This Week’s Strategic Signals for P&C Carrier and Insurtech Executives
Overall: Swiss Re puts the global natural catastrophe protection gap at $424 billion for 2025, the widest on record.
Personal Lines: New York enacted auto reforms that ban ZIP code rating and cap injury suits to lower the nation’s highest premiums.
Commercial Lines: A London court left Chubb and Fidelis to absorb $340 million in Russia aircraft war risk payouts.
Cyber Insurance: Companies running autonomous AI agents hold a coverage class standard cyber and technology errors and omissions policies never wrote for.
Some sections also include ‘other signals on our radar.’ Write back and let us know if you’d like to see more details on any of those.
Available Now: The P&C Commercial Tracker
In case you missed it, we launched the P&C Commercial Tracker, a weekly carrier-level tracker of the US commercial property and E&S property markets. Two layers, sourced and timestamped: the Carrier Directory baseline and the Weekly Moves tracker.
We mapped six states the same way across every layer: admitted carriers, E&S eligible insurers, Lloyd’s syndicates, MGAs and programs, and the regulatory actors who move the market. Arizona, Florida, California, Texas, New York/New Jersey, and Illinois. 1,480 carriers identified so far. Every entry researched against state filing portals, AM Best, Demotech, FHCF, SLTX eligible insurer lists, SEC filings, and trade press, with 2 to 5 independent sources per entry.
This is the live infrastructure layer for anyone tracking commercial property market movement at the carrier level. Click here for the tracker, or subscribe to Premium below for full access.
In Force is a weekly intelligence brief for P&C Insurance executives, delivering high-impact developments shaping the P&C space: what happened, why it matters, and what to do about it. It is designed for carrier and insurtech strategy, product management, marketing, sales, broker/agent relations, and innovation teams. Each issue distills complex shifts into decision-grade insight.
In Force is weekly, other Paid subscriber benefits include monthly deep-dives, quarterly trackers, and Premier Plan subscribers have Analyst Access.
1. Overall
Swiss Re Puts the Global Catastrophe Protection Gap at $424 Billion as Coverage Quietly Gains
What Happened
On June 3, 2026, the Swiss Re Institute estimated the global natural catastrophe protection gap, the difference between economic and insured losses, at $424 billion for 2025, up from $395 billion in 2024. The roughly 7 percent rise was driven mainly by higher asset values and reconstruction costs, not falling coverage. Its Natural Catastrophe Insurance Resilience Index rose to 27.3 percent, up from about 25 percent a decade earlier, with North America holding the highest regional resilience at roughly 40 to 42 percent. Secondary perils drove a record 92 percent of 2025 insured losses, which totaled $107 billion, and Swiss Re projects insured losses could reach $148 billion in 2026 and $186 billion by 2030.
Why It Matters
The figure becomes the shared fact base carriers, reinsurers, and regulators will cite through the rest of the year. North America’s high resilience reading masks the more important detail: stable coverage ratios sit on top of fast growing exposure, so uninsured loss keeps climbing in the states carriers are already retreating from. The record secondary peril share confirms that the losses driving the gap are the ones traditional models price least confidently, the same dynamic behind the property softening our June 1, 2026 issue flagged.
Implications
The widening absolute gap alongside an improving resilience ratio may complicate how chief risk officers and investor relations teams frame catastrophe exposure to boards, since the headline number rises every year even when the company is covering more of the risk than before.
Product and innovation leaders may find the gap concentrated in high growth, catastrophe exposed states is precisely where admitted capacity is thinnest, leaving parametric and specialty teams to build in markets their own carrier is non renewing.
Reinsurance and treaty buyers may face a harder pricing argument, because a gap driven by asset values rather than under insurance weakens the case for blanket rate relief at renewal.
The record secondary peril share could shift internal authority toward catastrophe modeling and exposure management functions, whose loss estimates now carry more weight than the historical loss triangles actuaries have leaned on.
Distribution leaders in exposed geographies may see agents reframe the gap as a sales opening, which can pull marginal risk into the book at the point where reinsurance attachment points are least forgiving.
For carriers weighing public private partnership structures, the data may strengthen regulators who argue private capacity alone will not close the gap, narrowing the room to decline politically sensitive risks without a state backstop conversation.
Other Overall Signals on our Radar:
Digital Now Half of New Policy Purchases J.D. Power released its 2026 U.S. Insurance Digital Experience Study on May 13, 2026, finding that 47 percent of new auto and home insurance policies are now purchased through digital channels, ahead of agents at 35 percent and call centers at 17 percent. Overall satisfaction in the service segment fell 4 points to 695 on a 1,000 point scale. Amica ranked highest in service at 730. The study, based on 11,553 evaluations fielded from January through March 2026, found that only 11 percent of customers used chatbots or virtual assistants, though those who did reported higher satisfaction.
We regularly publish insights that go beyond reporting to help P&C insurance leaders make informed decisions as expectations, risks, and market dynamics continue to evolve.
2. Personal Lines (Home, Auto, etc.)
New York Enacts Auto Insurance Reforms Targeting Fraud, Litigation, and Rating Factors
What Happened
On May 27, 2026, Governor Kathy Hochul signed a package of auto insurance reforms as part of New York’s $268.5 billion FY27 enacted budget, the state’s most significant auto overhaul in a generation. The measures tighten the threshold for pain and suffering lawsuits, limit damages for at fault drivers, expand fraud definitions to cover staged crash organizers, repeal the 90/180 rule, and require insurers to return excess profits to policyholders. The package also bars occupation, education, homeownership status, and ZIP code from serving as the primary basis for rates, and requires written explanations for any premium increase above 10 percent.
Why It Matters New York auto has run at an underwriting loss for years, driven by claim severity that fraud and litigation inflate, the same casualty pressure our June 1, 2026 issue flagged as widening while property softens. The serious injury threshold and at fault damage limits attack severity directly. The rating factor ban is the harder problem: it forces a rebuild of rating plan architecture in one of the country’s largest auto markets, and it arrives as a template other high cost states may copy.
Implications
The prohibition on ZIP code, occupation, education, and homeownership as primary rating variables may force pricing actuaries to rebuild segmentation around behavioral and vehicle data, a multi quarter systems project that competitors with cleaner data pipelines could finish faster.
Underwriting and product leaders may find the severity reforms and the rating factor ban pulling in opposite directions, with one improving loss costs while the other compresses the pricing precision that made the New York book selectable.
The requirement to explain any increase above 10 percent may hand competitors a recurring opening, since every large increase now arrives with a documented rationale a rival agent can rebut.
General counsels and compliance leaders may carry the heaviest near term load, because the staged crash and excess profit provisions create new enforcement surfaces that expose carriers to penalties for practices that were previously routine.
For carriers that priced New York as a managed loss leader inside a multistate book, the reforms may shift the internal economics enough that capital allocation committees revisit how much growth the state should carry.
Distribution leaders may see projected savings used as an acquisition message before any rate moves, creating an expectation gap that falls on agents to manage when filed reductions lag the messaging.
Other Personal Lines Signals on our Radar:
Liberty Mutual Puts Auto Quoting Inside ChatGPT Liberty Mutual Insurance announced on May 28, 2026 the launch of what it calls the first carrier backed conversational AI auto insurance quoting application inside ChatGPT. The seventh largest U.S. auto insurer said drivers can obtain a quote through a chat based exchange that runs on the company's own rating engine, then finish binding at LibertyMutual.com. The app is live in seven states, Arizona, Kentucky, Ohio, Missouri, New Mexico, Utah, and Wisconsin, with plans to expand to more than 40 states by the end of 2026. Tyler Asher, chief distribution and marketing officer for U.S. Retail Markets, framed the move as extending customer access.
3. Commercial
Chubb and Fidelis Lose Bid to Recover $340 Million in Russia Aircraft Claims
What Happened
On May 13, 2026, the Commercial High Court of England and Wales rejected an effort by Chubb European Group and Fidelis Insurance Ireland to recover about $340 million from war risk underwriters over payouts tied to aircraft stranded in Russia after the invasion of Ukraine. Chubb had paid $57.6 million to lessor AerCap, and Fidelis had paid $240 million to AerCap and about $50 million to Merx Aviation Finance under contingent war risk cover. The court found those payments did not cancel the operator war risk underwriters’ liabilities, so the two insurers could not claim direct contribution and would have to pursue any remedy through subrogation. The ruling follows a June 2025 judgment that AerCap could recover just over $1 billion from its war risk insurers, which Chubb, Fidelis, and Lloyd’s syndicates were granted permission to appeal in March 2026.
Why It Matters
The Russia aircraft losses are among the largest aviation insurance events on record, and their legal resolution keeps reshaping how war risk and confiscation cover are read. The contribution loss matters most for what it says about recovery between insurers: paying a contingent claim does not buy a direct route to reimbursement from the carriers that should have responded first. For specialty leaders, that is a live lesson in how geopolitical confiscation exposure accumulates and how little the standard contribution architecture protects a payer after the fact.
Implications
The ruling may push specialty underwriters and product managers to draft contribution and indemnity rights between insurers explicitly, since the court showed that paying first does not preserve a direct claim against co insurers who did not pay.
Reinsurance and treaty structures for war and confiscation risk may face renewed scrutiny from chief risk officers, because losses that courts continue to litigate years later complicate how reserves and recoverables are carried.
The forced reliance on subrogation rather than direct contribution may lengthen the tail on these claims, leaving claims and finance teams running recovery actions in the name of insureds long after the payouts cleared.
For carriers writing contingent war risk behind operator policies, the decision may change how that layered structure is priced, since the contingent layer now looks more exposed and less recoverable than the cascade assumed.
The precedent may influence how Lloyd’s syndicates and London market participants structure shared risk programs on future geopolitical exposures, where the order of response between policies now carries clearer financial consequences.
Investor relations and finance leaders at the affected insurers may face questions about how much exposure remains open, given the parallel appeal and the gap between amounts paid and amounts recoverable.
Other Commercial Signals on our Radar:
Carriers File Broader AI Exclusions Beyond ISO Forms Several carriers have filed their own artificial intelligence liability exclusions with state regulators since ISO's three generative AI endorsements, CG 40 47, CG 40 48, and CG 35 08, took effect in January 2026 across commercial general liability (CGL) policies. W.R. Berkley introduced Form PC 51380, an absolute AI exclusion across directors and officers (D&O), errors and omissions (E&O), and fiduciary liability that bars any claim arising from the use, deployment, or development of artificial intelligence by any person or entity. AIG and Great American have filed their own versions, and Berkshire Hathaway, Chubb, and Travelers have secured state approval to strip AI related damages from standard commercial policies. The Intelligence Council reported on ISO's near universal AI exclusion adoption on May 18, 2026
4. Cyber
Autonomous AI Agents Open a Coverage Class Standard Cyber Policies Never Wrote For
What Happened
Companies are deploying agentic AI, autonomous systems that take multi step actions, call other software, and execute transactions with limited human supervision, into production faster than insurers have built coverage for them. Standard cyber and technology errors and omissions (E&O) policies were drafted before the autonomous actor failure mode existed as an underwriting consideration, leaving most agentic deployments in a silent coverage zone that neither clearly includes nor excludes the risk. Specialist venues including Munich Re’s aiSure product, Lloyd’s backed Armilla, and managing general agents such as Vouch, Coalition, and Relm are building affirmative coverage, but there is no standard wording and no settled claims history. The EU Artificial Intelligence Act adds pressure: August 2, 2026 remains the active date for its high risk obligations and enforcement, though a Digital Omnibus agreement reached in May 2026 could defer some high risk deadlines to December 2027 if formally adopted.
Why It Matters
For cyber product managers and underwriters, every renewal involving an AI forward insured is now a bespoke negotiation rather than a standard questionnaire, which is both a profitability risk and a chance to set wording before competitors do. Companies running autonomous agents in production likely have no coverage for agent driven financial harm to third parties or for regulatory defense under the EU rules. This extends the AI coverage thread we opened on May 18, 2026, when ISO’s generative AI exclusions went near universal: the exclusions closed one door while autonomous agents opened another the forms never named.
Implications
The absence of standard wording may concentrate pricing power with the few underwriters who publish coherent agentic frameworks first, letting them set reference terms the rest of the market negotiates against before any claims history exists.
Cyber and technology E&O teams may find the silent coverage zone becoming a reserving problem before it becomes a product, since a single agent driven loss could be argued into a policy that was never priced for autonomous action.
The EU timeline may split the book by geography, leaving multinational insureds and their brokers to reconcile carriers that treat August 2026 as binding against those waiting to see whether the Digital Omnibus defers the obligations.
For chief underwriting officers, agentic AI may blur the line between cyber, technology E&O, and general liability, since one autonomous agent can produce a loss that three different policies each have reason to disclaim.
Claims executives may need autonomous system forensic capability before the actuarial data to support it arrives, because adjudicating an agent driven loss means reconstructing decisions no human directly made.
Carriers that move early on affirmative agentic coverage may attract exactly the most AI intensive insureds, a selection pattern that concentrates an untested exposure in the books of the carriers most willing to write it.
P&C Insurance Executive Intelligence is for strategy, product, and executive leaders in carriers, reinsurers, and insurance platforms navigating commercial lines disruption.
Ping us at [email protected] if you'd like to learn more, explore Enterprise Subscriptions, or would like to partner in other ways.
The Intelligence Council is a next-gen B2B media and business intelligence platform built for people who make strategy, allocate capital, and carry operating risk.