in the contract were incorrect. The higher values would, therefore, in most cases, be absorbed by claims payments. However, a potential risk aggregation in a specific location may need an adjustment of the limits agreed in a contract to make sure that the business is appropriately covered in case of a loss event. As and when any tariffs may affect the tax applicable to a cargo sale or purchase, cargo insurance policy holders should inform their broker and insurer in case it changes the risk profile. Shipping volumes may go down as sales slow at the same time as storage volumes go up, potentially requiring a recalibration of the policy protection.   Recommendations in case of tariff changes:   Review statement of value  Reassess the policy limits   Review your sales contracts, any penalties, and who is picking up the costs   Following a review of both values for shipment and transit assess if limits remain appropriate  Reach out to your broker to help assess the policy implications  For any questions, please contact a member of our team or visit our Cargo & Logistics page.  

The recent US import tariff changes have created significant trade disruption in the cargo market: goods were expedited prior to expected tariff increases, or after the announcement, diverted to other destinations, or held in storage awaiting improved tariff conditions.

Engineer and tablet at Containers yard from Cargo freight ship for import export. Dock control worker wearing protective coveralls against stack of a containers terminal. Logistic and Transportation, Global Business concepts.

GettyImages-1487654464

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/c39af543-d516-474d-8631-d77b01a1a563/GettyImages-1487654464

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/c39af543-d516-474d-8631-d77b01a1a563/GettyImages-1487654464

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/c39af543-d516-474d-8631-d77b01a1a563/GettyImages-1487654464

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/c39af543-d516-474d-8631-d77b01a1a563/GettyImages-1487654464

Ensuring the right cargo cover amid tariff uncertainty

While global sentiment may be subdued in some sectors, there is a lot of excitement about data centers. Demand for data center capacity is expected to grow rapidly in coming years, driven not only by customer demand but also by the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) advancements. To meet this demand, AI data center capacity is conservatively projected to experience a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 40.5% through 2027, according to estimates from the International Data Corporation.  Data centers need to meet and exceed exacting standards from often demanding customers, both during construction and the data center's operational life. Whilst there is much positive pressure on developers to deliver these increasingly large and complex construction projects quickly; quality and reliability are cornerstones of every customer requirement.  Owners may face significant financial consequences should they not meet the ‘Ready For Service’ date or the standards they have agreed with their customers. Risk management, which includes engaging with the global insurance market, must therefore be a key consideration. The global insurance market has rightly identified technology and digital infrastructure as an area of focus for both capacity and IP deployment.  Engaging with insurers effectively will create opportunities to secure good terms for transferring risk from investors' and owners' balance sheets to insurers.

We have specialized expertise and extensive experience in these industry sectors and can provide comprehensive advice and negotiate innovative solutions with insurers to suit your specific needs.

In this document our specialists discuss data center risk considerations for every stage of a project, from planning and construction through to a potential sale, including recommendations for mitigating these risks. Click here to learn more.

While global sentiment may be subdued in some sectors, there is a lot of excitement about data centers. Demand for data center capacity is expected to grow rapidly in coming years, driven not only by customer demand but also by the rapid rise of artificial intelligence (AI) advancements. To meet this demand, AI data center capacity is conservatively projected to experience a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 40.5% through 2027, according to estimates from the International Data Corporation.



1900x822xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/4d482e17-6479-4ffd-9f48-63368ff2c474/1900x822xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/4d482e17-6479-4ffd-9f48-63368ff2c474/1900x822xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/4d482e17-6479-4ffd-9f48-63368ff2c474/1900x822xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/4d482e17-6479-4ffd-9f48-63368ff2c474/1900x822xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

427x300xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/f95566c9-8b13-4552-9b82-0907ce04c481/427x300xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/f95566c9-8b13-4552-9b82-0907ce04c481/427x300xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/f95566c9-8b13-4552-9b82-0907ce04c481/427x300xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/f95566c9-8b13-4552-9b82-0907ce04c481/427x300xdataxcentrexlifexcycle

Data centers: Protecting projects across the life cycle

The voluntary carbon credits market, valued at approximately $2 billion in 2024, is projected to grow to up to $35 billion by 2030, according to research from MSCI. These projects need financing, creating a significant opportunity for financial institutions. However, despite this potential, many lenders remain hesitant to provide substantial financing to carbon credit projects due to factors, such as non-creditworthy counterparties, long-term return profiles, high-risk countries, and non-standard deal structures. These issues can make it difficult for carbon deals to gain approval from internal investment committees. To address these concerns, carbon non-payment insurance (CNPI) is emerging as a critical tool to transform the risk-return equation — enabling proactive financial institutions to capture this market opportunity, while maintaining robust risk management. Financing challenges associated with carbon projects 
Carbon projects — particularly nature-based solutions — present distinctive challenges for lenders, including: Extended development timelines  On average, the first verified carbon credits are issued three to ten years after initial investment Delivery uncertainty  Carbon sequestration rates can vary due to ecological, political counterparty, and implementation factors Verification complexity  Rigorous validation procedures can be compounded by potential delays and methodology revisions Market volatility  Price fluctuations are typical in evolving markets Credit rating  Companies developing carbon credit projects are likely to be newly formed businesses that lack trading credit history Regulatory fluidity  Governments and regulators are still developing standards and frameworks for carbon credit projects, creating uncertainty for lenders These factors create a risk profile that has traditionally designated carbon project finance a high-risk — with 100-150% risk weightings. Consequently, carbon projects become more capital-intensive and challenging to approve within conventional lending frameworks. “We were the first insurer globally to offer Basel-compliant credit insurance to lenders seeking exposure to the carbon credit developer market and bound the insurance market's first carbon orientated credit insurance deal. Since then, we have been seeing rapidly increasing enquiries relating to insured debt financing in all parts of the world where natural capital based carbon solutions are being established. We are working closely with Lockton to make some deals happen in this important part of the carbon market.” George Beattie, CFC How CNPI can mitigate financing issues 
CNPI can provide coverage that protects lenders against the risk of loan repayment default stemming from carbon project underperformance. CNPI enables financial institutes to replicate transaction structures that are similar to the financing of other markets. CNPI can derisk lending in several ways: 1. Capital treatment enhancement With qualified insurance coverage: Risk weightings typically reduce from 100-150%, to 20-50% Capital allocation requirements decrease by 60-80% Return on regulatory capital improves significantly 2. Risk profile transformation CNPI insurance policies convert uncertain carbon delivery risk into: Quantifiable insurance counterparty risk (typically A-rated) Standardized policy terms with clear triggers Predictable claim processing frameworks 3. Financial structure optimization The integrated lending and insurance structure creates: Improved lending metrics Enhanced approval probability Competitive product offerings Reforestation project lending comparison 
The example below compares the lending conditions with and without CNPI for a $12 million loan to finance a 25,000-hectare reforestation project with expected annual generation of 120,000 carbon credits: Without CNPI With CNPI Risk weighting: 120% Risk-weighted assets: $14.4 million Capital requirement (10%): $1.44 million Interest rate: 8.5% Annual interest income: $1.02 million Loan loss provision: $240,000 (2%) Net income before tax: $780,000 ROE: 54.2% (before tax) Approval likelihood: limited  Risk weighting: 35% Risk-weighted assets: $4.2 million Capital requirement (10%): $420,000 Interest rate: 7.5% Annual interest income: $900,000 Loan loss provision: $36,000 (0.3%) Net income before tax: $624,000 ROE: 148.6% (before tax) Approval likelihood: high  Insurance premium: $240,000 (2.0% annual) The comparison shows that with CNPI the bank/financial institution could reap a 71% reduction in capital required, a capital release of over $1 million, a 2.7x improvement in ROE, and a significantly enhanced probability of approval compared to without CNPI. “As the first carbon insurance specialist, Kita has seen firsthand the challenges faced by lenders seeking to invest into the carbon markets. We have also seen solutions and deal structures that work, with specialist carbon insurance being key to that. Circa 80% of Kita's clients focused on early-stage investment deals now have insurance as a condition precedent to closing, with the aim of smoothing internal sign-offs and ensuring risk-mitigated returns.” Natalia Dorfman, Kita Strategic benefits beyond the balance sheet 
Beyond direct financial metrics, financial institutions securing CNPI for carbon project lending can gain various other advantages, including: 1. Market positioning First-mover advantage in a rapidly growing market Specialized expertise development Competitive differentiation in sustainability finance 2. Client relationship enhancement Offering solutions where competitors decline Supporting clients' sustainability transitions Building relationships with emerging climate leaders 3. ESG strategy alignment Tangible climate finance contribution Measurable financed emissions reduction Authentic sustainability positioning Financing carbon removal projects directly reduces the carbon footprint of the bank’s lending book 4. Regulatory preparation Alignment with evolving climate finance frameworks Experience with emerging asset classes Readiness for potential capital incentives for climate finance Implementation considerations 
The following steps should help financial institutions prepare for the purchase of CNPI for carbon project lending: 1. Insurance selection criteria Financial strength rating (minimum A- typically required) Specific carbon market expertise and proven track record Claims payment history and reputation Capacity for multi-year commitments 2. Policy structure optimization Alignment with project development timeline Clear definition of covered events Appropriate attachment points and coverage limits Verification and claims documentation requirements Cost-benefit analysis of premium rates (typically around 2% annually for quality, insurable projects) against capital relief benefits 3. Regulatory engagement Early communication with regulators on capital treatment Documentation of risk transfer effectiveness Integration with climate risk management frameworks “We have worked with stakeholders across the carbon market ecosystem, including traditional lenders, to de-risk carbon finance. Credit insurance lowers barriers to access both sides of the equation: it gives regulated lenders an avenue into the market, and project developers — for whom access to commercial capital is a major growth hurdle — a smoother path to scale. Oka’s policies, which we tailor to the unique challenges of both developer and lender, have facilitated project financing at critical stages of development — and we believe the opportunity is only going to grow. From 2021 to Q3 2024, around $43 billion was raised or committed for carbon-credit activities (more than half of that since 2023 alone), with a growing share earmarked for project finance.” Sima Adhya, Oka, The Carbon Insurance Company™ (Oka) Market outlook and timing 
Several converging factors are creating a strategic window for organizations to investigate and implement CNPI: Carbon market maturation: increasing standardization and liquidity Insurance market evolution: growing capacity from specialized insurers offering competitive rates (typically 1.5% to 5%) Regulatory advancement: developing frameworks for climate finance Corporate demand: rising commitments driving high-integrity credit demand As these trends accelerate, financial institutions that begin implementing CNPI strategies can competitively position themselves in a fast-growing market. To learn more about how CNPI can work for you, please contact:
David Briscoe – Head of Digital Integration & Special Projects
P&C Specialties
E: david.briscoe@lockton.com This analysis is based on current market observations. Specific insurance terms, pricing, and regulatory treatment may vary by jurisdiction and project type.

The voluntary carbon credits market, valued at approximately $2 billion in 2024, is projected to grow to up to $35 billion by 2030, according to research from MSCI. These projects need financing, creating a significant opportunity for financial institutions. 

GettyImages-2148925805

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/933afdcb-a17b-4a87-b38d-027ebafb0c70/GettyImages-2148925805

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/933afdcb-a17b-4a87-b38d-027ebafb0c70/GettyImages-2148925805

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/933afdcb-a17b-4a87-b38d-027ebafb0c70/GettyImages-2148925805

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/933afdcb-a17b-4a87-b38d-027ebafb0c70/GettyImages-2148925805

Financial institutions: reducing the risk of carbon credit projects

logo-scrolling-white

logo-white

Home

United States

Scotland

UK shape

United Kingdom

Denmark

Ireland

Italy

Malta

Norway

South Africa

Sweden

Türkiye 

EU shape

European Union

Oman

Jordan

Egypt

Morocco

mena home

MENA

Middle East / North Africa

New Zealand

Australia

Cambodia

Greater China

India

Malaysia

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Thailand

apac home

Asia 

Argentina

Brazil

Caribbean and Central America

Chile

Colombia

Mexico

Peru

Uruguay

Latin America, Central America, and Caribbean

latin_america

English

The Unintended Consequences of Sustainability

Potential pitfalls of environmental disclosures

How to trace your lost pensions

Challenging economy raises insolvency risk

Cyber threats in the healthcare sector: The importance of digital health

Navigating Changing Risks and an Evolving People Landscape

Employee Wellbeing: The key to success in the future of work

There is always something exciting happening at Lockton. Here are just a few from our newsroom.

More articles (current) News & expert insights (recommended)

SML coverage: evolving risks and how to approach a standalone renewal

Insights

The Unintended Consequences of Sustainability

Potential pitfalls of environmental disclosures

How to trace your lost pensions

Employee Wellbeing: The key to success in the future of work

SML coverage: evolving risks and how to approach a standalone renewal

Why risk needs to be part of your renewable project narrative