All new technologies carry risk when introduced on an enterprise level, and artificial intelligence (AI) is no exception.  Directors and officers may find themselves in the crosshairs should negative repercussions arise from the use of such tools. To be prepared for the potential regulatory scrutiny or claims activity that comes with the introduction of a new technology, it is imperative that boards carefully consider the introduction of AI, and ensure sufficient risk mitigation measures are in place. AI benefits and challenges Across every sector, AI tools are redefining businesses’ ways of working by streamlining processes and increasing productivity. This technology has promised to facilitate enhanced customer services and is responsible for the creation of new products and employment opportunities. But despite its many potential benefits, AI also brings new challenges for businesses, and risks to be managed. Although threats will vary from sector to sector and depend on where the tools are being deployed, they can include risks such as harm to a businesses’ customers, or financial losses incurred directly by a business itself. Customers can be impacted by incorrect advice, biases arising out of AI training, and privacy exposures – reducing trust and accountability. While businesses can be directly impacted by operational failures, mis-selling, system errors, or poor decision making. Disclosing AI use Companies’ disclosure of their AI usage is another potential source of exposure. Amid surging investor interest in AI, companies and their boards may be tempted to overstate the extent of their AI capabilities and investments. This practice, known as ‘AI washing’, has led to a number of securities class action lawsuits in the US, arguing that investors have been misled. There has also been enforcement actions taken by the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). Just as disclosures may overstate AI capabilities, allegations companies have understated their exposure to AI-related risks have also been brought, with a derivative suit against DoubleVerify’s executives a key example. Claims are not limited to a business’ own use of AI, and can stem from competitors, suppliers, customers, and bad actors’ use of the technology. Cybersecurity risks or flawed algorithms leading to reputational impact, competitive harm, or legal liability are all potential consequences of poorly implemented AI. Furthermore, exposure to use of AI “deepfake” technology by third parties is increasingly resulting in theft of companies’ money. Growing regulatory activity, such as the EU AI Act, approved by European Parliament in 2024, is pushing for transparency and is amplifying the scrutiny of businesses’ AI use. An emerging risk for directors and officers Ultimately, responsibility for AI implementation rests with the Board. While operational ownership may sit with management, there is increasing scrutiny on whether directors themselves understand the risks and oversee the controls in place, rather than relying solely on technical roles, such as a CISO. Demonstrating Board level ownership and understanding will be critical in reassuring D&O insurers that AI-related risks are being actively managed. Allegations of poor AI governance procedures or claims for AI technology failure, as well as misrepresentation, may be alleged against directors in the form of a breach of the directors’ duties. Such claims could damage a company’s reputation and result in a derivative claim. Key AI risks for directors and officers include: Non-disclosure claims – un- or under-disclosed use of AI or inadequate disclosure of its risks. Negligence claims – including allegations of discrimination, bias, invasion of privacy, and redress for employees, customers, or other third parties who have suffered damage as a result of AI failure. Product liability/breach of contract claims – including failure to ensure that an AI product that caused harm was free from defects. Misrepresentation claims – if AI is used to generate reports, such as financial disclosures, directors may be held personally liable for misrepresentations or inaccuracies. Competition claims – if AI is used to recommend transactions in price sensitive securities, or to set the price of goods or services sold by a business, Boards must make sure that the AI is not relying upon inside information, or causing the company to coordinate its prices with competitors in an anticompetitive manner. Insurance risk – if a business suffers loss due to an AI failure, and it does not have adequate insurance, can directors be criticized by stakeholders for failing to arrange adequate insurance coverage? Board-level considerations for AI A vast majority of companies have already introduced AI into their operations, and directors may lean on AI to help form their decisions. Presently, corporate law generally requires that directors remain natural persons who retain responsibility for decisions taken in the company’s name. Therefore, delegation to an AI system potentially increases liability, rather than removing it. Ultimately, the obligation to supervise and exercise judgment remains with the Board. However, despite its challenges, AI can be a manageable risk. An organization must set up best practices and keep governance, compliance protocols, and legal frameworks up to date as AI technology evolves. Likely considerations for directors and officers include: What is the decision-making process for adopting new technologies? What is the right amount of capital investment to make in AI, recognizing that such investments are costly? How will the company track use of AI and any resultant cost efficiencies? How are customer attitudes towards AI and automation evolving? To what extent are competitors adapting and deploying AI? Are adequate cybersecurity measures in place to protect against AI-related vulnerabilities? Are transparent procedures in place to respond to AI issues and mistakes? Have staff been appropriately trained to use and manage AI, and are they equipped with the necessary resources to do so effectively? Have external statements relating to AI use and associated risks been tested to confirm they reflect the true position? Has appropriate insurance cover been purchased to protect against AI-related losses? Boards, in consultation with in-house and outside counsel, may consider setting up an AI ethics committee to consult on the implementation and management of AI tools. This committee may also be able to help monitor emerging policies and legislation in respect of AI. If a business doesn’t have the internal expertise to develop, use, and maintain AI, this may be actioned via a third-party. An AI ethics committee may also be able to address the management processes for AI bias, intellectual property, cyber risks, and data privacy. How do underwriters assess AI-related risk? D&O underwriters are actively monitoring AI adoption across all industries as they increasingly perceive it as an emerging and rapidly evolving area of risk – paying close attention to how companies deploy and oversee AI within their operations. As disclosures (or the lack thereof) often form the basis of securities fraud allegations, boards should expect AI-related governance and disclosure to be within the scope of D&O underwriting discussions. Are exclusions on the horizon?  Speculation has grown in recent years that insurers will move to specifically exclude AI-related risks. However, currently, there are no signs that either the UK or the broader market intends to restrict cover or adopt AI-specific exclusions. For the near future, it is expected that current D&O wordings will continue to respond to AI-related claims. Presently, D&O underwriters are certainly cognizant of AI risk, but the focus primarily remains on governance: how well boards understand, oversee, control, and disclose their organization’s use of AI and exposure to external risk-factors. Best practice: addressing risks now It is imperative that directors treat AI as they would any other emerging enterprise risk. Directors should assess the introduction of AI within their business, oversee its implementation, take advice where appropriate from experts, and ensure transparent disclosure at all times.  Where organizations fail to adequately recognize and address the associated issues, AI becomes a material risk, and this is where the Board’s exposure to litigation stems from. For further advice on how Lockton can help your business secure appropriate D&O insurance, visit our Management Liability page.

All new technologies carry risks when introduced on an enterprise level. Artificial intelligence (AI) is no exception, and directors and officers may find themselves in the crosshairs should negative repercussions arise from the use of such tools. 

To be prepared for the potential regulatory scrutiny or claims activity that comes along with the introduction of a new technology, it is imperative that boards carefully consider the introduction of AI, and ensure sufficient risk mitigation measures are in place. 

Businesspeople employ artificial intelligence (AI) in document management systems, online documentation databases, and digital file storage systems or software to efficiently archive firm data.

GettyImages-1929775959

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/61ae12eb-dabc-49cf-8a78-675121da67ce/GettyImages-1929775959

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/61ae12eb-dabc-49cf-8a78-675121da67ce/GettyImages-1929775959

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/61ae12eb-dabc-49cf-8a78-675121da67ce/GettyImages-1929775959

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/61ae12eb-dabc-49cf-8a78-675121da67ce/GettyImages-1929775959

AI risks: what directors and officers need to know  

A softening market for Political Violence (PV) Insurance is a welcome sign for buyers, following a prolonged hard period. An influx of approximately £350m of new capacity via Lloyd’s syndicates and specialist underwriting agencies is driving competition, enabling brokers to market accounts more widely and deliver premium savings to clients. But it's not all straightforward. While the years prior to 2022 saw a high volume of claims relating to civil unrest, the market has since been dominated by larger-scale incidents of political violence – forcing insurers to adapt their strategies. For buyers, this introduces complexity: S&T policies are now unlikely to offer indemnity against some of the most common threats of the last three-to-five years. This being the case, more buyers may gravitate towards the broader scope of Political Violence cover. Explore our latest market update for more on these and other key risks shaping the market for Political Violence cover: Dive into the report > 

A softening market for Political Violence (PV) Insurance is a welcome sign for buyers, following a prolonged hard period. An influx of approximately £350m of new capacity via Lloyd’s syndicates and specialist underwriting agencies is driving competition, enabling brokers to market accounts more widely and deliver premium savings to clients.

But it's not all straightforward. While the years prior to 2022 saw a high volume of claims relating to civil unrest, the market has since been dominated by larger-scale incidents of political violence – forcing insurers to adapt their strategies. For buyers, this introduces complexity: S&T policies are now unlikely to offer indemnity against some of the most common threats of the last three-to-five years. This being the case, more buyers may gravitate towards the broader scope of Political Violence cover.

GettyImages-1024215048

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/2fb92df0-8857-4c39-8777-9ec58f5e4490/GettyImages-1024215048

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/2fb92df0-8857-4c39-8777-9ec58f5e4490/GettyImages-1024215048

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/2fb92df0-8857-4c39-8777-9ec58f5e4490/GettyImages-1024215048

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/2fb92df0-8857-4c39-8777-9ec58f5e4490/GettyImages-1024215048

Political Violence Market Update 2026

A mining boom is underway in Latin America. Ample resources, rising commodity prices, and foreign investment in critical minerals are fuelling sector growth. But as profits increase, so companies are coming under increasing pressure from illegal operations in search of their own share. Mining companies cannot resolve this situation alone: ultimately, a resolution requires political will. But help is available. By taking advantage of solutions to mitigate and transfer risk, companies can insulate their operations against potential threats. Drivers of illegal mining When it comes to mineral deposits, Latin America is rich. According to 2023 reports from the Economist Intelligence Unit, Chile tops the list of global copper reserves, followed by Peru. Mexico is fifth. In the case of lithium, Bolivia’s reserves take top spot; Argentina and Chile are also in the top four – in 2025, these two alone accounted for 97% of US lithium imports. Brazil has the third largest global reserves in nickel and rare earth elements. Latin America’s global critical minerals reserves ranking Source: EIU, 2022 Yet, despite the bounty of deposits across Latin America, the region has historically struggled to translate this into real-world mineral production. It is well-documented that the sector has faced production challenges, driven by poor infrastructure, unstable regulatory environments, labour unrest, and corruption. But these issues have been compounded in recent years by a growing threat from illegal mining operations. According to the Financial Accountability and Corporate Transparency (FACT) coalition, illegal gold mining in Colombia and Peru now generates more money for organised crime than the drug trade, despite these countries being the largest coca-producing countries in the world. In the former, the National Liberal Army (ELN) and other guerrilla groups have expanded their illegal gold mining operations amid a deteriorating political landscape. In neighbouring Venezuela, government forces acting under the pretence of environmental protection have raided gold mines in the country’s south for their own enrichment – or have allowed armed groups to do so in exchange for profit. In Ecuador, illegal gold proceeds may reach $1 billion a year, according to government officials. This growth is a response to opportunity. The price of key commodities has grown exponentially in recent years, as demand from renewable energy technologies and the impact of escalating trade tariffs have disrupted supply chains and driven costs higher. In December 2025, the price of gold hit its record high, exceeding $4,500 per ounce. Silver also reached a new high of $83.62 per ounce in late December, before a slight fall. Latin America has also profited from the escalation of tension between the US and China, becoming a key alternative supplier of critical minerals. China dominates critical minerals and rare earths supply chains, both due to ample reserves of its own, and a highly developed refining industry that represents around 91% of global production. In response, Latin American economies are accelerating investment in extraction capacity to meet rising demand.  The impact on legitimate mining operations The expansion of illegal mining operations brings significant consequences for legitimate local and multinational mining companies operating within the region. In May 2025, mining activity was suspended for 30 days in Peru’s northern district of Pataz, after 13 gold mine workers were kidnapped and killed. According to mining company Poderosa, there have been 39 workers killed in Pataz in the past three years. Mine workers and security officers are frequent bribery targets for illegal miners seeking to facilitate resource flows into their operations, with violence – including murder – an increasingly likely outcome for those who resist. Alongside the substantial human cost, mining companies also face significant financial losses due to illegal mining. When companies are forced to close or suspend mining activity due to illegal operations, it harms profits – due to decreased production and potential mineral decay. For smaller local and regional miners in particular, criminals may demand ‘protection’ or ‘rent’ to continue operations. Those who resist payments often become targets for further attacks. To repel such attacks, many companies have taken steps to enhance their security presence on-site. However, this is not without cost. Theft of goods is also a critical factor. In April 2023, Patagonia Gold Corp, a Vancouver-based multinational mining organisation, saw US$1m of gold stolen from a mining project in southern Argentina. In Colombia, meanwhile, Chinese-based Zijin Mining put its total losses at the Buritica mine at $200 million across 2023, equal to 38% of the mine’s total production. Thefts can occur throughout the supply chain, from the initial extraction of minerals to transportation. Criminals may also infiltrate legitimate supply chains to launder illegally extracted minerals, complicating efforts to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate goods. Crucially, not all mining operations feel the effects of illegal mining equally. As insurance markets reflect, nuance remains; underwriters are willing to differentiate between areas where illegal mining is at its most prevalent and consequential for business, areas where those consequences are less severe, and those where there is an absence of illegal mining activity. As ever, pricing is on a case-by-case basis, with options tailored to the exposure level of individual companies. Why you should consider an insurance broker Mining companies in Latin America face rising commodity prices, exposure to illegal operations, and mounting financial and human costs. While these challenges cannot be solved by firms alone, insurance brokers provide essential support by helping companies transfer risk and strengthen resilience. Their role spans several key areas: Secure fair pricing – Educate underwriters on your specific risk profile, highlighting mitigation steps and preparedness measures to ensure premiums reflect actual exposure. Streamline risk surveys – Coordinate mandatory security risk surveys, and negotiate potential insurer contributions toward costs. Arrange Political Risk cover – Protect against property damage losses caused by terrorism, sabotage, riots, strikes, civil commotion, insurrection, rebellion, mutiny, coup d’état, and war or civil war. Provide additional protection – Extend cover to losses from employee injury or death, extortion, kidnap and ransom, or business interruption when operations cease. By partnering with experienced brokers, mining companies can move beyond reactive measures and build long-term resilience. Tailored cover not only protects against immediate threats like theft or extortion, but also supports continuity in the face of wider political and criminal pressures. Talk to us Illegal mining is more than a security issue: it threatens to undermine operational continuity, workforce safety, and the long-term value of legitimate mining projects. Having a robust risk transfer strategy is essential to ensure your resilience. Lockton’s Mining Practice works with operators across Latin America and beyond to help them navigate complex risks. Our brokers understand how underwriters assess illegal mining exposure, how to secure fair terms, and build programmes that respond when incidents escalate. To strengthen your risk posture, benchmark your current cover, or explore further options to protect your operations, reach out to a member of our team.

A mining boom is underway in Latin America. Ample resources, rising commodity prices, and foreign investment in critical minerals are fuelling sector growth. But as profits increase, so companies are coming under increasing pressure from illegal operations in search of their own share.

Mining companies cannot resolve this situation alone: ultimately, a resolution requires political will. But help is available. By taking advantage of solutions to mitigate and transfer risk, companies can insulate their operations against potential threats.

GettyImages-2242842625

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/7d4455f9-b103-4c99-89f4-f728ed7338bc/GettyImages-2242842625

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/7d4455f9-b103-4c99-89f4-f728ed7338bc/GettyImages-2242842625

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/7d4455f9-b103-4c99-89f4-f728ed7338bc/GettyImages-2242842625

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/7d4455f9-b103-4c99-89f4-f728ed7338bc/GettyImages-2242842625

Political violence: tackling illegal mining risks in Latin America

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. How are boards responsible for cyber security? 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. In the event of a cyber-attack, senior management must notify the relevant authorities, as well as persons and 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

logo-scrolling-white

Lockton_Logo_white_new

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/a91bff0c-c549-468d-a934-2fec7b14971f/Lockton_Logo_white_new

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/a91bff0c-c549-468d-a934-2fec7b14971f/Lockton_Logo_white_new

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/a91bff0c-c549-468d-a934-2fec7b14971f/Lockton_Logo_white_new

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/a91bff0c-c549-468d-a934-2fec7b14971f/Lockton_Logo_white_new

Home

United States

Scotland

UK shape

United Kingdom

Denmark

Ireland

Italy

Malta

Norway

Sweden

South Africa

Switzerland

Türkiye 

EU shape

Europe

Egypt

Jordan

Oman

Morocco

Saudi Arabia

mena home

MENA

Middle East / North Africa

Australia

New Zealand

Pacific

Greater China

   - Chinese Mainland

   - Hong Kong SAR

   - Macau SAR

   - Taiwan 

India

Malaysia

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Thailand

apac home

Asia 

Argentina

Brazil

Caribbean and Central America

Chile

Colombia

Mexico

Peru

Uruguay

Latam home

latin_america

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.

Industries we serve

About Us

AI risks: what directors and officers need to know

Insights

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

AI risks: what directors and officers need to know

Political Violence Market Update 2026

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

AI risks: what directors and officers need to know

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

AI risks: what directors and officers need to know

Political Violence Market Update 2026