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

Demand for grid stability, improving battery technology, and significantly decreasing prices, has facilitated rapid growth in the battery energy storage system (BESS) market across the world. 

GettyImages-2170214102

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/a1eeab25-1b11-49d3-85ed-47a514a6cf8d/GettyImages-2170214102

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/a1eeab25-1b11-49d3-85ed-47a514a6cf8d/GettyImages-2170214102

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/a1eeab25-1b11-49d3-85ed-47a514a6cf8d/GettyImages-2170214102

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/a1eeab25-1b11-49d3-85ed-47a514a6cf8d/GettyImages-2170214102

Derisking BESS projects 

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 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, streamlining processes and increasing productivity. The technology has promised to facilitate 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 these risks 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. 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’, recently led one plaintiff to file a securities class-action lawsuit in the US against an AI-enabled software platform company, arguing that investors had been misled. Just as disclosures may overstate AI capabilities, companies may also understate their exposure to AI-related disruption or fail to disclose that their competitors are adopting AI tools more rapidly and effectively. Cybersecurity risks or flawed algorithms leading to reputational harm, competitive harm or legal liability are all potential consequences of poorly implemented AI. Alongside this, growing regulatory activity, such as the EU AI Act, approved by European Parliament earlier this year, is pushing for transparency and is amplifying the scrutiny of businesses’ AI use. An emerging risk for directors and officers Ultimately, responsibility for some of these risks might rest with the C-suite: Not only do some believe that directors and officers are responsible for managing the implementation of AI, but some also believe that they must understand the risks that such tools pose and take steps to mitigate against potential damage. The latter will also be helpful in educating directors’ and officers’ (D&O) liability insurers that specific AI risks are well understood and managed at the board level. Allegations of poor AI governance procedures or claims for AI technology failure as well as misrepresentation may be alleged against directors and officers in the form of a breach of the directors’ duties. Such claims could damage a company’s reputation and result in a D&O class action. Key AI risks for directors and officers include:   Legal liability – where AI takes a greater role in corporate decision-making, including undisclosed use of AI or inadequate disclosure of its risks  Negligence claims – including allegations of discrimination, bias, invasion of privacy, and redress for victims 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, this may lead to claims, with directors potentially liable for a breach of their duties for failing to arrange adequate insurance coverage  Looking at this list, it is perhaps not surprising that AI-related questions are top of mind for D&O insurers. In December 2023, Allianz Commercial warned specifically about potential threats AI may represent to cybersecurity, increased regulatory risk, unrealistic investor expectations about its capabilities, as well as managing misinformation.  As AI systems gain traction across a wide range of industries, insurers will increasingly inquire about AI applications in business operations and in connection with the management of the entity. Board-level considerations for AI Despite its challenges, AI can be a manageable risk. An  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,  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?  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?  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 discuss the management processes for AI bias, for intellectual property, cyber risks, and data privacy. As AI continues to evolve, it is essential for companies and their boards of directors to have a strong grasp of the risks attached to this technology. With the appropriate action taken, AI’s exciting potential can be harnessed, and risk can be . For more information, visit the Lockton 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 

Businesses need to adjust to a world where accelerating geopolitical shifts are becoming the new norm. Remaining agile and adaptive in a polarised world will be a precondition for success going forwards.

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/ba844494-3952-4d40-b4b7-3adc3815b522/11

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/ba844494-3952-4d40-b4b7-3adc3815b522/11

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/ba844494-3952-4d40-b4b7-3adc3815b522/11

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/ba844494-3952-4d40-b4b7-3adc3815b522/11

Ensuring business resilience in a polarised world

For further information, please contact a member of the team or visit our Cargo and Logistics page.

After several years of post-pandemic recovery and trading uncertainties, the beginning of 2025 has seen an increase in market participants that has led to insurance capacity reaching an all-time high. This comes despite ongoing challenges in the broader economic and geopolitical landscape.  

GettyImages-1222790245

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/c0638733-1401-49ba-ac92-9875615f1fea/GettyImages-1222790245

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/c0638733-1401-49ba-ac92-9875615f1fea/GettyImages-1222790245

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/c0638733-1401-49ba-ac92-9875615f1fea/GettyImages-1222790245

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/c0638733-1401-49ba-ac92-9875615f1fea/GettyImages-1222790245

New business appetite for cargo risks at record levels

US President Donald Trump has recently issued several executive orders governing federal policy that are diverging from regulations in other jurisdictions in the Western world. This is creating a more challenging environment for multinational companies to navigate, raising the risk of companies failing to comply and thereby increasing the likelihood of directors' and officers' liability (D&O) related claims. The US government’s initiatives focus on corporate policies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), but anti-bribery and environmental, social and governance (ESG) policies may also be impacted.

GettyImages-74951250

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1505x724_FullWidthGatedContentForm/99fcd39d-6f61-414d-b6ed-b43e1e6885de/GettyImages-74951250

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/180x230_DocWithTextWrap/99fcd39d-6f61-414d-b6ed-b43e1e6885de/GettyImages-74951250

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/1900x1067_CTA-ImagewText-RichTextImage-ProductorService/99fcd39d-6f61-414d-b6ed-b43e1e6885de/GettyImages-74951250

https://lockbox.lockton.com/transform/560x400_MediaTextCarousel/99fcd39d-6f61-414d-b6ed-b43e1e6885de/GettyImages-74951250

Multinational companies: navigating diverging regulatory environments

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

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)

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

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

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

Ensuring the right cargo cover amid tariff uncertainty