Some sections also includes ‘other signals on our radar.’ Write back and let us know if you’d like to see more detail on any of those.

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.

On March 16, Fitch Ratings published a commentary from its Paris and London offices titled “Risks for Global Insurers Could Rise Under Protracted Iran Conflict.” The report separates direct rating implications, which Fitch characterizes as limited if the conflict stays short and avoids major damage to oil production and shipping infrastructure, from the indirect loss channels it considers more consequential. Fitch identifies London market and global specialty insurers as most directly exposed through marine and aviation war, political violence, trade credit, and energy lines. Standard P&C policies covering property damage, business interruption, and cyber are not expected to generate significant claims because they typically exclude acts of war. War risk marine and aviation covers across the region have already been cancelled at short notice or rewritten at dramatically higher rates, with premiums for maritime war covers on vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz rising as much as 20 times the pre conflict norm of 0.25% of insured vessel value. Approximately 1,000 vessels with aggregate hull values exceeding $25 billion remain in Gulf waters and surrounding seas.

Fitch’s more pointed warning concerns second order, indirect losses. A prolonged conflict could affect insurers through loss cost inflation driven by supply chain disruption and higher energy prices, falling asset values pressuring investment portfolios, and rising defaults triggering trade credit and political risk claims, even for insurers writing standard personal and commercial lines with no direct conflict zone exposure. Trade credit insurers serving energy, petrochemical, and transportation sectors with exposure to Asian markets reliant on Gulf hydrocarbon imports are flagged as particularly vulnerable. Morningstar DBRS concurred on March 18, warning that prolonged hostilities could increase underwriting volatility and tighten conditions in specialty insurance markets, particularly for assets perceived as politically or strategically sensitive.

This follows our March 9 and March 16 coverage of the DFC’s $20 billion Chubb maritime reinsurance facility, which addressed the direct capacity gap. The Fitch commentary adds the layer our readers should be watching more closely: the indirect loss thesis. If the conflict drags on and drives sustained energy price inflation, it will lift auto physical damage repair costs, commercial property claims, and general loss cost trends across virtually every line. This is how a specialty market event becomes a mainstream P&C earnings problem. Fitch’s aggregation concern, that correlated losses across marine war, political violence, trade credit, and energy lines could pressure reinsurance capital adequacy, echoes precisely the kind of multi line stress we have been tracking through the casualty reserve cycle. For executives in strategy, product management, and commercial lines, the immediate action is scenario planning around a protracted conflict case, not just a short war baseline.

On March 17, a federal judge in the Eastern District of New York ruled that two New York companies accused by GEICO of exploiting the state’s no fault insurance laws must face the majority of GEICO’s claims in a suit alleging they fraudulently billed more than $2.7 million for unnecessary durable medical equipment. The defendants, J Flexible Corp., LJR NY Inc., and owner Yevgeniya Ivanova, face claims for RICO conspiracy and common law fraud, though some overlapping claims were dismissed. Earlier in the week, on March 10, the Second Circuit had vacated a prior GEICO win in a separate no fault kickback case involving acupuncturist Igor Mayzenberg, after the New York Court of Appeals narrowed the grounds on which insurers can refuse reimbursement under the state’s Eligibility Regulation. The Mayzenberg ruling limits carriers from denying claims based solely on professional misconduct allegations unless those allegations involve actual surrender of control to unlicensed parties.

The dual outcomes land in the context of GEICO’s sustained, aggressive RICO based campaign against New York’s no fault fraud ecosystem. In February 2026, GEICO won Second Circuit approval to freeze more than 600 collection lawsuits in the separate Patel case, where the insurer alleges $3.4 million in fraudulent claims from a Queens medical practice. Also in February, GEICO filed two additional federal suits in New York and Florida alleging fraud schemes totaling more than $6 million. The broader playbook is consistent: allege medically unnecessary treatments billed under no fault PIP assignments, often involving kickback networks between clinics, equipment suppliers, and referring physicians, then consolidate the litigation in federal court using RICO to avoid being buried under hundreds of individual state collection actions.

This follows a pattern we have been tracking since GEICO’s February 2026 Patel win established the procedural precedent for federal injunctions staying parallel state collection suits. The March 17 win in the DME fraud case advances GEICO’s template. The March 10 Mayzenberg loss complicates it. The state’s no fault system, which mandates rapid payment of PIP claims, continues to be systematically exploited, and the legal strategy required to combat it at scale demands continuous refinement as courts draw and redraw the boundaries of insurer authority.

For personal auto fraud strategy and SIU executives at carriers writing New York no fault, the Mayzenberg ruling is the more consequential of the two developments: it establishes that New York courts will enforce narrow limits on when insurers can deny claims based on provider misconduct, even when the underlying fraud is undisputed. For industry executives engaged with the New York legislature and NYDFS, the scale of ongoing fraud activity, with individual cases involving millions in alleged fraudulent billings and coordinated clinic networks, strengthens the evidentiary basis for no fault reform advocacy.

In his annual shareholder letter published March 17, Chubb Chairman and CEO Evan Greenberg issued unusually blunt assessments on distribution structure and workforce transformation. On MGAs, Greenberg characterized them as “a bad bet in the majority of cases,” targeting multi layer broking structures he says amplify the supply cycle by creating what he described as cheap prices with huge intermediation costs that leave the ultimate risk bearing carrier holding poorly priced, highly intermediated risk. On AI and workforce, Greenberg told investors that AI will replace jobs at Chubb and across the insurance industry. This builds on Chubb’s December 2025 investor presentation, in which the company disclosed plans to automate 85% of key underwriting and claims functions and reduce its global workforce of approximately 43,000 by roughly 20% (approximately 8,600 positions) over three to four years, targeting a 1.5 point improvement in combined ratio. The March comments added specificity: underwriting and claims are among the processes being digitized as part of a plan to route 85% of premium through digital channels by approximately 2028.

The MGA commentary is a strategic signal from the most influential CEO in global P&C. As we have covered extensively, the MGA market has grown at a 20.2% five year CAGR versus 6.5% in the prior five year period, and PE ownership now accounts for more than 30% of all MGA entities. Greenberg is not observing a trend; he is issuing a verdict from the carrier side of the balance sheet. For carrier executives in strategy and distribution, this frames how Chubb is rethinking the cost structure of delegated authority. Whether other large carriers align publicly matters for how the MGA market prices its value proposition going forward. For MGA leaders and brokers, it is a direct challenge to the intermediation model.

The AI and workforce messaging matters separately. Chubb is the first global top 10 P&C insurer to publicly quantify expected headcount reductions at this scale in a shareholder communication. This will accelerate board level conversations across peers about transformation timelines, talent strategy, and the credibility of AI first underwriting models. It also sets competitive pressure: carriers that do not pursue comparable automation risk meaningful combined ratio disadvantage versus Chubb’s 1.5 point target improvement.

With CIRCIA’s (Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act) mandatory 72 hour reporting rule expected to be published by CISA in May 2026, now approximately six weeks away, broker and underwriter guidance crystallized this week around what the regulation will materially change in the cyber insurance market. CISA extended its original October 2025 deadline to May 2026 after receiving extensive public comments emphasizing the need to reduce scope and burden, improve harmonization with other federal cyber incident reporting requirements, and ensure clarity. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking was published in April 2024. Once the final rule is published, it will take effect no sooner than 30 days later. The rule mandates that covered critical infrastructure entities, spanning 16 sectors and estimated at more than 300,000 organizations, report substantial cyber incidents to CISA within 72 hours of reasonably believing an incident has occurred, and report ransomware payments within 24 hours.

The Gallagher 2026 Cyber Insurance Market Outlook frames the implications directly: CIRCIA will drive significantly greater data visibility for underwriters, as SEC regulations already require 4 day public disclosure of material incidents, and CIRCIA now adds a parallel regulatory reporting stream that generates new underwriting intelligence. Gallagher notes that AI driven losses are already appearing in claims data, with the 2025 IBM Ponemon Cost of Data Breach Report showing organizations reporting security incidents involving AI models and applications, and that at least one insurer has introduced a standalone AI policy while others are issuing endorsements to cover costs associated with retraining large language models.

Coalition’s 2026 Cyber Claims Report, which we covered in our March 9 digest, provides additional ground level data: 64% of closed claims resulted in no out of pocket loss for policyholders, and Coalition recovered $21.8 million in stolen funds. Coalition CEO Joshua Motta has described 2026 as a very challenging market for cyber insurance, flagging the tension between soft market pricing pressure and rising AI driven exposures.

CIRCIA’s May publication date is the single most consequential regulatory event hitting the cyber market in the near term. The 72 hour reporting clock will, for the first time, create a federally mandated data trail of covered incidents across 16 critical infrastructure sectors, data that underwriters will seek to access and incorporate into risk modeling. This fundamentally changes the information asymmetry that has defined cyber underwriting: carriers have historically relied on self reported application data and post incident claims information. CIRCIA creates a structured, near real time feed. For carriers with strong relationships with insureds in critical infrastructure sectors, the opportunity is to position as compliance partners, not just claims payers. Coverage structures that include incident response retainers and breach coach access become differentiators under CIRCIA.

This also intersects with the data theft first extortion shift we covered in our March 16 digest. As we noted, 65% of extortion demands now involve data theft without encryption, converting cyber from a short tail disruption product into long tail liability. CIRCIA’s reporting mandate will accelerate the visibility of these incidents, giving underwriters earlier signal on severity trajectories and potentially forcing faster reserve recognition on claims that previously developed slowly.

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.