Since the resurgence of conflict in the Middle East earlier this year, Autonomous noted that P&C stocks have shown little indication of investor concern around first-order insurance losses.

Instead, attention has centred on second-order macroeconomic effects, notably elevated oil prices and the potential for resulting shifts in monetary policy.

Even so, according to the report, barring a recessionary scenario, the overall impact on re/insurers should remain limited, with insurance brokers potentially seeing modest upside.

“War risk globally is well-tested, especially in the Middle East. Policy wording has been significantly refined and tightened over the last decade, and as such, direct insured losses are likely limited to war exposures on marine and some other lines. In addition, where possible coverage has been restricted or repriced on account of the conflict,” Autonomous explained.

Using the Russia–Ukraine war as a proxy, the firm estimates that total direct insured losses were in the region of $25 billion, broadly comparable to an average Category 3 hurricane.

Notably, a significant share of those losses, around $10–15 billion, related to stranded aircraft, a driver that does not appear to be a factor at this stage of the Middle East conflict.

Echoing the views of other rating agencies and analytical firms, Autonomous noted that any losses arising from the conflict are likely to be concentrated in specialty lines, segments that are typically highly syndicated and benefit from substantial reinsurance protection.

“To-date losses have been felt most in PVT lines, with several claims arising from strikes on energy assets in the region. But in our view, loss uncertainty remains greatest on marine war lines, with accumulation likely being the greatest risk. Losses on other specialty lines — aviation, BI, cyber, and trade credit — are possible but unlikely to break the bank,” the firm’s report concluded.

The post Prolonged Middle East conflict could stretch re/insurers’ loss exposure despite exclusions appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

The DFC and the U.S. Treasury unveiled the plan to deploy maritime reinsurance, including war risk, in the Gulf region, on March 9th. A few days later, Chubb was confirmed as the lead underwriter of the facility, which will insure losses up to approximately $20 billion on a rolling basis.

Today, the large US insurer has outlined the structure of the facility, confirming that it will provide war marine risk insurance for hull and liability, as well as cargo, with coverage to be offered for war hull risk insurance, war P&I insurance, and war cargo insurance.

Chubb states that the offering will apply to vessels that meet eligibility criteria provided by the U.S. Government, and that the insurance coverage will only be available to ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz under certain conditions. It’s currently unclear what these conditions are.

As the lead underwriter, Chubb will manage the facility, set pricing and terms, assume risk, issue policies for eligible vessels and cargo, and will also manage all claims.

Chubb underlines the important role of commercial shipping in the global economy, emphasising that the creation of this facility will help to “restore market confidence and facilitate the world’s critically important energy and commercial trade.”

The Gulf Maritime Insurance Facility is a public-private partnership between DFC, Chubb, and other American insurance companies who will serve as reinsurers. These additional insurers will be disclosed in the coming days, but Chubb says that they bring deep underwriting experience in marine and marine war coverage.

Lastly, Chubb confirms that the DFC will help coordinate the consortium of American reinsurers and set certain criteria for ships accessing the programme.

The post Chubb reveals structure of DFC’s $20bn Gulf Maritime Insurance Facility appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

The Middle East conflict, as we’ve reported previously, has led to disruption to vital trade flows, with global reinsurers cancelling covers at short notice or rewriting at much higher rates, resulting in premiums for maritime war covers for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz being volatile but increasing as much as 20 times the norms of 0.25% of vessels’ insured value.

According to the Economic Times of India, the country’s Finance Ministry is currently evaluating the proposal, which would enable domestic insurers to extend coverage to vessels sailing through high-risk zones such as the Strait of Hormuz, while being backed by government reinsurance.

A government official told the publication, “We are examining if a fund can be created, as reinsurance is not available in the region. It would be a kind of backstop facility, stepping into supplement insurers’ ability to get reinsurance when global reinsurers are staying away.”

The report states that the facility could be similar to the Marine Cargo Excluded Territories Pool established in 2022 due to the Russia-Ukraine war and related sanctions. This pool is managed by state-run General Insurance Corporation of India (GIC Re), and provides cover for marine cargo shipments of fertilisers and other commodities from “excluded territories”.

Public disclosures show that these risks are currently not covered by global insurers due to war and international sanctions. This pool had 21 members and a capacity of ₹484 crore per shipment.

Under the existing framework, GIC Re, along with the underwriting committee, approves coverage of new commodities as needed. The reinsurer holds the largest capacity share at 51.6% and earns a 2.5% management commission on the original gross premium, net of obligatory cessions.

The government official also told the Economic Times of India that several options are being examined, and that the setup of such a facility would be feasible only after the route through the Strait of Hormuz opens up. A final call on the structure, size and where it would be housed would be taken accordingly, according to people familiar with the matter.

The person also told the publication that the possibility of the latest facility covering crude oil shipments passing through the Strait of Hormuz, apart from other cargo, was being debated. “This is being discussed so as to ensure the continuity of cover for India-bound cargo, as most global insurers have withdrawn the cover,” the official told ET.

Additionally, Rajesh Kumar Sinha, India’s Special Secretary in the Shipping Ministry, speaking during an inter-ministerial briefing, said that war risk insurance premiums for ships have increased amid evolving security concerns in sensitive maritime regions.

He commented, “The additional war risk premium is being imposed now. Under normal circumstances, it is very low–around 0.01 per cent or 0.02 per cent. The premium increases depending on the risk exposure of a vessel’s route, particularly when entering conflict zones. If a ship enters a war zone, is on a voyage through such an area, or enters any high-risk region, the war risk premium increases.”

The post Indian gov mulls establishment of war-risk fund for ships passing through conflict-hit waters, says report appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

The agency underscores that its assessment is shaped by considerable uncertainty regarding how long the conflict will last and how far its effects may spread across economies and financial markets.

S&P Global Ratings indicates that its base-case scenario assumes a relatively contained period of intense military activity, lasting approximately two to four weeks.

However, the agency stresses that secondary effects, including intermittent security incidents and broader regional disruption, could extend beyond this timeframe. Given these uncertainties, S&P Global Ratings notes that its forecasts remain subject to revision as new developments emerge.

In its analysis, S&P Global Ratings emphasises that most rated GCC insurers have accumulated strong capital positions in recent years, which should allow them to absorb potential shocks stemming from market volatility or conflict-related claims.

According to S&P Global Ratings, direct exposure to war-related losses is generally limited, as standard insurance contracts exclude such risks, while specialist policies are typically transferred to global reinsurers. This structure, S&P Global Ratings explains, significantly reduces the net risk retained by regional insurers.

S&P Global Ratings highlights that any claims arising from the conflict are most likely to affect specific segments such as marine, aviation, energy and cyber insurance. Even within these lines, S&P Global Ratings considers the financial impact on GCC insurers to be contained due to extensive reinsurance protections.

The agency also draws attention to the potential consequences of prolonged disruption to key trade routes. S&P Global Ratings notes that an extended closure of the Strait of Hormuz could lead to supply chain constraints and higher import costs, particularly for automotive parts.

This could place upward pressure on claims in motor insurance, a segment that represents a significant share of the region’s premium income. Nonetheless, S&P Global Ratings adds that weaker economic activity and reduced travel may lower traffic volumes, potentially offsetting any increase in claims frequency.

From an earnings perspective, S&P Global Ratings expects underwriting performance in 2026 to remain broadly consistent with the previous year. However, S&P Global Ratings points out that profitability may differ across markets, with Saudi Arabia likely to continue underperforming regional peers due to its higher reliance on lower-margin medical insurance business, despite some pricing adjustments in motor lines.

S&P Global Ratings further reports that revenue growth across the GCC insurance sector is set to moderate in 2026 after a period of strong expansion. The agency forecasts that premium growth in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates could reach up to around 5%, while other markets may record slower increases.

S&P Global Ratings links this outlook closely to the duration of the conflict, noting that a quicker resolution would likely support a recovery in consumer confidence and economic activity.

At the same time, S&P Global Ratings observes that demand for war-risk insurance could increase, particularly in markets such as the UAE, where broader coverage frameworks are under consideration. According to S&P Global Ratings, this may provide selective support to insurers active in this niche segment, partially offsetting weaker demand elsewhere.

In terms of credit quality, S&P Global Ratings states that the majority of rated GCC insurers continue to carry stable outlooks, reflecting strong earnings and robust capitalisation. The agency notes that a large proportion of insurers demonstrated the highest levels of capital adequacy in its 2025 assessments, reinforcing the sector’s resilience.

However, S&P Global Ratings cautions that financial market volatility remains a key vulnerability. The agency warns that significant declines in property or equity markets could weaken capital positions, particularly for insurers with higher exposure to these asset classes. S&P Global Ratings also highlights that tighter financing conditions could make it more challenging for weaker firms to rebuild capital buffers if needed.

Overall, S&P Global Ratings maintains that, unless the conflict intensifies significantly or persists for an extended period, GCC insurers are well placed to navigate the current environment, with credit conditions expected to remain stable in the near to medium term.

The post GCC insurers’ credit conditions hold steady amid Middle East conflict: S&P appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

According to a new report from the rating agency, the key concern is not only the likelihood of attacks but also how losses may accumulate across multiple insurance lines.

Morningstar DBRS noted that incidents of terrorism and political violence can trigger claims simultaneously across property, marine, aviation, and business interruption policies.

The agency also highlighted that distinguishing between terrorism, sabotage, cyber incidents, and acts of war is becoming increasingly difficult, potentially increasing the likelihood of coverage disputes.

The report explained that the global market for terrorism and political violence insurance is highly specialised and concentrated among a small group of insurers and managing agents, often provided through Lloyd’s of London syndicates and specialty carriers.

“Political violence policies typically provide broader protection than stand-alone terrorism insurance, covering risks such as sabotage, riots, civil commotion, insurrection, and politically motivated strikes. Coverage limits and large commercial risks often reach several hundred million dollars through layered placements involving several insurers,” the report said.

As expected, demand for these policies typically rises during periods of geopolitical tension and social unrest.

According to the rating agency, amid the ongoing Middle East conflict, businesses with international exposure, including multinational corporations, airlines, logistics operators, infrastructure owners, and hospitality groups, may reassess their risk management strategies and seek broader coverage.

At the same time, a prolonged geopolitical crisis could prompt insurers to revisit pricing and coverage terms, with politically sensitive assets potentially facing higher premiums or reduced limits.

Morningstar DBRS thus emphasised that reinsurers play a central role in shaping the availability and cost of terrorism and political violence coverage.

“Reinsurers such as Munich Re, Swiss Re, Hannover Re, and SCOR SE provide significant capital support to specialty insurance markets. Their underwriting appetite directly influences the capacity available to primary insurers writing political violence risks.

“If geopolitical tensions persist or escalate, reinsurers may respond by tightening underwriting standards, raising attachment points, or limiting capacity for certain high-risk exposures. This would increase retention levels among primary insurers and likely lead to higher premiums for policyholders.

“Reinsurance may also reassess their accumulation exposure across multiple insurance lines and geographic regions. Managing accumulation is a key focus for reinsurers during periods of geopolitical instability.”

Marcos Alvarez, Managing Director, Global Financial Institution Ratings, Morningstar DBRS, commented, “We believe that the global insurance sector’s strong capitalisation and diversified underwriting base should limit the immediate impact of the geopolitical escalation.

“Nevertheless, prolonged hostilities could increase underwriting volatility and lead to tighter conditions in certain specialty insurance markets, particularly for assets perceived as politically or strategically sensitive.”

The post Prolonged Middle East tensions may heighten volatility in terrorism and political violence coverage appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

A new report from the agency noted that in 2025, its selected top global property and casualty reinsurance companies (Reinsurers) delivered another strong year, reaching a record aggregate net income of $25.2 billion, up from $20.5 billion in 2024.

“Specifically, the Reinsurers reported strong underwriting profitability, benefiting from benign major catastrophe losses in 2025 while investment income was also strong,” Morningstar DBRS added.

Despite the overall softening in the market, risk-adjusted pricing remained adequate. Pricing in property catastrophe lines, however, has continued to decline in 2026 amid excess capacity, putting pressure on profit margins.

At the same time, the recent escalation of geopolitical tensions in the Middle East has driven increased pricing and volatility across several specialty lines, partially offsetting the broader softening trend.

“The ongoing conflict in the Middle East has further heightened volatility across marine, aviation, and political risks, prompting near-term repricing, particularly in war risk-related lines. However, abundant capacity and disciplined underwriting from the Reinsurers are likely to continue to push rates downward for lower‐risk businesses in the long term, making geopolitical rate spikes temporary and localised rather than structural,” Morningstar DBRS explained.

As per the agency, Reinsurers’ overall profitability is expected to remain solid but under pressure in 2026 as short‐tail pricing declines and the investment tailwind fades.

The firm’s report further observed, “The record industry capital continues to outpace the adequately priced reinsurance opportunities, driving even higher competition for high-quality risks. In addition, geopolitical risks are becoming increasingly material in 2026.

“While we believe the current Middle East conflict is likely to produce temporary and localised price spikes within certain specialty reinsurance lines, the overall softening trend will likely remain unless loss patterns are significantly reshaped, discouraging capital deployment.”

Steve Liu, Assistant Vice President, Global Insurance & Pension Ratings, added, “With narrower underwriting margins expected across many reinsurance business lines in 2026, appropriate risk selection and disciplined underwriting will become decisive differentiators for the Reinsurers’ 2026 performance.

“The current Middle East conflict is likely to produce only temporary and localized price spikes in certain specialty reinsurance lines unless the loss patterns are significantly reshaped in 2026, discouraging capital deployment.”

The post Overall softening trend to likely remain despite Middle East turmoil: Morningstar DBRS appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

Analysts at Fitch have warned that a prolonged conflict in the Middle East could indirectly affect insurers through loss cost inflation, falling asset values, and rising defaults. However, if the conflict remains short and major damage to oil production and shipment facilities is avoided, the rating implications from the conflict will be limited for the global insurance sector.

Fitch said, “We believe the earnings impact for insurers will be manageable at current rating levels, as war risk is generally excluded, apart from for some very specialised markets, unless the duration and scope of the conflict widen. A more prolonged period of economic and financial market volatility could indirectly affect insurers through loss cost inflation, falling asset values and rising defaults.”

The rating agency does not expect significant claims from property damage, business interruption or cyber insurance policies because they typically exclude acts of war.

The conflict has already resulted in tightened capacity, driven by a sharp repricing, and has created a correlated loss risk across war-risk insurance markets, said the rating agency.

Fitch said, “Initial claims booked in 1Q26 will give an idea of the earnings impact, but we expect this to be limited for most insurers, as in 2022, with the escalation of the Russia–Ukraine war. We believe the conflict’s indirect, second-order losses are more likely to affect ratings than direct (re)insurance losses, which will likely be considerably lower. Rating effects could also stem from potential changes to sovereign or bank ratings that influence insurers’ ratings. Such effects are more likely if the conflict is more protracted or damaging than assumed under Fitch’s base case.”

Fitch clarified that war risk coverage is compulsory at Lloyd’s when travelling through an area on the Joint War Committee list, such as the Strait of Hormuz.

Recently, war-risk marine and aviation covers across the region have either been cancelled at short notice or rewritten at much higher rates, resulting in premiums for maritime war covers for vessels transiting Hormuz being volatile but increasing as much as 20 times the norms of 0.25% of vessels’ insured value. Aviation war clauses cover fleet damage and confiscation, but exclude business interruption.

Dylan Mortimer, Marine Hull UK War Leader, Marsh, said that there could be near-term rate increases for the Marine Hull line of business in the Gulf of 25-50%.

The report stated that approximately 1,000 vessels, with aggregate hull values exceeding $25 billion, are currently in the Gulf region and surrounding waters. The total insured loss from the destruction of a vessel can reach several hundred million US dollars, depending on its type and cargo.

Additionally, Fitch highlighted that marine war protection and indemnity insurance would also cover pollution risk if a major oil spill were to occur, which is typically capped at $500 million per event. Aggregation risk is high owing to the presence of multiple vessels around Hormuz.

It is worth noting that the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) recently revealed that Chubb will serve as the lead partner for its $20 billion Maritime Reinsurance Plan, aimed at restoring commercial shipping in the Gulf and helping to restart energy and trade flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

Fitch added, “Political violence and terrorism coverage, often part of property coverage, may be triggered by the war. Exposure is uncertain but could generate losses in GCC countries, notably including data centres and other infrastructure previously viewed as safe. We believe losses have been limited so far, but further strikes on key infrastructure remain a significant risk.”

Further, Fitch also noted the potential for a steady rise in claims for trade credit and political risk insurers if energy price shocks or trade disruption trigger insolvencies among corporates reliant on Gulf trade routes. Standard war exclusions limit direct trade credit exposure, but energy, petrochemicals and transportation sectors remain vulnerable, notably in Asian markets.

To conclude, Fitch said that even though Gulf insurers are heavily reinsured, global reinsurers have reduced exposure to the region. For diversified reinsurance groups, the credit ratings agency believes that the conflict at this stage is an earnings event driven by specialty lines.

“However, the potential for correlated losses may increase earnings volatility and could pressure capital should the conflict become prolonged, or should there be a more systemic shock to global economies and financial markets,” said Fitch.

Recently, a Moody’s report concurred with this sentiment, stating that the conflict has heightened tail risk for specialty insurers and reinsurers, by increasing the probability of large, concentrated claims if hostilities persist or escalate.

The post London market and global specialty insurers most directly exposed to Iran conflict: Fitch appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

According to the rating agency, this could lead to higher pricing on commercial risks, and changes to terms and conditions, exclusions and event limits.

“Moreover, the commission rates on certain classes may be adjusted, and there may be greater pressure for the local market to retain more,” AM Best added.

The firm’s new report suggested that this dynamic could pose challenges for a sector “heavily reliant” on reinsurance.

AM Best noted that, although risk-adjusted capitalisation remains robust for rated insurers in the region, the absolute capital base is limited for most participants.

“Their ability to increase retention is likely to be modest at best, and reinsurance capacity and expertise will still be required for the market to function effectively,” the rating agency concluded.

Earlier today, AM Best provided further details from the same report, stating that losses to the global reinsurance market from the ongoing Middle East conflict have so far been limited and would typically take the form of single large losses.

The agency highlighted that war risks are commonly excluded from policies but are offered as riders on certain risks, and that Iranian risks are largely uninsured by global reinsurers due to sanctions, meaning damage to infrastructure will have little impact on loss experience.

AM Best’s report also addressed the cyber insurance sector, noting that many insurers have been excluding war or state-sponsored attacks.

However, some products that cover war risks could be affected in the medium term if cyber risks escalate due to state-sponsored actors.

The agency underscored that, while the US remains the world’s leading cyber insurance market, it expects international markets to steadily capture a larger share of global premiums in the coming years.

Events such as the ongoing Middle East conflict could act as a catalyst for this growth if cyber attacks become a weapon of choice in the region.

AM Best added that state-sponsored cyber actors are likely to increase their activities amid geopolitical tensions, with the impact and success of such attacks depending heavily on the cyber defences and cyber hygiene of the insureds.
.

The post Escalating Middle East conflict may trigger risk repricing in reinsurance: AM Best appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

Fitch notes that the move is likely to have broadly neutral implications for large, globally diversified re/insurers whose marine war portfolios represent only a small share of overall business.

According to Fitch, the extent of any rating impact over the next 12 months will depend largely on how losses develop and how long shipping disruptions persist. The agency said earnings volatility and capital strength will be the main factors differentiating credit outcomes among affected insurers.

Fitch said specialist underwriters with double-digit premium exposure to Gulf transit face the greatest pressure. The agency noted that while war risk pricing has increased sharply, the potential loss of policy volumes could offset the benefit of higher rates. Fitch added that these insurers may also encounter greater earnings variability, uncertainty around reserves and possible capital strain if claims emerge.

By contrast, Fitch said well-diversified global rei/nsurers with marine war exposure below around 5% of total premiums and strong capital buffers are unlikely to face significant rating pressure from potential losses.

Fitch pointed to significant asset exposure in the region. Data from Skytek indicates that roughly $22.5 billion of vessel value is currently exposed in the Persian Gulf. Fitch said the risk arises from the possibility of vessels being damaged, destroyed or seized, particularly high-value oil tankers and cruise ships. The agency estimates that industry losses linked to the current crisis could exceed $5 billion if several large vessels were declared total losses.

Fitch said the most immediate threat for insurers relates to vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz. The agency noted that the waterway carries about 20% of global oil supply and liquefied natural gas flows, as well as roughly 30% of globally traded nitrogen fertiliser. Fitch noted that ship movements through the region have been limited since the conflict intensified, which may reduce the frequency of near-term claims but increases the concentration of exposure among vessels already in the area.

Fitch added that if the effective closure of the route extends beyond six months, the risk profile could worsen as vessels become stranded in the region. Under standard policy conditions, Fitch said insurers may face total loss claims for vessels that remain seized and are not released within 12 months.

The agency highlighted that marine war risk premiums have risen sharply while available capacity has tightened. The agency noted that many insurers have cancelled existing hull war policies or stopped writing new business in the Persian Gulf following the escalation of tensions. However, Fitch also said the strong level of reinsurance capacity entering 2026 may limit the scale of further pricing increases.

According to Fitch, elevated premiums are likely to persist through the end of 2026. The agency said this may support underwriting margins for insurers that maintain selective exposure to the region, although reduced volumes and uncertainty over future government intervention could limit the overall benefit.

Fitch also highlighted support measures from the US government. Through the US International Development Finance Corporation, the government has committed up to $20 billion in rolling reinsurance capacity for hull, machinery war risk and cargo insurance covering Gulf transit. Fitch said this support could help limit extreme tail losses for participating insurers.

However, Fitch cautioned that the availability of government-backed reinsurance could also crowd out private market capacity once the immediate crisis eases. Over the longer term, Fitch Ratings notes this could place pressure on underwriting volumes and pricing for marine insurance specialists.

The post Withdrawal of Persian Gulf war risk cover viewed as credit negative for exposed US marine insurers: Fitch appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.

AM Best’s report noted that war risks are commonly excluded from policies but are offered as riders on certain risks, and that Iranian risks are largely uninsured by global reinsurers due to sanctions, meaning damage to infrastructure will have little impact on loss experience.

The rating agency continued, “However, if the conflict continues, there is scope for accumulations across countries and products.

“Reinsurers are monitoring the situation closely and adapting to the changing landscape. In the medium term, the global reinsurance community shares the concerns that the conflict has the potential to invigorate inflationary pressures, interest rates and bond yields if the conflict is not swiftly resolved.”

Elsewhere in the report, AM Best said that while many observers view the conflict as a regional one, its implications have the potential to be more pronounced globally, with economies likely to suffer stock market volatility, supply chain disruption and the reemergence of inflationary pressures.

“With the region producing approximately 20% of global energy resources, the disruption caused by the conflict has resulted in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) halting or reducing production of oil and gas. Even if the conflict comes to a swift end, the infrastructure is not expected to be back running at full capacity any time soon,” the rating agency observed.

Meanwhile, as a consequence of the US/Israeli military action, the price of oil and gas on global markets has reportedly surged considerably and remains volatile.

As per AM Best, the Strait of Hormuz remains almost completely closed to shipping in and out of the Persian Gulf, with increasing concerns regarding the transportation and its impact on the pricing of commodities such as fertiliser and helium.

“With the consequent supply chain disruption and price increases in oil and gas, alongside stock market volatility, a resurgence in the rate of inflation cannot be ruled out in economies worldwide,” AM Best explained.

In related news, the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) recently revealed that Chubb will serve as the lead partner for its $20 billion Maritime Reinsurance Plan, aimed at restoring commercial shipping in the Gulf and helping to restart energy and trade flows through the Strait of Hormuz.

DFC’s reinsurance facility, announced earlier this week, will insure losses up to approximately $20 billion on a rolling basis.

As we covered back then, this revolving insurance offering will apply only to vessels that meet eligibility criteria, with insurance focusing on Hull & Machinery and Cargo to start.

Leaders at global insurance and reinsurance broking group Aon have also shared their perspectives on a range of insurance lines as the conflict in the Middle East continues.

Joe Peiser, CEO of Risk Capital at Aon, noted that for many organisations the most significant exposure stems from disruption to supply chains, logistics routes and insurance coverage structures.

The post Losses to global reinsurance market from Middle East conflict limited for now: AM Best appeared first on ReinsuranceNe.ws.