Issuu

ISSUE 25

OCTOBER 2026

The Marine Insurer N AV I G AT I N G N E W S & A N A LYS I S IN THE MARINE MARKETS

: ce y t i en r u fid c e on s e fc m i no t i ar stio Me qu A

Global conflict dictating maritime trade

Mariners running the gauntlet of politics

l Misdeclared cargo:

Problems never cease

l Maritime cyber:

Criminals taking advantage

l Sanctions:

Screening becoming essential tool

l Human element:

Crew in focus

l Technical

management: More important than ever

70+ Countries. 5 Oceans. 1 Network.

As a leading global marine insurer we understand the risks businesses face. Our global solutions and expertise help our clients to face them with confidence. AIG’s marine team has decades of experience in underwriting, loss prevention, multinational solutions and claims handling across the globe. We put our experience and expertise to work every day for our clients, assisting them to protect their assets, maintain business continuity and retain their customers’ loyalty. Learn more at aig.com/marine

Insurance and services provided by member companies of American International Group, Inc. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions and is subject to actual policy language. For additional information, please visit our website at www.aig.com

CONTENTS | EDITORIAL

Highlights

Comment

World weary mariners under pressure

FEATURES 04 Supply chain resilience critical as risks escalate 06 Maritime trade in the shadow of geopolitical conflict 12 More trouble in the Red Sea? GA’s following Houthi Strikes

48 Bunker fuel price escalation: Check your contract The potential risks attached to volatile bunker prices

50 Hung juries: the elephant in the jury room 14 Maritime security: A question of confidence

52 Heroic Idun: A landmark ruling for maritime law

18 Geopolitics, energy and the next wave of marine claims 20 Repricing the Black Sea

54 Green insurers must adapt to sustain energy innovation

22 Testing the limits of war risk

58 Silent blade risk

Why blade failure, points to a data gap the industry can no longer afford

24 Trade wars, new routes and emerging risks 25 Cyber risks and disruption in the Strait of Hormuz 30 Rising to the cargo theft challenge

The insurance market needs to wake up to the fact that cargo theft is more sophisticated than in the past

60 Why crew health is now maritime’s biggest challenge 62 Putting crew welfare front and centre 66 AI: Why marine insurance’s next advantage is human 70 Navigating change: lessons from three decades in marine insurance

32 The future of cargo insurance in a changing supply chain

72 How marine equipment risk is changing

36 Mis-declared cargo

74 Mare Liberum, Mare Clausum: maps matter again

40 Hull and machinery risk

76 Project monitoring

42 Lithium-ion batteries

79 ASA: a greek at the helm Editor Liz Booth liz@lizbooth.co.uk Assistant Editor Adrian Ladbury ladburya@gmail.com Art Editor Rob Crotty rob@greenlightpartners.co.uk

Commercial Director Daniel Creasey daniel@cannonevents.com tel: +44 07702 835831 Publishing Director Grant Attwell grant@cannonevents.com tel: +44 07905 933252

It would be good to think that peace had erupted across the world at the same speed conflict has taken hold, but sadly not. Since our last issue in May, the conflict in the Strait of Hormuz has been on, off, on and off again and currently ongoing. Added to that risks have escalated dramatically in the Black Sea for shipping with hundreds of vessels in the firing line. Most recently the Houthis have resumed attacking ships in the Red Sea and Somali pirates are up to their old tricks. It is no wonder there is a slight sense of weariness from the marine sector, which increasingly is used as a political pawn. The global economy is suffering too as the price of energy skyrockets, another challenge for the marine market to grapple with. All of this makes it seem strange that in the marine insurance world, rates are falling as ample capacity ensures underwriters can cut prices with seeming impunity. As we head towards renewal seasons, it seems even a catastrophe such as the Dali can do little to change the ever-softening market One of the challenges for the future will be the use of artificial intelligence in the marine world and for those who insure it. How will the industry incorporate it into operations and what will that mean for existing and future staff? People are emerging as a previously under-estimated risk. The human factor may have been blamed for many casualties in the past, but now there is a growing awareness of the cost to people when operating in such high stress environments, such as war zones. As always, there is so much to talk about in this sector. Liz Booth, Editor, The Marine Insurer Published by Cannon Events and Publications © Cannon Events Limited 2026 Pictures: Adobe Stock

All rights reserved. No part of this publication maybe reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electrical, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publishers. The views expressed in The Marine Insurer Magazine are not necessarily shared by the publisher, Cannon Events limited. The views expressed are those of the individual contributors. No liability is accepted by Cannon Events Limited for any loss to any person, legal or physical as a result of any statement figure or fact contained in this title. The publication of advertisements does not reflect any endorsement by the publisher.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

04 MARINE | Supply chain risk In association with Marsh

Michael Walls, marine, cargo and logistics leader, Marsh Risk Asia, says that as the Middle East conflict shows no signs of abating, companies need to contemplate a continued state of disruption to shipping routes and to focus on supply chain resilience. He offers three ways respond The evolving situation in the Middle East is having far-reaching consequences for global trade. As critical maritime corridors face disruption, the effects are rippling across shipping operations, insurance markets and supply chains worldwide. Among the most affected routes is the Strait of Hormuz — a key maritime chokepoint through which approximately 80% of crude oil bound for Asian markets passes, including shipments through to China, India, Japan, and South Korea. At the start of the conflict, thousands of vessels were forced to reroute or remain idle, while traffic through the strait reportedly declined by as much as 94%. More recently, renewed Houthi threats in the Red Sea, including a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia and risks around the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, have added to concerns for Asian economies that rely heavily on Gulf energy and stable shipping routes. This instability in the Gulf carries direct implications for shipping operations, marine insurance markets and supply chain continuity. As global trade routes continue to evolve, companies across the maritime ecosystem are recognising that disruption is no longer an exception but an increasingly permanent feature of the operating environment.

OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES

Shipowners, cargo shippers and logistics providers face a range of operational challenges when critical maritime routes are disrupted. Chief among these is supply chain disruption. Heightened security risks in the Strait of Hormuz have implications far beyond the Middle East, as the waterway carries roughly a quarter of global oil shipments. With disruption now also affecting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, businesses face the risk of simultaneous pressure on two critical shipping routes linked to energy flows and trade into Asia. At the same time, the conflict continues to drive volatility in marine insurance markets. Before the conflict began, war risk rates for vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz were around 0.25% of hull value. Rates eased after the US-Iran peace deal was announced but rose back to between The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Supply chain resilience critical as risks escalate 3% and 10% of vessel value after renewed strikes, recent ship attacks and the ceasefire breakdown. For a single large tanker transit, this could result in insurance costs of approximately $3m to $10m. War risk insurance policies are normally issued in seven-day blocks. In response to rapidly changing conditions, insurers’ quotes now have a validity of 24 hours, allowing them to reassess risk exposure and adjust premiums. In addition to the insurance for the vessel owner, additional war insurance premiums are also levied on the charterer and the cargo, compounding the overall cost of transporting goods in and out of the region and, ultimately, passed onto the end consumer. Beyond insurance costs, the disruption is creating knock-on effects across global supply chains. Shipping lines may suspend services, ports can experience congestion as vessels reroute and air freight demand may rise as businesses seek faster alternatives to delayed sea shipments. Companies may also face higher inventory-carrying costs as delivery timelines become less predictable. In addition, major container lines may offload containers from stranded vessels, creating supply-demand imbalances for certain goods while adding to mounting commercial losses across consumer sectors.

TRANSIT TIMES

The current disruption echoes events in 2024 when attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea forced many shipping lines to divert away from the Suez Canal and reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope. These diversions added significant transit times while increasing fuel

MARINE | Supply chain risk In association with Marsh

At the start of the conflict, thousands of vessels were forced to reroute or remain idle, while traffic through the strait reportedly declined by as much as 94%. costs and creating congestion at alternative ports. For cargo owners and logistics providers, the result was delayed shipments, higher freight costs and growing uncertainty around delivery timelines. This evolving risk landscape reflects a broader trend identified in the Marsh Global Risks Report, which highlights geoeconomic confrontation amid a shifting world order as one of the most significant risks facing businesses globally. In response, building resilience is becoming a strategic priority and the new normal for supply chain leaders and risk managers.

STRONGER VISIBILITY NEEDED

To operate effectively in an increasingly uncertain environment, organisations need stronger visibility across their supply chains alongside targeted insurance and risk management strategies. These following three actions can help organisations strengthen supply chain resilience: 1. Use data-driven intelligence to strengthen supply chains Organisations should leverage real-time intelligence on geopolitical developments, shipping routes and operational disruptions. Access to timely intelligence enables companies to identify emerging risks early and activate contingency plans before disruptions escalate. Solutions such as Marsh’s World Risk Review and the proprietary Sentrisk platform provide timely geopolitical and risk intelligence, enabling businesses to plan ahead with greater clarity and pivot quickly during periods of uncertainty.

2. Review marine, cargo and war risk insurance policies Companies should reassess their marine and cargo shipping insurance policies to ensure coverage remains appropriate for the evolving risk environment. Given the volatility in war risk insurance pricing and coverage terms, working with a trusted broker can help businesses better understand their exposure and ensure maximum cost efficiency while ensuring seamless protection. Specialist advisory support, combined with digital capabilities such as the MarshCargo platform, can also help businesses declare war coverage online, obtain certificate evidence quickly and improve data visibility and operational efficiency. 3. Build resilience early to safeguard against the new operating normal Organisations that adapt risk management strategies and build resilience early — through stronger intelligence capabilities, diversified routing strategies and robust insurance programmes — will be better positioned to stay ahead of future disruptions and maintain continuity across global supply chains. Recent investment in new terminal capacity at Fujairah, outside the Strait of Hormuz, also shows how port and logistics operators are building alternatives to reduce dependence on a single chokepoint. This is not the first time the maritime industry has experienced disruption. As geopolitical tensions continue to influence global trade routes, organisations must embed supply chain resilience across their operations to mitigate potential losses. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

06 MARINE | Maritime trade In association with Esenyel & Partners

Maritime trade in the shadow of geopolitical conflict The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Maritime trade In association with Esenyel & Partners

Captain Deha Aydin of Esenyel & Partners analyses the rising risks of maritime trade in the Black Sea, Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz

A substantial proportion of global trade is carried by sea, yet the nature of the risks confronting maritime transportation has changed significantly in recent years. Traditionally, the industry focused on conventional marine perils such as adverse weather, machinery breakdown, collision, grounding and cargo damage. Today, shipping must increasingly manage geopolitical risks including missile and drone attacks, mines, military operations, seizure of vessels and restrictions on navigation. As of 2026, three regions have become the principal focal points of this changing risk environment: the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, affected by the Russia-Ukraine war; the Red SeaBab el-Mandeb corridor, where Houthi attacks continue to threaten commercial shipping; and the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important chokepoints for energy trade.

THE BLACK SEA

When the Russia-Ukraine war began, the maritime industry’s primary concerns were port closures, mines and vessels trapped in Ukrainian ports. Today, however, the nature of the risk has evolved considerably. Commercial vessels, ports and

“Ensuring the continuity of global maritime trade requires more than simply insuring ships and cargoes. The safety and welfare of those who operate these vessels must remain at the centre of the system.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Maritime trade In association with Esenyel & Partners

export terminals may now be directly or indirectly affected by missile and drone attacks. In July 2026, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) condemned the increase in attacks affecting commercial vessels in the Black Sea and Sea of Azov, emphasising that merchant shipping must not become a target of geopolitical conflicts. One of the most serious examples was the Golden Leo. According to Reuters, the vessel, which had departed Chornomorsk carrying corn, was attacked on 19 July. Nine seafarers lost their lives and the vessel subsequently sank off Odesa. During the same period, Ukrainian attacks on Novorossiysk affected operations at important Russian ports and grain terminals. The risk environment can therefore no longer be viewed as one-sided. Trade connected with both Russian and Ukrainian ports increasingly requires complex operational, security and insurance assessments, irrespective of a vessel’s flag or nationality. These developments also affect global grain trade. As the Black Sea remains a major gateway for grain exports, disruption of ports or reluctance among shipowners to enter the region can influence freight rates, insurance costs and ultimately food prices.

THE RED SEA

Houthi attacks in the Red Sea have become one of the most significant factors reshaping global shipping routes. For Asia-Europe trade, the Suez Canal-Red Sea-Bab el-Mandeb route provides a considerable distance and time advantage compared with sailing around the Cape of Good Hope. However, missile, drone and unmanned surface vessel attacks have fundamentally changed the security assessments undertaken by shipowners. In September 2026, the IMO again condemned attacks against international shipping in the Red Sea and emphasised the need for comprehensive risk assessments before vessels enter the region. The threat became even more tangible in August. According to Reuters, an attack on the commercial vessel Tihamah in the Bab el-Mandeb area on 11 August resulted in the deaths of four seafarers and two salvage personnel. The economic consequences extend well beyond security concerns. Vessels diverting around the Cape of Good Hope face longer voyages and increased bunker consumption, while additional sailing time reduces the number of voyages a vessel can perform in a given period. Longer routes also mean increased emissions, longer crew rotations, higher working-capital requirements and cargo remaining at sea for extended periods.

THE STRAIT OF HORMUZ

In 2026, the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as another major risk centre for international shipping. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

‘‘In September 2026, the IMO again condemned attacks against international shipping in the Red Sea and emphasised the need for comprehensive risk assessments before vessels enter the region.”

Given the importance of the Arabian Gulf to global energy trade, a serious disruption in the Strait cannot be regarded merely as a regional routing problem. Its consequences may extend from tanker and LNG markets to bunker prices, supply chains and inflation. The IMO developed a voluntary evacuation framework intended to facilitate the safe departure of vessels and seafarers stranded in the region. The need for such a mechanism itself illustrates the seriousness of the current risk environment. As of September, vessel traffic data reported by Reuters indicated that conditions had still not returned to normal. Commercial vessel transits remained unusually low, with reductions in VLCC and LNG carrier movements particularly significant.

Maritime trade In association with Esenyel & Partners

The industry is consequently developing alternative operational models. Some companies have reduced operations inside the Gulf and increasingly turned to shipto-ship transfers off Fujairah and Oman. Certain oil flows are also being redirected through alternative terminals and pipeline connections. The future of maritime transportation may therefore increasingly be determined not simply by the “shortest route”, but by the “safest and most insurable route”.

risk rates for certain southern Red Sea voyages increased to approximately 1%-2% of a vessel’s value. For a vessel valued at $100m, this could potentially mean an additional premium running into millions of dollars for a single voyage. These developments also directly affect charterparty negotiations. Responsibility for war risk premiums, the Master’s right to refuse orders to proceed to dangerous areas, alternative ports, deviation, waiting time and crew bonuses require much closer attention at the fixture stage.

THE HUMAN COST: SEAFARERS

A NEW NORMAL FOR MARITIME TRADE

At the centre of these developments is a group too often overlooked: seafarers. The decision to send a vessel into a high-risk region may be a commercial decision made ashore, but its physical consequences are borne by the Master and crew onboard. Personnel serving on merchant vessels may now face ballistic missiles, drones, explosions, fires, serious injury and death. Prolonged operations in high-risk regions can also impose considerable psychological pressure on crews. The principle repeatedly expressed by the IMO is therefore particularly important: Seafarers should not become victims of conflicts to which they are not parties. Voyage risk assessments should consequently consider more than the financial value of the vessel and cargo. Crew safety, repatriation arrangements, port accessibility, emergency medical evacuation and seafarers’ rights concerning entry into high-risk areas should form an integral part of the decision-making process.

NEW ERA FOR WAR RISKS INSURANCE

One of the clearest consequences of geopolitical instability can be seen in the marine insurance market. Standard hull & machinery and P&I covers generally exclude certain war, terrorism and related risks, which are instead addressed through separate war risks arrangements. Entry into designated high-risk areas may also trigger notification requirements and additional premiums. The listed areas maintained by the Joint War Committee within the Lloyd’s Market Association framework have therefore become increasingly important. The Black Sea and Sea of Azov, together with parts of the Arabian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Gulf of Aden and Red Sea, remain central to insurers’ assessments of heightened geopolitical risk. Importantly, severe geopolitical risk does not necessarily mean that war risks cover has disappeared. During the Hormuz crisis, the Lloyd’s Market Association confirmed that hull war cover remained available in the London market. Insurers may, however, reassess exposures, amend terms and require substantial additional premiums before accepting voyages into high-risk areas. The financial impact can be significant. According to Reuters, following the latest escalation in the Red Sea, war

Developments in the Black Sea, Red Sea and Strait of Hormuz should not be regarded simply as temporary regional disruptions. They indicate a structural change in the nature of risk confronting global maritime trade. For shipowners, the shortest route is no longer necessarily the most economical. For charterers, the cheapest vessel may not always represent the most reliable transportation solution. For insurers, historical loss statistics alone may no longer provide an adequate basis for pricing future geopolitical exposure. Routes around the Cape of Good Hope, alternative terminals, pipelines, ship-to-ship operations and different intermodal corridors are therefore likely to become increasingly important. Yet beyond all economic, operational, insurance and legal considerations, the human factor must remain central. Seafarers serving onboard commercial vessels in the Black Sea, Red Sea or Strait of Hormuz are not parties to these conflicts. Ensuring the continuity of global maritime trade requires more than simply insuring ships and cargoes. The safety and welfare of those who operate these vessels must remain at the centre of the system. As geopolitical risks increasingly move offshore, the resilience of the maritime industry will be measured not only by its ability to transport cargo from Point A to Point B, but also by the risks and the human cost involved in doing so.

“The future of maritime transportation may therefore increasingly be determined not simply by the “shortest route”, but by the “safest and most insurable route”.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Americas in association with

12 November 2026, HOUSTON

Energy Insurance Americas integrates risk managers, brokers, insurers, claims teams and service providers to provide our audience with practical insights through case studies, round table discussions, presentations, role plays and panel discussions. Claims data and underwriting strategies are obviously intrinsically linked, Energy Insurance Americas aims to help bridge the gap between risk evaluation and real world loss.

HEADLINE SPONSOR

PROUD SPONSORS

GLOBAL PARTNERS

Holdings Limited Insurance Group

energyinsuranceamericas.com

Americas

10.20 & 15.00 COFFEE BREAK 12.10 LUNCH

in association with

12 November 2026, HOUSTON

MODERATOR

09.00-09.40: Panel Discussion

PANELLIST

State of the Market – The Claims Picture

AFROZ MOHAMMED, INSURANCE ANALYTICS MANAGER, MOON SHEPHERD BAKER TREVOR NICOL, UNDERWRITER US RENEWABLES, AXIS DARREN ASKARI, NORTH AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGER, TOKIO MARINE GX JOSHUA CROPP, LEAD PROPERTY CLAIMS- ENERGY AND CONSTRUCTION, QBE

09.40-10.00: Fireside Chat

Gaps Between Policy Language and Claims Practice

SUNNY VERMA, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS CLAIMS MANAGER, FM

10.00-10.20: Presentation

TBC

CANDACE OURSO, PARTNER, KENNEDYS

10.50-11.10: Fireside Chat

Reﬁnery Fires – The World is on Fire

GERRY FAHRENTHOLD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, HEAD OF ENERGY US/CANADA, SCOR ERIC LALLI, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT GLOBAL ENERGY SERVICES, RIMKUS

11.10-11.50: Panel Discussion

How to Manage a Claim – The Risk Management View

STEPHANIE CROCHET, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ENERGY AND MARINE PRACTICE LEADER, IMA REED WYKES, DIRECTOR, RISK AND INSURANCE MANAGEMENT, HILCORP THOMAS BERRY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, THORNTON TOMASETTI RAFAEL SOUZA, INSURANCE MANAGER, US, CANADA AND ARGENTINA, EQUINOR

11.50-12.10: Fireside Chat

Business Interruption – Leaving Clients Under-Insured?

BOBBY GALINDO, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSTRUCTION, HOWDEN JESSICA FEOLA, PARTNER, MDD FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS

13.00-13.40: Panel Discussion

Claims Costs Continue to Rise

FRASER MCLACHLAN, CHAIRMAN, TOKIO MARINE GX GERMAN TORRES, SENIOR RENEWABLES UNDERWRITER, AXIS PAUL TEKORIUS, DIRECTOR, RENEWABLES, RIMKUS JEREMY PALMER, GLOBAL CLAIMS LEADER – NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY, POWER, RENEWABLES, MINING, AON

13.40-14.00: Fireside Chat

Data Centers – Nothing Comes Easy

FRED KJAERGAARD-HIGGINS, ENERGY AND POWER PROPERTY DIGITAL INFRASTRUCTURE LEADER, MARSH SANDY CALVERT, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MOORE MCNEIL

14.00-14.40: Panel Discussion

Whose Responsibility is it? Environmental Liability

BRITON SPARKMAN, SENIOR COUNSEL, COMMERCIAL, PHILLIPS 66 MATTHEW LEE, ENVIRONMENTAL CLIENT ADVISOR AND ENERGY INDUSTRY LEADER, MARSH GINNY PENZELL, ADVISOR, RISK MANAGEMENT, EOG RESOURCES CLAIRE JULIANA, DIRECTOR – ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS ADVOCACY, AON

14.40-15.00: Presentation

Contractual Liability – It’s All in the Details

MARK HELMUELLER, NATIONAL ENERGY AND MARINE PRACTICE CONTRACTUAL RISK LEADER, ATTORNEY, IMA

15.30-16.30:

Roundtable Sessions

EACH ROUNDTABLE WILL RUN FOR 25 MINUTES. THERE WILL BE A 5-MINUTE BREAK TO ALLOW DELEGATES TO CHANGE TABLES AND THE TABLES WILL THEN BE REPEATED IN A SECOND 20-MINUTE SEATING.

16.30-17.10: Panel Discussion

Local or Global? How Claims are Managed

BRAD NEHRING, VICE PRESIDENT, RB JONES PANELISTS: ALBERTO CUEVAS, ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL, THORNTON TOMASETTI ASHLEY ANDREWS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, HEAD OF US NATURAL RESOURCES FIRST PARTY CLAIMS, HOWDEN

energyinsuranceamericas.com

MARINE | General average In association with 7 King’s Bench Walk

Richard Sarll, barrister and arbitrator at 7 King’s Bench Walk, asks what type of loss and expense might attract a contribution in general average and how might those contributions be enforced given the latest development in the Red Sea More trouble is in store for marine insurers at the time of writing, with reports in early August that Houthi rebels sank an Indianflagged vessel, MSV Faize Noore Oliya, forming the latest in a spate of attacks in the Red Sea, a waterway that emerged as an important alternative route for oil exportation after Iran blocked the Strait of Hormuz in February. The incident followed an announcement by Iranian-backed Houthis on 20 July that it was calling a blockade on Saudia Arabia’s Red Sea ports. With more Houthi strikes in prospect, it is worth reflecting on the Red Sea Crisis of 2024-2025, when numerous general average (GA) declarations were made after attacks on vessels perceived as having links to Israel. What type of loss and expense might attract a contribution in GA and how might those contributions be enforced?

GA ALLOWANCES

In a typical situation, the stricken vessel would be attended by professional salvors, who would tow the ship to a port of refuge. There, work would be undertaken to stabilise the vessel. Cargo would likely be discharged in order so that the vessel might shift to a second port of refuge for the carrying out of repairs necessary for the safe prosecution of the voyage. However, instead of the ship returning to the first port to reload and carry on with the original voyage, the cargo would very often be transshipped and forwarded to destination aboard a substitute vessel. In that situation, the allowances in general average (GA), to which the cargo interests would be required to contribute in average, are diverse. They could include the cost of engaging salvors to tow the ship into port (YAR Rules A & VI), as well as the detention expenses at that port (Rules X & XI). Contribution towards the detention expenses at the second port (ie the repair yard) could also be due from cargo, up to the amount which it would have cost the cargo owners to forward the cargo to The Marine Insurer | October 2026

More trouble in the Red Sea? GA’s following Houthi Strikes destination at their own expense (Rule G(3) & (4)). As for the freight costs of the substitute vessel, these might also be allowed in GA, insofar as they avoided the storage costs that would otherwise have resulted, if the original ship had instead been programmed to reload the cargo and carry on with her contractual voyage (Rule F). Interest on general average expenses (Rule XXI) and the respective fees of the average adjuster would also be allowable. Once the admissible sacrifices and expenditures are added up, they fall to be shared as between ship, cargo, bunkers and freight (if at risk), pro rata, according to their respective contributory values.

AVERAGE SECURITY

A declaration of GA would typically be made by the shipowner’s appointed average adjuster, notifying the other interests of the need to provide reasonable security, often before the transshipment of cargo aboard the vessel. As for the forms of security acceptable to the shipowner, cargo receivers would usually be required

MARINE | Cargo theft In association with Liberty Specialty Markets

Reports in early August that Houthi rebels sank an Indian-flagged vessel, MSV Faize Noore Oliya, (below pic) forming the latest in a spate of attacks in the Red Sea.

to provide an average bond, together with either an average guarantee from the cargo insurers, or else a deposit if the cargo is uninsured. Standard forms of average security have been formulated by the Comité Maritime International, although house forms preferred by individual average adjusters are still commonly used. These typically commit the counterparty to pay whatever contribution in general average should subsequently be ascertained to be legally due. They will also contain a choice of forum, often in favour of the English High Court, although arbitration agreements are also frequently encountered.

ENFORCEMENT

Once the adjustment has been issued, requests will be made for payment in the amounts stated by the average adjuster. Since the adjustment will ordinarily have the status in law only of a non-binding opinion, it will usually be open to the net contributing party to challenge the request. This may be done by withholding payment and raising defences in legal filings, once the shipowner has commenced proceedings in the chosen forum. In so doing, the cargo interests will, however, be at risk of legal costs. Since the decisions of the English courts in The CMA CGM Libra, it has been possible for cargo interests to defend claims for GA contribution on grounds that the need to incur the

respective sacrifices and expenses only arose because of the initial unseaworthiness of the vessel on account of some deficiency in the passage plan – and perhaps even in the risk assessment – prepared before the beginning of the voyage. If there was a failure by the shipowner to exercise due diligence in this regard, it could potentially provide the cargo interests with a defence and avoid the need for contribution. Such ‘unrecoverable general average’ would instead fall to be indemnified under standard P&I Club rules of entry. The consequences for incidents of Houthi attacks should be obvious. In case vessels should be struck while on passage via the Red Sea with resulting loss and expense allowable in GA, shipowners and their insurers must be prepared for the initial passage plan and risk assessment, together with the systems and policies of the shipowner/operator, to come under forensic scrutiny. It is crucial for the passage plan and risk assessment to be carefully prepared and documented. A full record will need to be kept, showing why the passage plan and risk assessment were objectively reasonable. The record should show, among other things, what decisions were in fact made, as well as on what basis they were made. All underlying data informing the decision-making - such as notices to mariners, routing advice and published industry guidance - will need to be carefully collated and retained. It may subsequently form the basis of expert evidence at trial. The persons who made the decisions may also need to explain them. Relatively few declarations of GA result in legal proceedings, with 17 claims reportedly commenced in the English High Court in the year 2024-2025. More Houthi strikes could produce an uptick.

“Since the decisions of the English courts in The CMA CGM Libra, it has been possible for cargo interests to defend claims for GA contribution on grounds that the need to incur the respective sacrifices and expenses only arose because of the initial unseaworthiness of the vessel on account of some deficiency in the passage plan – and perhaps even in the risk assessment – prepared before the beginning of the voyage.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Maritime security In association with Van Ameyde Marine

‘‘The question is no longer whether the US can destroy missile launchers; it plainly can. The more important question is whether those operations have restored the confidence on which global maritime trade depends.”

Maritime security: A question of confidence The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Maritime security In association with Van Ameyde Marine

David Mugridge, left, security consultant, and Stephen Norman, commercial director, Van Ameyde Marine discuss the Trump effect on maritime security and explain why tactical success has not restored strategic deterrence For almost four decades, the maritime industry has relied on an unwritten bargain. The US would underwrite freedom of navigation not because every disruption

threatened America directly, but because secure sea lanes benefited the international trading system as a whole. US naval predominance was reinforced by an equally important asset: its ability to persuade allies to share the burden. That combination of military power and coalition leadership created confidence. Shipowners, charterers, insurers and cargo interests assumed that while regional crises would occur, the world’s principal maritime chokepoints would ultimately remain open. Secure sea lanes became a global public good, supported by a network of willing partners. That assumption now appears less certain. Yet military success and strategic deterrence are not synonymous. Despite repeated American operations, merchant vessels continue to avoid the Bab al-Mandeb during periods of heightened tension, war-risk premiums

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Maritime security In association with Van Ameyde Marine

remain acutely sensitive to developments in the region and commercial confidence has yet to return to pre-crisis levels. Major container operators continue to factor diversion around the Cape of Good Hope into voyage planning whenever the regional threat picture deteriorates. Markets, it seems, have proved harder to reassure than military planners. For marine insurers, this distinction matters profoundly. The question is no longer whether the US can destroy missile launchers; it plainly can. The more important question is whether those operations have restored the confidence on which global maritime trade depends.

WHAT DOES DETERRENCE ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE?

Military history distinguishes between defeating an opponent and deterring one. Tactical success is measured by objectives destroyed or battles won. Strategic deterrence is measured by whether an adversary changes its behaviour. Measured against that standard, recent events present a more complicated picture than battlefield assessments alone might suggest. Iran has consistently avoided direct confrontation with American naval forces. Instead, it has pursued a strategy refined in several decades: employing proxy organisations capable of imposing economic and political costs while avoiding conventional escalation. Hezbollah, Iraqi militia groups and, most significantly for commercial shipping, the Houthis have all formed part of that approach. In that respect, the evidence is difficult to ignore. Container operations and energy markets remain highly sensitive to developments in both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb.

WINNING BATTLES VS REASSURING MARKETS The US navy retains overwhelming sea control wherever it chooses to concentrate force. Maintaining commercial confidence, however, requires something rather different. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

‘‘Hezbollah, Iraqi militia groups and, most significantly for commercial shipping, the Houthis have all formed part of that approach. In that respect, the evidence is difficult to ignore. Container operations and energy markets remain highly sensitive to developments in both the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab al-Mandeb.”

The Bab al-Mandeb illustrates this asymmetry. UK thinktank RUSI has argued that this asymmetry lies at the heart of modern maritime conflict. Comparatively inexpensive missiles and drones can impose disproportionately large economic costs by creating uncertainty rather than destruction. Success is measured less by ships sunk than by shipping diverted. Financial markets possess an advantage over governments when assessing deterrence. Governments can declare success; markets continuously test it. Every adjustment in war-risk premiums, every decision to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope and every revision of freight schedules represents a judgement about future probability rather than past achievement. By that measure, confidence has proved slower to recover than military planners might have hoped.

MARINE | Maritime security In association with Van Ameyde Marine

COALITION MISSING?

If the military dimension tells one story, the diplomatic dimension tells another. Historically, Washington rarely acted alone in defending maritime commerce. The response to the current crises has been noticeably less cohesive. Although allies have contributed naval assets and undertaken parallel operations, the US has not recreated the politically unified maritime coalition that characterised previous crises. President Trump’s foreign policy has been characterised by decisive military action and by a more selective and transactional position in its approach to allies. Taken together, the administration’s policies “Donroe Doctrine” suggest an increasingly selective approach to longstanding partnerships. Applied to maritime security, the consequences are subtle but significant. The result is not an absence of American power, but a different distribution of responsibility. An obvious alternative has not emerged. China has substantial commercial interests in uninterrupted maritime trade but has shown little appetite for assuming the burdens traditionally associated with guaranteeing freedom of navigation beyond its immediate sphere of interest. For insurers, coalition politics are not an abstract diplomatic question. They determine whether today’s elevated war-risk premiums represent a temporary surcharge or a structural feature for ongoing maritime commerce.

UNCERTAINTY: WHO PAYS?

Marine insurers do not underwrite foreign policy. They underwrite its consequences. The most visible consequence remains war-risk insurance. Premiums increasingly respond to intelligence assessments, UKMTO advisories, Joint Maritime Information Centre warnings and political signalling from Washington and Tehran before physical attacks occur. Markets price probabilities rather than official reassurance. The implications extend well beyond specialist war-risk cover. Longer voyages around the Cape of Good Hope expose hull & machinery insurers to increased engine running hours, greater machinery wear, higher maintenance costs and prolonged exposure to adverse weather. P&I Clubs confront different pressures. Extended deployments increase crew fatigue, complicate medical evacuation and repatriation, affect retention and heighten the potential for fatigue-related navigational incidents. Cargo insurers face additional exposure arising from delay, deterioration and supply-chain disruption. Salvage has become correspondingly more complex. A casualty in the southern Red Sea no longer presents solely a technical challenge. Salvors increasingly require military security, diplomatic coordination and continuous intelligence regarding the prevailing threat environment before operations can safely commence. Cyber risk adds another dimension. Iranian cyber

capability has repeatedly been highlighted by Western security agencies and defence analysts. GPS spoofing, AIS manipulation and network intrusion now sit alongside missile and drone attacks as credible threats to commercial shipping. In each case, the costs created by strategic uncertainty migrate progressively from governments to the commercial maritime sector.

MARKETS’ VERDICT

The defining feature of the current American approach may therefore be neither military weakness nor military overreach. Rather, it is increasing selectivity. The US continues to demonstrate that it can project overwhelming force whenever it chooses. What appears less certain is the extent to which it remains willing to shoulder the broader political burden of organising and sustaining collective maritime security on behalf of the wider international trading system. For global shipping, that distinction is economically significant. Maritime trade has always depended on confidence as much as capability. Insurers price uncertainty, investors postpone decisions when risks become difficult to quantify and shipowners alter routing long before governments acknowledge strategic change. Markets, unlike governments, have little interest in political narratives. They respond to incentives, probabilities and cost.

CONCLUSION

Tactical success has not translated into complete strategic deterrence. Iran continues to employ asymmetrical forces to disrupt commercial shipping. Their Houthis proxies, retain the ability to influence routing decisions through Bab al-Mandeb. War-risk premiums continue to fluctuate in response to political developments, while insurers, shipowners and cargo interests continue to absorb costs once mitigated through more predictable collective security arrangements. Maritime commerce’s history suggests prosperity depends less upon the absence of conflict than upon confidence that conflict can be contained. The US continues to possess unmatched naval power and has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to protect shipping and strike those who threaten it. Yet commercial confidence depends on more than military capability. It depends on predictable leadership, enduring partnerships and a shared commitment to protecting the global commons. For marine insurers, the lesson is not that American naval power has failed, but that tactical military success no longer guarantees commercial confidence. Until deterrence is seen to be durable, predictable and collectively supported, warrisk pricing, routing decisions and wider marine exposures are likely to remain volatile, particularly if regional actors conclude that limited disruption can impose disproportionate commercial cost. Markets, after all, measure confidence rather more ruthlessly than politicians.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | The Trump effect on claims In association with IMA

John Mizell, director, energy and marine practice – Houston at US-based broker IMA, explains how the uncertainty created by the Trump administration is driving a new wave of marine insurance claims The return of Donald Trump to the White House reshaped the geopolitical landscape. While political debates dominate headlines, the insurance market is focused on a more practical question such as: how will shifting US foreign policy and energy priorities alter marine and energy risk? For marine insurers, the consequences are potentially significant. A more transactional approach to international relations, renewed emphasis on domestic energy production, evolving sanctions regimes and a recalibration of US engagement in conflict zones are creating a new risk environment. The result is not simply market volatility, but a changing profile of marine and energy claims.

ENERGY SECURITY RETURNS TO CENTRE STAGE

For much of the past decade, environmental transition dominated strategic discussions across the energy sector. Today, energy security has re-emerged as a primary concern. The Russia-Ukraine conflict, instability in the Middle East, and tensions between major powers highlight the continued importance of oil and gas supply chains. The US administration’s current policy to prioritise increased domestic production and expanded LNG exports may strengthen America’s position as a global energy supplier, but it is unlikely to reduce geopolitical uncertainty. Instead, global energy flows may become increasingly fragmented. Buyers and sellers continue to seek alternative trading routes, creating longer voyages, more complex logistics and increased operational exposure. Marine insurers understand that every additional voyage day, port call, or transshipment operation introduces opportunities for loss. As trade patterns evolve, so too do the risks associated with those movements.

SANCTIONS: THE INVISIBLE DRIVER OF CLAIMS One of the most significant consequences of geopolitical realignment is the growing complexity of sanctions compliance. Whether restrictions relate to Russia, Iran, or Venezuela, or subsequent geopolitical flashpoints, shipowners, charterers, traders and insurers face increasing scrutiny. The challenge is that sanctions-related claims rarely The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Geopolitics, energy security and the next wave of marine claims arise from dramatic incidents at sea. More often, they emerge through disputes on coverage, payment, contractual obligations, or vessel detentions. The expansion of shadow fleets operating outside traditional insurance markets has become a notable concern. Vessels involved in sanctioned or high-risk trades may operate with opaque ownership structures, uncertain maintenance standards and limited transparency regarding insurance arrangements. When casualties occur, insurers can face difficult questions regarding coverage application, sanctions compliance and recoverability. The result is often complex litigation rather than straightforward physical damage adjustment.

MIDDLE EAST AND RED SEA REALITY

The disruption of commercial shipping in the Red Sea has provided a clear example of how geopolitical tensions rapidly translate into insurance exposure. Attacks against commercial vessels have forced many operators to divert around the Cape of Good Hope, increasing transit times, fuel consumption and operating costs. These diversions create secondary impacts that often receive less attention but are equally relevant to insurers. Longer voyages increase machinery wear, crew fatigue and exposure to adverse weather. Delayed cargoes generate contractual disputes. Supply chain interruptions create opportunities for business interruption and delay claims.

MARINE | The Trump effect on claims In association with IMA

between major economic powers. Trade restrictions and tariffs, as well as efforts to secure critical minerals and energy resources, are encouraging shifts in global supply chains. Manufacturing capacity is increasingly being repositioned across regions viewed as politically aligned or strategically secure. The marine industry sits at the centre of these changes. New trade routes bring unfamiliar operational environments. Ports experiencing rapid growth may face infrastructure constraints. Increased demand for specialist shipping, project cargo transportation and offshore construction support vessels introduces risks that historical loss data may not fully capture. These developments require insurers to evaluate exposures using forward-looking geopolitical analysis rather than relying solely on traditional underwriting models.

WHAT COMES NEXT IN CLAIMS

The insurance market has become accustomed to viewing war risks separately from conventional marine exposures. Recent events suggest that distinction is increasingly artificial. Geopolitical events now have direct implications across hull, cargo, liability and energy portfolios.

OFFSHORE ENERGY: HIGHER ACTIVITY, HIGHER EXPOSURE

A more supportive US approach toward oil and gas development may stimulate increased offshore activity in key producing regions. Historically, periods of elevated activity have often coincided with increased loss frequency. Greater numbers of drilling campaigns, subsea interventions, vessel movements and construction projects create more opportunities for incidents involving equipment failure, human error and contractor interface risks. The offshore energy sector has made significant advances in safety and risk management. Nevertheless, the scale and complexity of modern projects continue to generate substantial loss potential. Insurers should anticipate continued demand for sophisticated risk engineering and claims expertise as operators pursue new developments while managing ageing infrastructure.

SUPPLY CHAINS AND STRATEGIC COMPETITION Another emerging trend is the growing strategic competition

The most important lesson from today’s environment is that geopolitics is no longer a distant macroeconomic consideration. It is a material driver of claims activity. Future losses are likely to arise from: • Sanctions-related disputes and coverage challenges; • Vessel detentions and regulatory enforcement actions; • War and political violence exposures; • Supply chain disruptions affecting project schedules and cargo deliveries; • Offshore energy incidents linked to increased development activity; and, • Contractual disputes resulting from rapidly changing trade conditions. Claims professionals will increasingly need to understand not only maritime operations but also geopolitical dynamics, sanctions frameworks and international regulatory developments.

UNCERTAINTY IS ALL

The Trump effect is not fundamentally about politics. It is about uncertainty. As governments reassess alliances, energy strategies and economic priorities, the marine and energy sectors are adapting to a world where geopolitical considerations increasingly determine operational risk. For insurers, the challenge is clear. Traditional marine exposures remain important, but the next generation of claims may be driven less by storms and collisions and more by sanctions, strategic competition, supply chain disruption and regional conflict. In this new environment, geopolitical awareness is becoming as important to marine and energy claims professionals as technical expertise. Those who successfully integrate both perspectives will be best positioned to navigate the risks that lie ahead. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

20 MARINE | War risk In association with Transbosphor

This summer’s escalation in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov,layered over Washington’s oscillating sanctions policy, has turned geopolitics into a permanent line item in every voyage calculation. Nuri Mert Can, CEO of Istanbulbased Turkish Straits agency Transbosphor and a panellist at Marine Insurance Turkey 2026, writes as an agent and owner working at the centre of the region. This is what the repriced risk looks like from the ship’s side where operational decisions and marine insurance considerations have become impossible to separate

Repricing the Black Sea: the view from the Istanbul Strait From our offices in Istanbul, the risk this market is trying to price sails past the window at 12 knots. Every tanker loading at Novorossiysk or the CPC terminal, every bulker lifting Ukrainian grain, every unit whose insurance cover or compliance status remains difficult to verify - sooner or later they all come through the Istanbul Strait. In May, on the Istanbul Strait risk panel at Marine Insurance Turkey, we called the Straits what they are: not a chokepoint on a map but the pressure gauge of the Black Sea system. Four months on, the needle has moved sharply.

A REGIME, NOT A SERIES OF INCIDENTS

In the second week of July, Ukraine’s Unmanned Systems Forces reported some 90 vessels attacked in a single week across the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. Turkish-orbit ships were among them: the tanker YASA Polaris, struck by a UAV; and the 4,442 dwt products tanker Sabahat Telli. On 11 July a seafarer lost his life in a drone strike in Taganrog Bay; a day later, strikes damaged port infrastructure at Odessa and Chornomorsk. The significance is not arithmetic; the threat has changed in kind. The pattern since November 2025 – the strikes on the sanctioned tankers Kairos and Virat, unattributed limpet-mine damage as far away as Senegal and July’s mass drone campaign and the near-daily strikes since, from Odessa and Pivdennyi to Sochi and Novorossiysk. – puts ships at anchor, on port approaches and on inland waterways inside the engagement envelope. Nonbelligerents are not spectators. Turkish-operated tonnage has been hit repeatedly and in early September the burned-out cargo ship Omskiy-107 drifted crewless from Russian waters onto a beach just The Marine Insurer | October 2026

east of the Istanbul Strait. On the ground, the repricing of war risk translates into different conversations. In mid-September the Joint War Committee extended its listed area to the whole of the Black Sea; premiums that stood at a quarter-point last autumn have climbed past one per cent, with seven-day war covers reviewed daily. Ships now pass our window wearing nets, tyres and water tanks as improvised drone protection. Owners weigh whether to fix at all before they weigh the freight; masters ask about the voyage before the wages. And the agent’s phone rings at three in the morning. A vessel at the outer anchorage reports drone activity and the first question is never about coverage. It is about the crew.

THE TRUMP EFFECT FELT AT DECK LEVEL

Over the kinetic threat sits a policy cycle of rare amplitude. October 2025 brought full blocking sanctions on Rosneft and Lukoil. In March 2026, with Hormuz throttled by the Iran conflict, the same administration briefly eased them by general licence; the easing lapsed by mid-April. On 18 September the Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act became law: secondary tariffs of up to 100% on the largest buyers of Russian oil and gas, secondary sanctions reaching thirdcountry vessels, implementation due within 30 days. London widened the risk map the same week Washington hardened the compliance one. I offer no political commentary; that is not my role. But we feel each turn of that cycle in a ship’s working day. Each policy shift is quickly reflected in underwriting appetite, premium levels and trading warranties. A cargo compliant at fixture is questionable by discharge; a club letter accepted on Monday is queried on Thursday. The agent stands

MARINE | War risk In association with Transbosphor

between a master who wants to sail, an owner reading the cancellation clause and a terminal working from yesterday’s designation list. We do not draft the wordings – we live inside them, at anchor, on demurrage, in real time.

WHEN SOMETHING GOES WRONG

This readership knows the coverage and liability questions that a contested casualty raises. I can tell you how they look from the quayside. When a vessel is hit in this region, the first calls are to the agent. Before the correspondent is appointed, someone must secure the VDR, photograph the damage before the weather rewrites it, take statements while memories are fresh and keep a shaken crew fed, documented and out of jeopardy. Attribution may take months in London. On the pier, nobody tells the master who fired. The file you will one day argue over is assembled in those first hours – by people who are not in the policy. And it is assembled around people. Taganrog Bay reminded us that behind every hull claim stand 20-odd seafarers whose contracts, under the IBF framework and ITF risk-area designations, carry rights the industry must honour – including the right to decline service into a warlike zone. I have long argued that the seafarer’s informed decision must sit at the centre of the voyage and that the region needs structured safe lay-up options: designated anchorages, clear tariffs, sensible insurance treatment for owners who choose to wait. From our side of the table, a laid-up ship with a rested, paid crew is the cheapest claim you will never open.

WHERE THE SYSTEM IS TESTED

At the panel in May, the two questions put to me defined the

agency’s position: what P&I documentation a vessel must hold to transit the Turkish Straits and what happens when cover falls short at the critical moment; and where, mid-casualty, the agent’s authority ends and the club’s begins. The honest answer: the paperwork is the easy part. When cover falls short, the ship waits at anchor while letters are re-issued – and the schedule, not the lawyer, is the first casualty. Türkiye has shown that regime can tame even this waterway – 31 kilometres, 12 course alterations, a 698-metre narrowest point. Since the 1994 traffic regulation and its VTS and pilotage framework, major casualties have fallen from dozens per decade to single figures. What tests it today arrives from outside: tonnage in poor condition, crews under strain, cover that would not survive first contact with a claim. Türkiye’s position – energy infrastructure and merchant shipping must be kept out of this conflict – is grounded in daily reality. A casualty involving an under-insured unit here would be everyone’s claim – hull, cargo, pollution, wreck removal and business interruption at once.

WHERE THIS SETTLES

The market has repriced the Black Sea again and again in under a year. After the Red Sea in 2024–25 and Hormuz this year, the talk is of structural repricing rather than a spike. From the Istanbul Strait, I can only confirm that this is the baseline now. Owners and charterers who run war cover, routing, compliance and crew welfare as everyday commercial control will recover the cost and keep trading. Those still working on last year’s assumptions will meet the difference in the claims file – and when they do, someone from our side of the business will be standing on the quay, holding its first pages. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

22 MARINE | War risk In association with Stephenson Harwood

War risk insurance (WRI) has long been a critical component of marine insurance but one that has in recent years come under some scrutiny as global conflicts and sanctions increasingly impact commercial shipping. With rising geopolitical tensions and frequent disruptions to key shipping routes, understanding WRI is more important than ever for shipowners, operators and insurers.

WHAT IS WRI?

WRI is a specialised policy that covers losses arising from war, conflict, piracy and terrorism. These are risks that are typically excluded from other marine insurance policies. When a shipowner purchases a WRI policy it runs alongside the vessel’s other insurance (ie H&M and P&I) and can apply to all types of marine operations from private yachts to cargo ships and tankers. Of particular significance, however, WRI also covers seizure, arrest, detention for political purposes (as opposed to simply commercially motivated detentions, or detentions brought about by reason of customs infringements, which are excluded) even when there is no active war/hostilities. When a vessel is due to enter into a high-risk area ((HRA) as set by the Joint War Committee (JWC) and discussed below) during a voyage, an insurer typically requires advance notice and an additional premium (AP) may be charged for that voyage to take into account the increased risk of a war-related loss. This may include, for example, missile strikes, seizure of the vessel by armed forces, drone attacks or the vessel hitting a sea mine. That means the base price for WRI is very cheap. That is unsurprising because assuming a vessel is sailing in peaceful territories, the risk of loss/damage caused by some form of war risk is inherently unlikely. It is when the vessel is to trade to an HRA that naturally an insurer wants to know about this, and be entitled to earn the premium that accompanies the increased risk.

THE ROLE OF JWC

The JWC is a body of representatives from the London market, including underwriters from the Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA) and the International Underwriting Association. The JWC plays a central role in monitoring global geopolitical developments to identify war risks. In February and early March 2026, it was reported that several insurers were pulling war risk cover for vessels travelling through the Strait of Hormuz. However, on 23 March 2026 the LMA issued a statement in response to clarify that standard provisions were already included in shipowners’ contracts to allow flexibility for renegotiation for an “increased risk to vessels”. These mechanisms were included within contracts to allow insurers to offer lower premiums during peacetime with scope to reassess in the event of an increased risk.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

War risk insurance (WRI) has, at least in legal circles, been something of the quieter problem child through the years in the English Courts. To name but two cases, they include the Silva involving a finding of state-backed extortion, which unsurprisingly was held not to constitute “ordinary judicial process”; and the B Atlantic that recently went all the way to the Supreme Court, debating the meaning of “malicious acts” in the context of a drug-smuggling detention. To those who are unfamiliar with the WRI clauses, it comes as a surprise that a good number of the leading WRI authorities do not involve war at all. Richard Hugg, partner at Stephenson Harwood explains

Testing the limits of war risk INCREASED RELEVANCE OF WAR RISK CLAUSES

As a result of the ongoing geopolitical situation, the maritime industry has suffered severe damage, financial losses and – tragically – loss of life. WRI is therefore an essential component of marine risk management for vessels, especially those trading in high-risk areas.

MIDDLE EAST TENSIONS

The continued escalation of tensions around the Persian Gulf have disrupted shipping flows through the Strait of Hormuz, which has in turn impacted global supply chains and maritime transport. The impact is felt more widely than the active war zones, creating uncertainty around shipping routes, Although it depends who you talk to, in circumstances where the risk is effectively unquantifiable, appetite for risk varies and premium increases. Vessels avoiding the Gulf are rerouting, adding significant distance and delay giving rise to bigger picture issues, claims and losses. The risk of cyber-attacks has also risen as tensions become digitalised, threatening to disrupt navigation, communications, cargo handling and other operations, with both physical and financial

MARINE | War risk In association with Stephenson Harwood

consequences. The financial losses as a result of a cyber attack can be significant, however more sophisticated attacks may interfere with equipment, disable navigational equipment and ultimately create risks not only financially but also to property and human life. The issues surrounding cyber exclusions/buy-backs is a whole topic in its own right.

The question of whether a conflict constitutes a “war” for coverage purposes has previously been left to the courts. However, Lloyds has proposed the creation of an independent panel to determine this question in a faster, more consistent approach than resorting to litigation. If such a panel is introduced, insurers will need to review their policies to ensure adequate definitions for “war” and whether policies remain fit for purpose. A further claims issue is determining the proximate cause of the loss, as this can determine whether the loss falls under the WRI policy or the hull policy (or is excluded from cover under any policy). This is further complicated as gathering evidence is challenging where access to the vessel or cargo is limited and/or unsafe, with conflicting reports from governments or authorities and difficulty appointing surveyors. During the course of this year, with the status of the Strait of Hormuz fluctuating from one week to another almost, there has been fierce debate among insurers and shipowners as to whether the blocking/trapping cover might be engaged: were the Straits blocked or not? Much depends on the policy wording of course, but the changes in status have made it difficult to discern the actual factual status (essential to understand before seeking to then undertake the relevant legal analysis). Further, insurers may be legally prohibited from paying a claim if doing so would be acting in breach of sanctions in any relevant jurisdiction. Sanctions regimes have been expanded in response to the geopolitical landscape such that most policies now include wordings to ensure that insurers are not liable to provide cover or make any payments that would expose them to sanctions restrictions. There have been various recent English court judgments dealing with sanctions issues, and making (or not) of payments where there were concerns that by doing so there might be infringements of sanctions.

RUSSIA/UKRAINE CONFLICT

SUMMARY

The invasion of Ukraine in 2022 dramatically changed the war risks insurance landscape. Following the invasion, the WRI market developed rapidly, with one of the most immediate consequences being the designation of the Black Sea and Sea of Azov as highrisk trading areas. Wide ranging international sanctions were imposed by the UK, European Union and the US targeting Russia’s economy, including the oil sector, to impact on revenues and therefore the war effort. These sanctions also led to a rise in the deployment of dark fleet tankers by Russia as a way to evade the Western sanctions, making use of flags of convenience and specific ownership/management structures to conceal the origins of cargo. It has therefore been vital for insurers to undertake extensive due diligence during the underwriting process, including into class certification and flag registry.

CLAIMS ISSUES

From a claims perspective, war risks present a number of complex issues as they often involve uncertain facts, high-value losses and constantly evolving geopolitical events.

In summary, with conflicts, sanctions, regional instability and increasing attacks on commercial shipping, WRI has become a central consideration for the maritime industry and has been – and is likely to continue increasingly to be - tested like never before. WRI continues to play a crucial role in allocating risk between parties, defining the scope of cover and establishing the circumstances in which insurers may suspend or terminate cover.

“WRI has become a central consideration for the maritime industry and has been – and is likely to continue increasingly to be - tested like never before.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

24 MARINE | Tariffs In association with British Marine

Trade wars, new routes and emerging risk

The Marine Insurer | October 2026 The Marine Insurer | May 2026

MARINE | Tariffs In association with British Marine

Richard Inman, portfolio manager - P&I, British Marine looks at how tariffs are reshaping maritime risk. He argues that, in an environment in which politics increasingly shapes commerce, understanding geopolitical risk is becoming as important as understanding the cargo itself. inhibitor of the energy transition Global trade has always adapted to geopolitical change, but the resurgence of tariffs and protectionist policies is doing more than raising costs for importers and exporters. It is reshaping trade flows, redirecting cargo movements and creating new operational challenges across the maritime sector. For marine insurers, the significance of recent tariff disputes extends far beyond economics. As governments increasingly use tariffs as a strategic policy tool, shipping companies, cargo owners and insurers are finding themselves exposed to a new era of uncertainty. Characterised by shifting trade routes, supply chain disruption and heightened geopolitical risk, the impact of tariffs extends well beyond rising costs, creating new layers of complexity and uncertainty across global trade.

TRADE FRAGMENTATION

For decades, globalisation encouraged businesses to build supply chains around efficiency. Manufacturing concentrated in low-cost locations, trade barriers gradually fell and shipping routes became increasingly optimised. That model is now under pressure. Recent tariff measures introduced by the US, together with retaliatory actions and threatened countermeasures by trading partners, have accelerated a broader trend towards economic nationalism. Trade policy is increasingly being used as an instrument of economic security, industrial policy and geopolitical competition. A notable outcome of recent tariff measures has been the reshaping of trade routes between the world’s two largest economies. As tariffs reduced the competitiveness of some Chinese exports in the US market, exporters turned to alternative destinations, including Africa, Latin America and Europe. For the maritime sector, these shifts influence not only trade volumes but also where cargo moves, the routes vessels follow and the risks that emerge along those new routes. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has similarly warned that rising protectionism is weighing on global trade activity. According to its latest outlook, merchandise trade volumes are

forecast to grow by 0.5% in 2026, down from 1.8% previously expected. While global trade continues to expand, slower growth and shifting trade relationships are already influencing cargo flows across key maritime corridors. While tariffs are often discussed in the context of manufacturing or domestic industries, their impact on maritime trade can be profound. When tariffs alter the cost competitiveness of goods, trade flows adjust. Cargoes that once moved between established trading partners may be redirected elsewhere, while buyers seek alternative sources of supply. For shipping markets built on predictability and volume, even relatively small shifts in commodity flows can have significant consequences.

PORTS AND CUSTOMS

One of the most immediate effects of tariff uncertainty is often a surge in shipping activity before measures come into force. When businesses anticipate higher costs, many accelerate purchases and attempt to move goods ahead of tariff implementation dates. This behaviour can create short-term spikes in cargo volumes, overwhelming ports, customs authorities and logistics networks. The result is congestion, delays and operational inefficiencies throughout the supply chain. These disruptions are particularly acute when tariff announcements are made suddenly or implemented within compressed timeframes. Companies have little opportunity to adjust inventories or sourcing arrangements gradually, leading to a rush of activity concentrated around key ports and trade gateways. S&P Global reported a jump in stock building earlier this year, with a rise in the imports of goods amid rising concerns around supply availability and price hikes relating to the recent Middle East conflict. This stock building sits at a record high since the survey data were first available in 2005 (excluding Covid pandemic panic buying). Meanwhile, more than 200,000 tons of copper arrived at US ports in July, the largest monthly volume in IHS Markit shipping data dating back to 2014, ahead of an expected decision on an import tariff by President Donald Trump. For marine insurers, stockpiling and congestion presents a range of practical concerns. Recent reporting suggests that port congestion has reached its highest level in four years, with around 11% of global fleet capacity regularly waiting for berthing space. Delays can increase cargo accumulation risks, extend storage periods, elevate theft exposures and create additional uncertainty around delivery schedules. Longer dwell times may also increase the likelihood of cargo damage, particularly for temperature-sensitive or time-critical goods. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Tariffs In association with British Marine

“For marine insurers, stockpiling and congestion presents a range of practical concerns. Recent reporting suggests that port congestion has reached its highest level in four years, with around 11% of global fleet capacity regularly waiting for berthing space.”

While these disruptions may be temporary, they illustrate how geopolitical developments can quickly translate into operational risk.

NEW TRADE ROUTES, NEW EXPOSURES

Perhaps the most significant consequence of tariffs is their ability to alter established trade relationships. Research conducted for QBE by Control Risks in 2025 highlighted the extent to which many commodity markets remain heavily concentrated around a relatively small number of suppliers and buyers. Steel, aluminium, timber and copper are all deeply integrated into global trade networks, making these materials particularly sensitive to policy changes and trade restrictions. The commonly held assumption is often that China sits at the centre of all trade vulnerabilities. Yet the reality is more nuanced. For example, Canada’s importance to US imports of both steel and aluminium demonstrates how concentrated regional trading relationships can become sources of disruption when tariffs are introduced. As exporters seek new markets and importers diversify suppliers, the maritime sector must adapt to changing cargo flows. The redirection of Canadian crude oil exports provides a recent example of how trade tensions can reshape maritime commerce. Following the expansion of the Trans Mountain pipeline that runs from Edmonton to the west coast at British Colombia, China has emerged as the largest buyer of crude oil transported through the system, surpassing the US. Exports to non-US destinations have increased significantly as Canada seeks to diversify markets and reduce dependence. For shipping companies and marine insurers, what begins

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

as a trade-policy decision can totally reshape global shipping patterns. Trade diversification may ultimately boost resilience, but it can also create unfamiliar exposures. New routes may involve different political environments, regulatory requirements, infrastructure standards or security risks. Cargo owners and shipping operators may find themselves operating through jurisdictions with which they have limited previous experience. In some cases, rerouting may increase voyage lengths, creating additional exposure to weather-related disruptions, port congestion or geopolitical hotspots. As supply chains become more fragmented, maritime risk profiles become more complex.

RESILIENT SUPPLY CHAINS

Tariffs are also accelerating a broader reassessment of supply-chain strategy. Many businesses are increasingly exploring reshoring, nearshoring and supplier diversification as they attempt to reduce reliance on single markets and improve resilience against geopolitical shocks. These trends are already influencing sourcing decisions across multiple industries and regions. At the same time, countries and regional blocs are building new economic partnerships designed to reduce dependence on traditional trade relationships. These evolving alliances are likely to continue shaping maritime trade patterns for years to come. However, diversification is rarely straightforward. Businesses must contend with labour shortages, regulatory complexity, sustainability requirements and long-established supplier relationships. As a result, supply-chain restructuring is often gradual and costly. For shipping companies and marine insurers alike, this means a prolonged period of transition rather than a quick return to stability.

IMPLICATIONS FOR MARINE INSURERS

The maritime sector has always been accustomed to uncertainty. Yet the risks emerging from modern tariff disputes differ from traditional market cycles because they originate from policy decisions that can change rapidly and unexpectedly. The challenge for marine insurers is therefore to anticipate how those patterns may evolve. Scenario planning, continuous monitoring of geopolitical developments and a deeper understanding of supply-chain dependencies are becoming increasingly important capabilities. Organisations that can identify emerging vulnerabilities early will be better positioned to respond when trade disruptions occur. For the maritime industry, the most important question is understanding how quickly and where those changes will occur next. In an environment where politics increasingly shapes commerce, understanding geopolitical risk is becoming as important as understanding the cargo itself.

MARINE | Cyber risk In association with DWF

Navigating the new normal: Cyber risks and maritime disruption in the Strait of Hormuz Samantha Butler, Christopher Dunn (centre) and Freddie Mehlig of law firm DWF discuss the cyber risk implications for insurers in the volatile environment around the Strait of Hormuz

pathway towards lasting peace. In addition to the complex negotiations, when the SOH is reopened and confidence to transit returns, many of the stranded vessels will require hull cleaning to remove the build-up of barnacles, mussels and algae accumulated during months of disruption before they resume normal operations. Route selection also presents difficulties. Although the northern channel appears to offer the safest passage, its use may contravene sanctions restrictions under OFAC guidance. The southern route through Omani waters, meanwhile, appears to be the highest-risk alternative corridor, accounting for 89% of the projectile strike incidents reported by UKMTO since 6 July. Navigation through the central channel remains contingent on the clearance of approximately 80 mines before it can be considered safe, potentially giving rise to additional and potentially contentious costs.

THE FUTURE COST OF TRANSIT

In an increasingly volatile and uncertain world, one constant remains: cybercriminals’ ability to exploit disruption for financial gain. The ongoing Iran conflict, and the ever-changing position in the Strait of Hormuz (SOH), is no exception, with reports of criminals seeking to take advantage of the resulting uncertainty through fraudulent and deceptive schemes. In this article, we consider the cyber implications to insurers of reports that Iran, in conjunction with Oman, may introduce a tolling or fee regime for transit through the SOH, including the threat from cyber criminals and the AIS interference caused by jamming and spoofing.

Operations (UKMTO), around 20,000

CHALLENGING RETURN TO NAVIGATION

seafarers have been left stranded and

Since 1 March this year, at least 84 vessel incidents in the SOH have been reported to UK Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO), around 20,000 seafarers have been left stranded and tragically 22 have lost their lives. At the time of writing, relations between the US and Iran appear, if anything, to be deteriorating. The previous Memorandum of Understanding lasted in practice for only two weeks and, as anticipated, failed to establish a credible

The US is keen to ensure that Iran does not derive revenue from vessels transiting the Strait. However, some shipowners

Since 1 March this year, at least 84 vessel incidents in the SOH have been reported to UK Maritime Trade

tragically 22 have lost their lives.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Cyber risk In association with DWF

are now indicating that they may be willing to pay transit fees if doing so would reduce the risk of harm to vessels and help prevent further attacks. At the outset of the ceasefire, Iran reportedly proposed an official transit “toll” to be administered by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). However, the Iranian Foreign Ministry has since announced that it is not currently pursuing the introduction of tolls for passage through the SOH. It remains to be seen how long Iran will maintain this position. Much is likely to depend on the success of ongoing negotiations with Oman and the prospects of establishing a broader regional maritime alliance. While we have seen and continue to see periods of increased uncertainty and transits effectively stopped, we have also seen - and will see again - assurances that payments (or maybe agreements or certifications) will ensure safe transit. With shipowners and charterers increasingly cautious due to conflicting messages and changes in position from both the US and Iran, the prospect of obtaining documented evidence of compliance will be welcomed. This, however, will result in increased opportunities for cyber criminals, happy to tap into the confusion, uncertainty and the nervousness of the industry.

EXPLOITING UNCERTAINTY

As is often the case, the criminal underworld has moved quickly to exploit the uncertainty and disruption caused by the conflict for financial gain. The proposed “safe passage” regime has provided - and will continue to provide - fertile ground for online scams, with fraudsters impersonating official channels to intimidate seafarers and stranded vessels into paying substantial sums in exchange for supposed transit authorisation. In this respect, there are parallels with the Humanitarian Operations Coordination Centre (HOCC), the Houthi-run body responsible for overseeing vessel movements through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait. The HOCC has stated that its “safe transit service” is voluntary and free of charge, while emphasising that any person or organisation demanding payment for passage is not acting on behalf of Yemen or the HOCC. While the position around safe passage is subject to constant change and conflicting announcements, the increased cyber risk remains constant.

NAVIGATING IN THE DARK

A further dimension of this evolving risk landscape is the increasing prevalence of automatic identification system (AIS) interference. Reports suggest that vessels operating in and around the Strait have experienced significant disruption to navigation and tracking systems due to global navigation satellite systems spoofing or jamming. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

The ramifications of this “electronic warfare arms race” are wide ranging, causing disruption to satellite based navigation systems across the region and, notably, affecting everyday services such as Uber navigation in Dubai. In one of the world’s busiest and most strategically significant shipping corridors, uncertainty around the accuracy of navigational data presents obvious operational and safety risks. Traffic through the SOH continues to stall, with only 40 US-facilitated transits recorded in the Strait between 6-8 August, as compared to the 138 vessels a day seen in 2025. However, with reports that up to two thirds of tankers are transiting the Strait with AIS disabled, the potential consequences of disruption are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

CONSIDERATIONS FOR INSURERS

The emergence of cyber enabled risks in the SOH presents a number of complex considerations for insurers. Fraudulent payment demands, arising from the impersonation of official authorities and purported “safe passage” regimes, raise immediate questions regarding coverage and recoverability. The risk is not limited to the loss of the funds themselves. If a vessel makes payment to a fraudulent actor rather than the entity ultimately recognised as responsible for

MARINE | Cyber risk In association with DWF

‘‘The proposed “safe passage” regime has provided - and will continue to provide - fertile ground for online scams, with fraudsters impersonating official administering any transit regime, it may remain vulnerable to detention, interference, delay or even physical targeting on the basis that any required fee has not in fact been paid. At the same time, the increasing prevalence of AIS and wider navigational interference introduces further uncertainty, with vessels potentially operating in an environment where standard tracking and navigational systems cannot be relied on. The insurance market is already beginning to respond to such risks. Sompo has recently launched what it describes as the shipping industry’s first insurance product specifically covering economic losses arising from radio interference with ship navigation systems. The cover is intended to respond where interference with satellite positioning systems prevents a vessel from operating, notwithstanding the absence of any physical damage. Examples cited by Sompo include vessels being unable to enter port, being detained, or being forced to delay departure following disruption to GPS or other satellitenavigation equipment. The product reflects growing recognition within the market that cyber-enabled interference can result in significant financial losses even where no traditional marine casualty has occurred.

channels to intimidate seafarers and stranded vessels into paying substantial sums in exchange for supposed transit authorisation.’’ LOOKING AHEAD

The situation in the SOH demonstrates how quickly traditional maritime risks can evolve into complex, interconnected threats. What might once have been viewed primarily through the lens of geopolitical instability now encompasses cyber enabled fraud, disputed transit fees and navigational interference, highlighting the growing convergence of cyber, marine and geopolitical risks. For insurers, the challenge will be ensuring that policy wordings and underwriting approaches keep pace with a landscape in which traditional distinctions between war, cyber and marine perils are becoming increasingly blurred. Those that fail to do so may find themselves exposed to claims and coverage disputes that existing risk frameworks were never designed to address. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

30 MARINE | Cargo theft In association with Liberty Specialty Markets

Christopher Hicks, (left) Samson Rathaur (middle) and Robert Hawes, of Liberty Specialty Markets, argue that the insurance market needs to wake up to the fact that cargo theft is much more sophisticated than in the past and the market needs to up its game The image of cargo theft is often stuck in the past. Today, cargo theft is being driven by organised criminal networks using technology, data and deception to target high-value goods across global supply chains. As theft methods evolve, so too must the insurance industry’s response. The challenge is not simply that criminals are becoming more sophisticated; it is that traditional security measures are often struggling to keep pace with increasingly complex fraud schemes, cyber-enabled theft and the exploitation of supply chain vulnerabilities. As a result, the conversation is shifting away from loss response and towards prevention, with greater emphasis on visibility, process discipline, carrier verification and the effective use of technology. Those organisations that combine strong operational controls with modern monitoring tools are likely to be best placed to reduce their exposure in an increasingly challenging threat environment. Recent figures from Verisk CargoNet suggest that cargo theft in the US rose by 18% between 2024 and 2025, while industry reports from organisations such as TAPA indicate that both the frequency and value of cargo theft incidents are trending upwards. Rising claims activity supports this picture, not only as more incidents are being reported, but the values involved are increasing as criminals focus on cargoes such as electronics, pharmaceuticals and other high-value products.

DRIVING FACTORS

The question for shippers, carriers and insurers is no longer whether cargo theft is increasing. It is why it is happening and what can realistically be done about it. Several factors appear to be driving the trend. Economic pressures remain an important backdrop. Inflation, rising raw material costs and higher finished-product values increase the attractiveness of cargo theft. Historically, periods of economic uncertainty have often The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Rising to the cargo theft challenge coincided with increases in organised criminal activity and the environment today appears to be no exception. At the same time, criminal groups have become far more sophisticated, with more claims cases involving manipulating systems, exploiting processes and using technology to impersonate legitimate participants in the supply chain. Claims specialists are seeing more examples of “theft by deception”, where criminals hack freight forwarders’ systems, falsify shipping documents, spoof GPS locations or impersonate legitimate carriers. In some cases, fraudsters arrive with correctly branded vehicles, convincing paperwork and advance knowledge of shipment schedules. Cargo is released willingly, only for the genuine carrier to arrive later and discover the goods have already disappeared. This evolution creates a challenge not only for cargo owners but also for investigators and insurers trying to establish exactly what happened and who is responsible. While theft can occur at any stage of the transport chain, the latest evidence suggests the greatest increase is occurring during inland transit, for example during the movement by road of high-value goods. Geographically, the US remains a significant hotspot. Germany, due to its role as a primary European logistics hub, has also experienced elevated levels of activity. Contrary to some perceptions, however, major ports are not necessarily the main issue. Investments in technology, access controls and security procedures mean many large ports are better protected than they were in the past. Instead, the vulnerabilities increasingly emerge at handover points between supply chain participants and during periods when cargo is stationary, making every pause in the journey an opportunity for criminals to exploit procedural weaknesses. Cases involving trucks accounted for roughly 70% of global cargo theft incidents in 2025, underlining the vulnerability of the handover points

MARINE | Cargo theft In association with Liberty Specialty Markets

Security controls only work when accompanied by clearly defined response procedures, escalation pathways and accountability. The reality is that many losses occur not because controls are absent, but because existing controls are not consistently applied, monitored or enforced. Rising cargo theft is having a noticeable impact on insurance claims experience. Higher claim frequency and severity inevitably place pressure on underwriting results, particularly for high-value cargoes and trade lanes experiencing elevated loss activity. One factor contributing to increasing loss severity is “product inflation”. Many modern goods, particularly high-tech products, are becoming smaller, lighter and more valuable, allowing increasingly large values to be concentrated within a single shipment. As transit load values rise, accumulation exposures during storage and the ordinary course of transit increase accordingly, meaning that when thefts do occur, the resulting losses can be significantly more severe. Underwriters are responding by looking more closely at security procedures, carrier-selection processes, subcontracting arrangements and operational controls. In some cases, deductibles are being adjusted for specific routes or exposures where losses have become concentrated.

PREVENTATIVE RISK MANAGEMENT highlighted above, where responsibility for cargo transfers between parties and criminals can exploit gaps in process and oversight.

NO SINGLE SOLUTION

One of the most important lessons emerging from recent losses is that no single security measure provides a complete solution. Real-time shipment visibility through GPS tracking, geofencing and telematics can significantly improve the ability to identify route deviations, unauthorised stops or excessive dwell times. Internetof-Things (IoT)-enabled sensors attached to containers, pallets or vehicles can provide real-time monitoring throughout a journey. Smart containers can alert operators to door openings, shock events, temperature fluctuations and unexpected changes in transit conditions. Artificial intelligence and advanced analytics are increasingly helping to identify anomalous movements and risk indicators before a loss occurs. Emerging technologies such as blockchain may also play a role in strengthening supply chain transparency and document integrity. However, technology alone is not enough and it is the layered use of these tools that can help to mitigate the growing risk. While these technologies act as preventative reinforcement, many organisations assume that installing security technology automatically improves security. Unfortunately, losses often demonstrate otherwise. Cargo-theft networks increasingly exploit insider threats, including warehouse employees, dispatchers and drivers who may provide information about valuable shipments. Poor due diligence on service providers and subcontractors can also create opportunities for fraudulent carrier schemes.

Importantly, the focus is increasingly shifting away from reactive measures taken after a loss and towards preventative risk management before goods move. That shift may prove critical. Cargo theft is becoming more sophisticated, more organised and more technology-enabled. Yet the most effective response is often not another piece of technology, but ensuring the basics are consistently executed. As criminal methods continue to evolve, organisations that combine modern visibility tools with disciplined operational controls are likely to be best positioned to protect their cargoes. The industry’s challenge through the next few years will not simply be keeping pace with technology, but ensuring that people, processes and technology contributing to and controlling prevention work together before the next loss occurs.

“The challenge is not simply that criminals are becoming more sophisticated; it is that traditional security measures are often struggling to keep pace with increasingly complex fraud schemes, cyber-enabled theft and the exploitation of supply chain vulnerabilities.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

32 MARINE | Cargo & supply chain In association with CargoCorp Underwriters

Juan Carlos Martínez Pinto, founder, Cargo Risk Management and CargoCorp Underwriters, says that the future of cargo insurance could well lie in non physical damage events After more than 42 years in insurance, I have learned that cargo insurance is more than a policy covering goods in transit. It is part of the infrastructure that supports international trade and helps companies continue operating when disruption occurs. In Latin America, this role is especially important because businesses often face cargo theft, infrastructure gaps, limited information and uneven riskmanagement standards. When I founded Cargo Risk Management in 1998, cargo insurance was frequently treated as a financial requirement rather than an active instrument for protecting supply chains. That experience later influenced the creation of CargoCorp Underwriters in 2015. Our objective was to combine specialist underwriting capacity with local knowledge, risk engineering, claims advocacy and technology. Insurers should not only pay losses. They should help clients understand exposures, prevent avoidable incidents and recover effectively.

OLD PRODUCT FACING NEW LOSSES

Cargo insurance is one of the oldest forms of commercial insurance and physical loss or damage must remain at its core. Policies may respond when goods are stolen, burned, damaged in an accident or harmed during handling, subject to their terms, conditions and exclusions. However, many significant supply-chain losses now occur without physical damage. A port closes, a vessel is diverted, a canal becomes inaccessible or a logistics provider fails. Goods may arrive intact, yet the client incurs storage costs, additional transport expenses, contractual penalties, missed production schedules or lost opportunities. Traditional cargo insurance generally does not cover these wider consequences because standard wordings commonly exclude delay. There are sound technical reasons for this boundary. Open-ended delay exposure is difficult to define, model and price. Nevertheless, the existence of a valid exclusion should not prevent insurers from considering better-defined solutions. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Beyond physical loss: The future of cargo insurance in a changing supply chain COVID-19 AND THE PROTECTION GAP

The Covid-19 pandemic made this gap unmistakable. Port closures, congestion, container shortages and transport interruptions caused severe financial losses, often without damage to the goods. The contractual position may have been clear, but for clients the distinction between damage to cargo and damage to the shipment’s commercial purpose felt disconnected from reality. The pandemic was exceptional, but the underlying exposure remains. War, geopolitical tensions, climate events, labour shortages, port congestion and changing production patterns continue to test supply chains. Cargo theft has also become more organised and technologically sophisticated. These risks interact. A vessel diversion can lengthen a voyage, increase accumulation at an alternative port, create temperature-control challenges and expose cargo to unfamiliar inland routes.

TECHNOLOGY, VISIBILITY AND UNDERWRITING

Insurers now have tools that did not exist when many traditional coverage boundaries were established. Real-time tracking, vessel and port intelligence, geofencing, environmental sensors, predictive analytics and supply-chain monitoring provide greater visibility into cargo movements and logistics performance. These tools should first strengthen underwriting. Commodity,

MARINE | Cargo & supply chain In association with CargoCorp Underwriters

London offers marine expertise, specialist capacity, product development experience and deep market knowledge. Latin America contributes growing trade flows and practical expertise in theft prevention, route management, loss control and claims response. The best results emerge when these strengths are combined. Local underwriters and risk managers should provide disciplined risk selection, high-quality information, transparent portfolio management and timely claims feedback. In return, the London market can support specialist coverage, innovation and consistent capacity. Latin America should not be viewed only as a buyer of international capacity, but also as a source of underwriting insight, data and practical riskmanagement solutions.

CLAIMS COMPLETE THE LEARNING CYCLE

value, origin and destination remain important, but they are no longer sufficient. Underwriters increasingly need to understand packaging, storage, carriers, accumulation points, security protocols and contingency plans. At CargoCorp, we have spent years collecting structured information across dozens of variables for each insured risk. That history helps reveal patterns a proposal form alone may not show. Technology should support judgment, not replace it. A model may identify a correlation, but an experienced underwriter must interpret its operational and commercial meaning. This is particularly important in Latin America, where conditions vary between countries, routes, ports and individual journey segments. Local knowledge remains essential. The same information may also support disciplined innovation beyond physical damage. Instead of insuring every consequence of every delay, the market can define specific triggers, waiting periods, limits, sublimits and measurable loss components. Real-time data may help distinguish exposures that can be defined and priced from those that remain too uncertain. Any innovation must be transparent and supported by clear wording so clients understand what will and will not trigger payment.

LONDON CAPACITY AND LATIN AMERICAN KNOWLEDGE This evolution creates an opportunity for closer cooperation between London and Latin America.

A claim is the moment when the industry’s promise is tested. Speed, communication, technical competence and an understanding of the client’s operations matter because insurance then becomes part of the client’s ability to recover. A well-managed claim can protect relationships and strengthen trust. A poorly managed claim can destroy years of confidence, even when the coverage position is technically correct. Claims information must return to underwriting, risk management, technology and risk engineering. Every loss can teach something about a route, commodity, package design, carrier, security procedure, data source or policy wording. When these functions operate separately, valuable knowledge is lost. When they work as a continuous learning cycle, insurers can improve risk selection and clients’ loss-prevention programs.

MOVING BEYOND THE POLICY

The future of cargo insurance will depend on integration: data with human judgment, global capacity with local expertise, claims experience with underwriting, and risk transfer with loss prevention. It will also require collaboration among insureds, brokers, underwriters, risk engineers, logistics providers, technology partners and claims professionals. Cargo insurance has always adapted to changes in trade, but today’s pace is faster, risks are more interconnected and client expectations are higher. The industry should preserve underwriting discipline while recognising that physical damage is not the only source of shipment-related economic loss. Better data, stronger connectivity and more sophisticated analytics should be used responsibly to create solutions that are relevant to clients and sustainable for insurers. Success will belong to insurers that combine expertise, information and relationships, explain coverage, prevent losses and remain present when clients need them. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Middle East Ȧȶ November ȶȉȶ6 in association with

Resilience, Reform and Opportunity. Marine Insurance Middle East will return to Dubai on the 12th November and again aims to highlight the beneﬁts of doing business in the region and will bring together international and local organisations to discuss the exciting landscape. The 2025 event saw over 320 delegates attend and 2026 looks to be even bigger. PROUD SPONSORS

HEADLINE SPONSOR

Esenyel Consultancy L.L.C

E IN

QU E

T M AR

GLOBAL PARTNERS

Holdings Limited Insurance Group

marineinsurancemiddleeast.com

L T SA VAG &

Dubai

10.30 & 15.10 COFFEE BREAK 12.40 LUNCH

Middle East

MODERATOR

Ȧȶ November ȶȉȶ6

PANELLIST

in association with

09.00-09.10:

Welcome address

H.E. HESSA AHMED HAMDAN AL MALEK, ADVISOR TO THE MINISTER FOR MARITIME TRANSPORT AFFAIRS, MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

09.10-10.10: Panel Discussion

Conﬂict in the Middle East: Resilience, Reform and Regional Opportunity

JASMIN FICHTE, MANAGING PARTNER, FICHTE & CO BOZIDAR LJUBISAVLEVIC, REGIONAL HEAD OF MARINE – MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA/REGIONAL MARINE CHIEF CLIENT OFFICER ASIA, HOWDEN TIM DAVIES, HEAD OF CLAIMS (EASTERN TEAM), WEST OF ENGLAND P&I CLUB JAMES PETRIE, SENIOR UNDERWRITING DIRECTOR, THE UK P&I CLUB OMAR SHALAN, HEAD OF MARINE, SUKOON INSURANCE LIA KONSTANTOPOULOU, MARINE DIRECTOR, CITY MARINE INSURANCE BROKERS

10.10-10.30: Fireside Chat

Post-Salvage Environmental Solutions and Waste Management

SOFIA FALIDA, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS RELATIONS DIRECTOR, POLYGREEN ELIAS PSYLLOS, VICE PRESIDENT, T&T SALVAGE AND PRESIDENT, AMERICAN SALVAGE ASSOCIATION

11.00-11.40: Panel Discussion

Crew Matters – Keeping the Crew Safe

PUNEET SAREEN, PARTNER, HILL DICKINSON CAGLAR COSKUNSU, PARTNER, CAVUS & COSKUNSU ANNIE HICKSON, CLAIMS MANAGER, WEST OF ENGLAND P&I CLUB AARON WILLIAMS, HEAD OF ACCIDENT AND HEALTH, ELSECO CHRIS BHATT, HEAD OF TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS AND STRATEGIC GROWTH LEAD – MENA SPECIALTY, AON REINSURANCE SOLUTIONS MENA

11.40-12.20: Panel Discussion

What Comes Next in Middle East Maritime Risk and Why?

RICHARD HUGG, PARTNER, STEPHENSON HARWOOD NICK MADDALENA, MANAGING DIRECTOR – INSURANCE, AMBREY SHIHAB MOOSA, CLIENT MANAGER - MARINE CARGO, MARINE PRACTICE MENA, MARSH ROB CRICHTON, GROUP DIRECTOR – LOGISTICS AND MARINE INSURANCE, DP WORLD BEN MARSH, CLASS UNDERWRITER, CYBER, CHAUCER

12.20-12.40: Presentation

Protecting Marine Claims in the UAE – Evidence, Security and Recovery

MOHAMED EISSA, PARTNER, HADEF & PARTNERS

13.40-14.20: Panel Discussion

Finding a Safe Haven – The UAEs’ Plans

RICHARD BRIGGS, EXECUTIVE PARTNER, HADEF & PARTNERS ELISABETH BAKER, DIRECTOR, TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS, AON REINSURANCE SOLUTIONS MENA CAPT. IBRAHIM AHMAD ALBLOOSHI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DUBAI PORTS AUTHORITY NEIL SCOTT-WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR, MUBARAK MARINE

14.20-15.10: Panel Discussion

State of the Market – Continuity of Cover

LOUISE O’DONNELL, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT – HEAD OF CLAIMS MANAGEMENT AND LEGAL, SUKOON FICHTE & CO TBC KIRILL PATYRYKIN, DIRECTOR, SURETY MARINE ROHIT KALIA, SENIOR DIRECTOR – DIRECT MARINE, MILLER CAPT. MANOJ KUMAR, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, MARINE SPECIALTY – RISK SOLUTIONS, LOCKTON

15.30-15.50: Presentation

UAE Maritime Law Update

SAIF ALMOBIDEEN, PARTNER, STEPHENSON HARWOOD

15.50-16.10: Presentation

The Reality of AI Spooﬁng

JEAN-CHARLES GORDON, VICE PRESIDENT – MARITIME AND LOGISTICS, KPLER

16.10-17.10: Role Play

Fire on Board

GAGAN DHILLON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER DUBAI, WEST OF ENGLAND P&I CLUB IAN TEARE, PARTNER, HILL DICKINSON TOM PEAT, PRINCIPAL ASSOCIATE, HAWKINS

CONFERENCE CHAIR:

FIEKE NIJLAND, VICE PRESIDENT LEGAL, EMIRATES SHIPPING LINE

Fareed Lutﬁ, Secretary General, Emirates Insurance Association

DHANANJAY DAS PODIYATVARIYAM, SENIOR CLAIMS MANAGER, LONDON P&I SHEHAB MAMDOUH, GENERAL COUNSEL, POLYGREEN

marineinsurancemiddleeast.com

36 MARINE | Mis-declared cargo In association with Burgoynes

A case of mistaken identify Chris Kenyon-Edwards, associate at Burgoynes, explains why the risks posed by cargo mis-declaration should not be underestimated

Mis-declared cargo remains one of shipping’s most persistent fire risks. When a dangerous product is concealed behind an innocuous description, it may be packed, segregated and stowed without the controls needed for its hazards, while the crew may not have the correct emergency response information. Recent events involving an explosion during a containership fire investigation, resulting in the loss of a fire investigator colleague, a surveyor and crew member, have brought this into sharp focus. Recent data published by Allianz indicates that 25% of cargo incidents recorded (both fire and non-fire) related to mis-declared cargo. A significant proportion of marine incidents investigated by Burgoynes have involved cargo mis-declaration. These include: • Undeclared dangerous goods (DG); • DG cargoes incorrectly reported as exempted from the IMDG Code; • Incorrect proper shipping names, UN number, hazard class or packing group; • Incomplete declarations for mixed consignments; and • Mixed consignments including incompatible cargoes.

Charcoal is a carbon-rich material, liable to oxidation and self-heating post manufacture.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Mis-declared cargo In association with Burgoynes

Drawing on recent experience, this article highlights some common cargo mis-declarations in container shipping. However, mis-declaration in bulk and general cargo shipping is also an issue, particularly where chemical cargoes, packaged in flexible intermediate bulk containers (FIBCs), are stowed together with other products, such as steel, plywood, vehicles and project cargoes, raising the risk of leakages and inadvertent chemical reactions.

WHY MIS-DECLARATION MATTERS

The carriage of DG cargoes is governed by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code. While some errors might arise from misunderstanding or misapplication of the IMDG Code, deliberate misdeclaration may be intended to avoid cost arising from freight surcharges, testing, specialist packing, routing restrictions or carrier acceptance procedure. If the identity of a cargo is concealed, the goods in that consignment may be subjected to inappropriate controls, resulting in: • incorrect / inappropriate packaging; • inadequate securing within the container; • incorrect stowage location; • failure to segregate incompatible goods; and • inadequate temperature control or ventilation. In the event of an incident, mis-declaration can have dire consequences including incorrect fire-fighting response, generation of flammable atmospheres presenting an explosion risk, pollution, corrosion of the vessel and hazards to the health of both crew and shore personnel.

COMMONLY MIS-DECLARED CARGOES

Charcoal Charcoal is a carbon-rich material, liable to oxidation and self-heating post manufacture. Burgoynes has investigated multiple incidents involving natural charcoal, pressed or formed briquettes and, increasingly, tablets for Arabic water pipes, commonly known as shisha or hookah pipes. Cargoes have been declared as “hookah tablets”, “shisha pipe accessories”, “incense accessories”, “tablets for water pipe” and “coconut pellets”. The applicable entry for charcoal in the IMDG Code is UN1361 “CARBON of animal or vegetable origin”, assigned hazard class 4.2 (liable to spontaneous combustion). Special Provisions (SP) 223 and 925 previously allowed exemption from the requirements of the Code based on the results of laboratory testing. However, Burgoynes has previously encountered many cargoes that were declared exempt on this basis, but still self-heated and caught fire. In the latest, 2024 version of the IMDG Code, which entered into force on 1 January 2026, SP223 and SP925 were

Calcium hypochlorite is somewhat thermally-unstable and liable to self-accelerating thermal decomposition, releasing heat and gases, potentially resulting in fires and explosions.

replaced with SP978, which among other things requires that all charcoal cargoes be declared as UN 1361, regardless of any testing conducted to determine its self-heating propensity. This welcome change removes the opportunity for self-heating charcoal products to be exempted based on laboratory testing. Calcium hypochlorite Calcium hypochlorite is a powerful oxidising agent, commonly used for water chlorination. It has three different listings in the IMDG Code (UN3485, UN3486 and UN3487) all assigned hazard class 5.1 (oxidiser) with subsidiary hazard class 8 (corrosive). Calcium hypochlorite is somewhat thermally-unstable and liable to self-accelerating thermal decomposition, releasing heat and gases, potentially resulting in fires and explosions. Accordingly, the IMDG Code specifies that containers should be stowed on deck, protected from sunlight and other sources of heat. In some incidents involving calcium hypochlorite the cargo was mis-declared, resulting in containers having been stowed adjacent to heated fuel oil tanks, engine room bulkheads, or open yards exposed to sunlight, leading to thermal decomposition. Often, calcium hypochlorite is mis-declared as similar but innocuous chemicals such as “calcium chloride”). Other names encountered include “chlorine of lime”, “bleaching agent”, “water purifier” and “swimming pool cleaner”. Lithium batteries Lithium-ion cells can enter thermal runaway when internal The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Mis-declared cargo In association with Burgoynes

There has been a notable increase in lithium-ion battery-related maritime incidents in recent years. The trend is driven in part by the surge in electric vehicle (EV) shipments, many of which are transported on Ro-Ro vessels.

eliminate the underlying fire risk associated with the carriage of lithium-ion batteries. In our view, SP188 should be reviewed as a matter of urgency, in a manner similar to the recent reconsideration of SP978. In our experience, lithium-ion batteries are often simply mis-declared using an obscure description such as “electronic accessories”, “static converters” or “electric accumulators”. Batteries are often included in mixed consignments of goods, where only one, or a few, of the individual consignments are declared on the cargo documentation (“clothing and shoes” in one recent case). We also have experience of containers of semi-knocked down (SKD – partially disassembled) consumer goods containing packages of batteries, such as “emergency light fittings” and “parts of lamp”. A review of container packing lists or customs documentation can often reveal the presence of undeclared lithium-ion batteries. For example, we have seen documents quoting the Harmonised System Codes for lithium-ion batteries (85076000) alongside innocuous entries such as “electronic accessories”. A simple review of such documents for the relevant HS code could assist in identifying potentially misdeclared batteries before they are loaded.

GAS MEASUREMENTS heat generation becomes self-sustaining. The process may be triggered by an internal defect, incorrect charging, external heating or short-circuiting, crushing, penetration or other damage. It can release intense heat, flammable and toxic gases and result in the ejection of burning material. If gases accumulate in an enclosed space, ignition may produce a fire or explosion. The IMDG Code specifies that lithium-ion batteries are considered a DG cargo, with a UN number determined by whether they are packaged with / contained within equipment. The IMDG Code includes SP188, which sets out a series of requirements that, when met, exempt these cargoes from other provisions of the IMDG Code. Cargoes exempted under SP188 are usually accompanied by a report or declaration stating that the cargo is compliant with SP188. Recent experience has shown that, in many instances, cargo has been incorrectly declared to be compliant with SP188. For example, declarations are provided for a different type of battery or packaging, or for individual cells when the cargo is multi-cell power banks. Carriers should carefully review any exemption documents supplied and request photographs of the cargo as packaged. However, fires can still occur even where batteries have been correctly exempted under SP188 or properly declared as dangerous goods. Compliance with SP188 does not, therefore, The Marine Insurer | October 2026

In the event of an incident involving mis-declared cargo, the use of gas monitoring equipment can provide valuable information to assist in identifying the hazards presented to incident responders, particularly where incidents occur in enclosed spaces, such as below deck. Although the nature of the cargo may not be apparent from documentation or external inspection, many hazardous processes (including leakage, decomposition, self-heating, battery failure and fire) can produce characteristic gases or vapours.

“Cargo mis-declaration remains a serious and unresolved maritime safety problem. This problem is likely to continue where there remain financial or administrative incentives for shippers to mis-declare cargo.”

MARINE | Mis-declared cargo In association with Burgoynes

“Used as part of a structured scientific assessment, gas monitoring can help identify suspect containers and, consequently, establish appropriate Monitoring the atmosphere within a cargo hold for oxygen depletion, flammable gases, carbon monoxide and other toxic gases can, in conjunction with other information, assist in assessing the severity of the risk and identifying the likely nature of the problem cargo. Gas-monitoring results must nevertheless be interpreted by suitably trained experts, with due regard to the sampling location, instrument calibration and measurement ranges, sensor cross-sensitivities and the possibility of false readings. Used as part of a structured scientific assessment, gas monitoring can help identify suspect containers and, consequently, establish appropriate precautions and determine how the incident can be managed as safely as possible.

SUMMARY Cargo mis-declaration remains a serious and unresolved maritime safety problem. This problem is likely to continue where there remain financial or administrative incentives for shippers to mis-declare cargo. Mis-declaration may not be the immediate initiating event of the incidents that we investigate, but it often prevents safeguards appropriate to the actual cargo being implemented. Ensuing deficiencies in classification, packaging, segregation, stowage and emergency information can increase: • the likelihood and severity of an incident;

precautions and determine how the incident can be managed as safely as possible.’’

• the attendant risk to life of those aboard the vessel; • financial losses incurred by stakeholders; and • the resulting damage to the environment. Recent updates to the IMDG Code, such as the stricter requirements for charcoal, assist by closing loopholes that allow potential mis-declaration, but this is not a complete solution. Regulation does not result in the detection of vague or deliberately false cargo declarations. Instead, shippers must be required to present and relevant stakeholders should demand, accurate information. Furthermore, carriers, forwarders, terminals and vessel operators should scrutinise cargo declarations, container packing lists, exemption documents and proper safety data sheets. Effective screening need not begin with sophisticated technology. A comparison of the documentation already available may reveal inconsistencies, which should in turn prompt closer scrutiny and requests for clarification or additional documentation. Through such scrutiny, there is potential to mitigate the risk presented by mis-declared cargo. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

40 MARINE | Hull and machinery risk In association with Aon

Global shipowners and operators face increasing complexity from geopolitical tensions, older fleets, volatile weather, crewing challenges and evolving regulations. Disciplined technical management is now more important to loss performance, resilience and longterm operating strength argue a group of senior Aon marine, engineering and logistics experts Commercial marine operators face a more demanding environment influenced by geopolitical tension, aging tonnage, weather volatility, crewing pressure and regulatory complexity. That pressure is also reflected in rising claims severity and repair costs. “We look at what is happening geographically and geopolitically, and those issues are only going to increase for operators with the price of steel, parts and replacement times,” says Andrew Green, global claims leader, transportation. “The price of repairing a vessel is at least 40% more expensive than it was four years ago.” However, even in a more demanding environment, owners have opportunities to strengthen resilience and drive positive change through robust technical management.

IMPACT OF FIRE AND MACHINERY DAMAGE

Fires and machinery damage remain dominant drivers of major hull and machinery losses. Effective technical management plays a role in reducing risk and building resilience for vessel owners. Day-to-day management, maintenance, operations and crew support shape better loss outcomes. Strong standards, systems and culture help strengthen: > Vessel condition; > Machinery reliability; > Crew performance, wellbeing and retention; and > Claims experience. In time, stronger technical management standards reduce operational risk and support more consistent performance across the fleet.

HOW OWNERS CAN MEASURE PERFORMANCE Owners can reduce operational risk directly, or through technical managers, by using vessel condition and crew performance key performance indicators (KPIs) to pinpoint vulnerabilities and best practices. This creates opportunities to address exposures early while identifying successful approaches that can be scaled across the fleet. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

How technical management and execution shape outcomes

Owners can track risk performance across vessel and fleet-level indicators. The objective is to understand trends, maintain operating discipline and feed those insights into continuous improvement through: > Vessel condition inspections and audits; > Regulatory documentation compliance; > Port state control history; > Crew culture, wellbeing and safety engagement; > Planned maintenance adherence; > Fitness for carriage of cargo; > Retention of senior officers; and > Living standards and housekeeping

SURVEY CYCLES AND LIFECYCLE MANAGEMENT

Survey cycles are a stress test for technical management. As vessels age, hull and machinery outcomes depend on maintenance discipline, transparency around defects and timely capital investment. Vessels subject to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea are required to undergo a five-year survey cycle to ensure maintenance of class and flag regulatory condition and safety standards. This includes: > Annual survey every year assessing hull, machinery and equipment condition; > Intermediate survey every 2.5 years involving more detailed physical inspection afloat; and > Special survey every five years to detail full vessel physical examination in dry dock.

MARINE | Hull and machinery risk In association with Aon

“Provided an owner budgets appropriately and takes the necessary steps to maintain a vessel in a safe and seaworthy condition, it can continue operating beyond the typical 20-25-year lifespan,” says Christopher Law, managing director, marine risk engineering and loss control. Still, older tonnage features more heavily in severe losses. On vessels more than 25 years old, fire results in a total loss in roughly one in eight cases, compared to one in 30 on vessels under 20 years old. Good maintenance routines and loss prevention measures help prevent more severe damage in aging vessels.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES: ENABLERS, NOT SHORTCUTS

Emerging technologies are becoming an important part of how operators manage risk and improve visibility. Adoption remains uneven and outcomes depend on how effectively these technologies are embedded into day-to-day technical management and operations. Aon says that there are five ways that emerging technologies can strengthen performance. These are: 1. Continuous vessel data capture improves visibility between inspections; 2. Connected vessels improve real-time oversight; 3. Predictive insights support earlier intervention; 4. Operational analytics support better decisions at sea; and 5. Digital workflows help turn insight into action.

LEADERSHIP’S IMPACT ON CREW AND CULTURE

performance and safety standards and fostering an assertive culture. Safety culture, training, fatigue management and the ability to raise concerns affect hull and machinery outcomes. Further, human error-related claims are often not isolated events but can be symptoms of broader operational or cultural weakness. Owners invest in effective technical management, performance data, crew skills, culture and capability, as well as technology to reduce operational risk and run better ships, not to secure instant premium reductions. The primary return on that investment is usually operational. These are: > Higher reliability and availability, with fewer breakdowns and off hire days; > Lower lifecycle costs through smarter maintenance and planned life extension budgeting; > Better safety performance and regulatory compliance outcomes; > Stronger crew engagement, retention, operational culture and safety engagement; and > Greater confidence in deploying vessels into more demanding trades or environments. Underwriters increasingly use granular data and performance signals, but technology or KPIs alone do not generate immediate discounts. Confidence is built through sustained improvement that is clearly articulated, supported by evidence and tied to stronger risk and loss performance through time. Performance data is most valuable when first used to improve operating discipline and reduce risk. Stronger market conversations will naturally follow.

EXECUTION REMAINS THE DECISIVE DIFFERENTIATOR In today’s hull and machinery environment, execution is the constant. Aging tonnage, heavier weather, longer routes, more complex machinery and ongoing crewing challenges are not temporary features - they are the operating reality. Industry data highlights where the pressure points sit, but it is day to day execution that determines whether a fleet becomes part of the statistics or consistently performs ahead of them.

THE AUTHORS: Andrew Green: Global Claims Leader, Transportation and Logistics

Oliver Miloschewsky: Head of Shipping, Asia Pacific

Christopher Law: Managing Director, Marine Risk Engineering and Loss Control, United States

Ben Stone: Global Head of Marine Hull, United Kingdom

Senior officers play a decisive role in onboard condition,

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

42 MARINE | Lithium-ion batteries In association with Hawkins & Associates

Lithium-ion batteries: Are current maritime controls enough?

Jessica Ng, forensic consultant at Hawkins specialising in fire investigation, analyses the rising lithium-ion battery risk and offers sugggestions about how to more effectively manage this risk

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Lithium-ion batteries In association with Hawkins & Associates

Lithium-ion batteries are subject to strict regulation under the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and a number of ports have introduced additional controls governing their shipment. However, despite these measures, real-world implementation continues to present significant challenges and the number of incidents involving lithium-ion battery fires has increased. This trend is causing growing concern across the marine insurance industry. From container vessels to roll-on/rolloff (Ro-Ro) vessels, lithium-ion battery-related incidents are becoming more frequent and severe.

A UNIQUE RISK

propagates from one cell to adjacent cells, significantly increasing the scale of the incident.

LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES SHIPPED BY SEA

There has been a notable increase in lithium-ion batteryrelated maritime incidents in recent years. The trend is driven in part by the surge in electric vehicle (EV) shipments, many of which are transported on Ro-Ro vessels. Damaged or defective batteries on EV shipments significantly increase the risk of ignition. Such damage may arise from manufacturing defects, improper handling, or mechanical damage. In some cases, batteries may appear intact but contain internal faults that can trigger delayed thermal runaway during transit. Containerised cargo also presents challenges. Mis-declared or undeclared lithium-ion batteries remain a persistent problem. Batteries are often shipped within consolidated consignments or declared as general goods, making them difficult to identify. In some instances, cargo may be intentionally mis-declared to avoid higher freight costs or regulatory scrutiny. The lack of transparency has serious implications. Without accurate cargo information, vessel operators cannot implement appropriate stowage, segregation, or monitoring measures. As a result, the likelihood of an incident, and its potential severity, is significantly increased.

Lithium-ion batteries are now integral to modern life. Their applications span a wide range of sectors, from consumer electronics - such as e-cigarettes, smartphones, and laptops to transportation, including electric vehicles, e-scooters and increasingly, marine vessels such as yachts and ferries. Their widespread adoption is driven by their high energy density, compact size and ability to deliver a stable output voltage across varying loads. However, these advantages come with inherent vulnerabilities. Lithium-ion batteries are less tolerant to damage, manufacturing defects and adverse environmental conditions than many traditional energy storage systems. While many dangerous goods are flammable or reactive, SEVERE CONSEQUENCES lithium-ion batteries carry an inherent risk of thermal Once a fire occurs, the consequences can be severe. runaway. This occurs when the heat generated by an Lithium-ion battery fires are notoriously difficult to operating or defective cell cannot be dissipated into the environment effectively, causing a rapid increase in temperature. The elevated temperature accelerates internal chemical reactions, generating further heat in a self-reinforcing cycle. Ultimately, this can lead to catastrophic cell failure. During thermal runaway, the battery will release a variety of dangerous chemicals such as vaporised electrolyte, a flammable, organic liquid, which can ignite due to the high temperatures involved. Battery cells can also liberate hydrogen, an explosive gas and hydrogen fluoride, an extremely corrosive and toxic chemical. This can result in intense fires and, in some cases, explosions. Once initiated, thermal runaway is extremely From container vessels to roll-on/roll-off (Ro-Ro) vessels, lithium-ion battery-related incidents are becoming more frequent and severe. difficult to control and almost always

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Lithium-ion batteries In association with Hawkins & Associates

REGULATION OF LITHIUM-ION BATTERIES

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has established a comprehensive regulatory framework for the carriage of lithium-ion batteries through the IMDG Code. This includes requirements for classification and UN numbers, packaging requirements, labelling and marking and shipping documentation. Under the IMDG Code, lithium-ion batteries are categorised as Class 9 (miscellaneous) hazardous materials. The main lithium-ion battery entries are shown below and the exact UN number and proper shipping name will depend on the battery’s chemistry, intended use and if they are packed in, with or without equipment.

UN Number 3480 3481 3536 3556

extinguish, as there is currently no consistently effective method of suppression, other than submerging the cells in water for a prolonged period. Unlike traditional combustion, lithium-ion batteries do not rely on an external oxygen supply to sustain combustion. Instead, oxygen is released internally through the breakdown of the cathode, electrolyte solvent and additive materials. As a result, conventional firefighting methods, such as CO2 suppression systems, are often ineffective, presenting a particularly hazardous scenario in a maritime context. Fires can also develop deep within containers, where early detection is challenging. By the time crew intervention is possible, the fire may already be beyond control. These fires can burn for extended periods and the resulting damage can be extensive, including: > Partial or total cargo loss > Structural damage to the vessel > Prolonged operational disruption > Stability concerns due to firefighting water accumulation. While total vessel losses remain relatively rare, the scale and complexity of such incidents make them a growing concern.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Proper Shipping Name (PSN) Lithium-ion batteries (including lithium-ion polymer batteries) Lithium-ion batteries contained in equipment or lithium-ion batteries packed with equipment Lithium batteries installed in cargo transport unit (lithium-ion batteries or lithium metal batteries) Vehicle, lithium-ion battery powered

Any lithium-ion battery, or cell, to be transported must be of a type proven to meet all the requirements of the UN Manual of Tests and Criteria, Part III, subsection 38.3. These tests not only relate to the cells, but also the packaging and the labelling of the packaging. Furthermore, as of 1 January 2026, the classification of battery-powered vehicles has changed significantly, separating lithium-ion, lithium-metal and other battery types into different UN numbers. It is now mandatory for vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries to be carried in accordance

“While many dangerous goods are flammable or reactive, lithium-ion batteries carry an inherent risk of thermal runaway. This occurs when the heat generated by an operating or defective cell cannot be dissipated into the environment effectively, causing a rapid increase in temperature.”

MARINE | Lithium-ion batteries In association with Hawkins & Associates

with UN 3556, and not UN 3171. The new entry UN 3556 applies to vehicles powered by lithium-ion batteries with the batteries installed, such as electrically powered cars, lawn tractors, wheelchairs and other mobility aids.

of preventing lithium-ion battery incidents. Batteries should be packaged to protect against short-circuits, physical damage and movement during transit. Even in cases where regulatory exemptions apply, high packaging standards should be maintained to minimise the risk of ignition.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

3. State of Charge (SoC) management Reducing the state of charge of lithium-ion batteries prior to shipment can limit the energy available to fuel a fire, particularly for EVs transported on car carriers. While some ports and shipping lines have already adopted SoC limits, wider implementation would help reduce the risk across the industry.

In addition to general requirements, the IMDG Code includes a range of special provisions and packing instructions that can apply when considering the transportation of lithium-ion cells. One of the most widely used – and often misunderstood – is special provision 188 (SP 188). SP 188 allows the cargo to be exempted from many of the requirements of the Code if the batteries can meet the lithium content / watt-hour rating, are protected against short circuits and are securely packed However, in practice, this provision has significant ambiguity. Many shippers interpret it as a full exemption from dangerous goods controls, leading to batteries being handled as general cargo. This is a critical misconception. Even under SP 188, strict testing, packaging and handling requirements remain essential to prevent short circuits and physical damage. Failure to meet these requirements can substantially increase the risk of thermal runaway during transit.

RISK REDUCTION MEASURES

It is clear that lithium-ion batteries will remain the dominant energy storage technology for the foreseeable future. However, their transportation continues to represent one of the largest safety challenges in modern shipping. Despite the robust structure of the IMDG Code, there are still gaps in implementation and widespread misdeclaration and the inherent characteristics of lithium-ion batteries continue to contribute to an increasing number of serious maritime incidents. While the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries cannot be entirely eliminated, they can be better managed through consistent implementation, stronger operational discipline and more industry-wide awareness. The following measures are key to reducing exposure: 1. Improved cargo declaration and transparency Accurate declaration of lithium-ion batteries is essential. Shipowners and insurers should promote stricter verification processes to reduce the risk of mis-declaration and undeclared shipments. This includes enhanced documentation checks, verification of manufacturer certifications issued by recognised and approved testing laboratories and improved communication between shippers, freight forwarders and carriers.

4. Stowage and segregation practices Lithium-ion batteries should be stowed in easily accessible locations and segregated from other hazardous cargoes. This allows more effective monitoring and firefighting response and to minimise the chance of fire spread. 5. Firefighting preparedness and crew training Crew members must be adequately trained and familiarise themselves with the specific hazards presented by lithiumion battery fires. This includes a clear understanding of the limitations of traditional CO2 systems and the importance of boundary cooling and sustained water application. By adopting the above measures, the maritime industry can take meaningful steps toward better managing the risks associated with lithium-ion batteries.

“Proper packaging remains one of the most effective means of preventing lithium-ion battery incidents. Batteries should be packaged to protect against short-circuits, physical damage and movement during transit. Even in cases where regulatory exemptions apply, high packaging standards should be maintained to minimise the risk of ignition.”

2. Enhanced packaging and handling standards Proper packaging remains one of the most effective means The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Forward Thinking™ Foreign Exchange Ballinger & Co. is a leading specialist in Foreign Exchange. We deliver FX risk management strategies and trading services to corporates and institutions. Through superior pricing and execution, improved transactional efficiency and deep market knowledge we provide each of our clients with an essential competitive advantage.

Ballinger & Co. is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority under the Payment Services Directive as an Authorised Payment Institution with registration number FRN 825771.

E: info@ballinger.co

T: +44 (0) 20 3869 1800

W: ballinger.co

179 Great Portland Street, Marylebone, London, W1W 5PL

48 MARINE | Bunker risk In association with Hill Dickinson

Colin Lavelle, partner and Reema Shour, professional support lawyer, at Hill Dickinson, warn of the potential risks attached to volatile bunker prices and the need to carefully construct and monitor contracts As at time of writing, early July 2026, bunker fuel prices were gradually dropping as a result of the US-Iran ceasefire but were expected to take some months to return to pre-war levels. Market participants predicted that bunker fuel shortages experienced in a number of regions would not be resolved quickly, not least because there remained concerns as to whether the peace deal would hold. Certainly, few would be surprised if there was another outbreak of hostilities in the region. As a result of the surge in bunker prices due to the conflict, the shipping industry was reported to be spending an additional €340m a day in additional fuel costs before the ceasefire. This automatically raised questions for owners, charterers and other parties to shipping contracts as to who would bear the additional expense and who was liable if it proved difficult to either source suitable bunkers at all or suitable bunkers at commercial rates. To try to mitigate this uncertainty, it has been reported that a number of shipping lines introduced weekly contingency surcharges to offset additional costs. It has further been reported that there was a surge of bunker-related claims due to poor quality fuel being sourced either because of a shortage of satisfactory fuel from usual suppliers or due to price concerns. It, therefore, remains key that due diligence on bunker stems is performed irrespective of inflated price concerns. Ultimately, in terms of liability for sourcing bunkers and covering additional costs, much will depend on the terms of, and risk allocation in, the shipping contract.

VOYAGE CHARTERS

Generally speaking, under a voyage charter, owners bear the risk relating to bunker prices, although that risk is usually accounted for in the agreed freight rate. If the vessel is obliged to deviate to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, a voyage via the Cape of Good Hope can add The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Bunker fuel price escalation: Check your contract several days to the journey time and it is not uncommon for owners and charterers to renegotiate and come to an agreement whereby voyage charterers share the additional cost. The voyage charter may also incorporate one of the following clauses: (i) a bunker adjustment factor (BAF) clause, which imposes a fuel cost surcharge to the base freight rate. BAF clauses are designed to protect carriers from market price volatility; or (ii) a BIMCO bunker rise clause, which effectively provides that if the bunker price paid by owners exceeds the price in effect on the date the charter was concluded, charterers must pay the difference upon production of supporting documents; or (iii) a BIMCO bunker price adjustment clause, which allows freight rates to be adjusted to account for fuel price volatility. The clause sets a fixed base price and triggers escalation or de-escalation payments if actual bunker costs exceed a particular threshold at the loadport. In addition, bunker escalation or deescalation clauses are also frequently used in contracts of affreightment or other long-term charters.

TIME CHARTERS

Under time charterparties, charterers are responsible for purchasing the fuel or for reimbursing the owners if the charter provides for the owners to purchase the fuel in the first instance. Therefore, any bunker price escalation risk falls on the charterers, unless the parties decide to renegotiate their contractual arrangements for commercial or other reasons. Parties to charterparties in a chain should be alert to the risk of any mismatch in terms. An intermediate charterer whose subcharter does not incorporate an escalation clause when the head charter does might find themselves paying a higher market price but receiving a lower freight rate from the sub-charterer.

FRUSTRATION

Irrespective of who may be responsible for sourcing and paying for bunker fuel, it is highly unlikely they can argue that a charter is frustrated because it has become much more

MARINE | Bunker risk In association with Hill Dickinson

“Ultimately, in terms of liability for sourcing bunkers and covering additional costs, much will depend on the terms of, and risk allocation in, the shipping contract.”

expensive to perform or much more difficult to source suitable fuel. Additional expense and lower profit margins do not amount to a frustrating event.

FORCE MAJEURE

As to force majeure (FM), this is not a free-standing English law doctrine. It will only arise under an English law contract that incorporates an express FM clause. The English courts interpret FM clauses strictly because they are a form of limitation/exclusion clause. A party relying on an FM provision should ensure that the FM event relied on comes within the scope of the FM clause, further that any FM declaration is compliant with the requirements set out in the FM provision. In shipping, FM is most commonly invoked when events materially disrupt vessel operations, or supply chains, provided the events relied on directly cause the non-performance and cannot reasonably be worked around. The standard form BIMCO Force Majeure Clause 2022 addresses FM events occurring under shipping contracts that affect the parties’ performance. The Clause can be modified to suit the parties’ requirements. Notably, it does not cover increased costs of performance. The Iran conflict, leading to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and difficulties surrounding the availability of war risk cover, led to many FM declarations by impacted shipping companies, who sought to suspend their contractual obligations until the situation improved. Usually, the events relied on before FM can be successfully

invoked must prevent due performance of contractual obligations, not just make performance more expensive or uncommercial. Again, however, much depends on the scope and wording of the FM provision in question. If the problem is non-availability of appropriate bunkers, then the issue will be whether the extent of fuel unavailability prevents performance of the contract, or whether it simply makes it more expensive to perform. All reasonable attempts to source bunker fuel before declaring FM on this basis should be carefully documented. There are also wider commercial considerations involved. Is the parties’ relationship an important and long-standing one, such that they wish to preserve it? In that case, they may wish to negotiate around the situation, aiming to minimise disruption to performance of the contract and agreeing who pays for any additional costs, such as deviation to source suitable bunkers, sourcing costs, associated agency costs etc.

SUMMARY

Given the recent and significant geo-political impacts on trade/established trading routes and increasingly uncertain global markets, parties who enter into shipping contracts that involve trading to or through regions of geopolitical conflict should carefully consider what express provisions they may need to account for the type of issues discussed in this article. This is not the first time the maritime industry has experienced disruption. As geopolitical tensions continue to influence global trade routes, organisations must embed supply chain resilience across their operations to mitigate potential losses. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

50 MARINE | Hung juries In association with JuryConnect

The elephant (or donkey) in the jury room Jennifer Cuculich and Nick Polavin, senior jury consultants and co-founders, of JuryConnect, explain how and why a more polarised society is making it increasingly difficult for juries to agree on a verdict The litigation landscape in the US often reflects the issues facing the country itself and the jury room can function as a microcosm of society. Regardless of which side of the aisle one identifies with, few can deny that political polarisation is on the rise. A recent study by Syracuse University’s Institute for Democracy, Journalism and Citizenship found that Americans see the country as more divided than at any time since the Civil War. Inevitably, these divisions make their way into the courtroom and jury room, changing deliberation dynamics and a jury’s ability to reach a verdict. As jurors spend less time engaging in face-to-face interactions and more time behind screens, their ability to disagree and reach resolution as a group may have waned. This shift has contributed to contentious deliberations and, potentially, more hung juries, as jurors find themselves at odds with one another and less willing or able to compromise. Hung juries are nothing new. But there are growing signs that jury deliberations are becoming less collaborative and less capable of reaching consensus. At JuryConnect, we have noticed an uptick in hung juries in recent years, in both mock trials and jury trials. While some initially attributed these dynamics to the social isolation of Covid-19, they have persisted well beyond the pandemic and appear increasingly rooted in political and cultural polarisation. A May 2026 Wall Street Journal article similarly described trial lawyers and consultants observing political and cultural divisions finding their way into jury deliberations, with more rigid viewpoints, declining trust in institutions, personal attacks and an inability to disagree without becoming disagreeable. If this trend continues, the defence bar and anyone evaluating litigation risk should consider not only whether a jury will favour the plaintiff or defence, but whether it will be able to reach a verdict at all.

THE JURY ROOM AS A MICROCOSM

The idea that politics might influence jury behaviour is hardly speculative. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

A 2025 study published in the Journal of Law and Economics examined North Carolina jury pools and found that political affiliation could affect trial outcomes. The study found, for example, that adding one independent juror to a jury pool was associated with a nearly threepercentage-point reduction in the conviction rate. That does not mean jurors simply vote according to their political party, however, or that a prospective juror’s political affiliation provides a reliable predictor of how that juror will decide a case. Traditional profiles based on political leaning have become increasingly less predictive as what it means to be a Republican or Democrat varies greatly, even among those who identify with one party or the other. Rather, political beliefs often coexist with other attitudes that can be highly predictive of verdicts, such as trust in institutions or anti-corporate sentiment. Increasingly, however, we see political identity play a significant role during deliberations, even when seemingly unrelated political topics enter the discussion. For instance, we regularly observe this dynamic in cases involving government regulators. Jurors may enter deliberations with strong views about these agencies and evaluate the case through that lens. A juror who believes the government is corrupt or incompetent, for example, may be difficult for other jurors to persuade because those beliefs are closely tied to a broader worldview.

FROM DISAGREEMENT TO DEADLOCK

Jurors with different worldviews and experiences are nothing new and are, in fact, the backbone of the American jury system. The greater problem arises when jurors are unable to function as a group when those worldviews collide. A jury is supposed to be a deliberative body: strangers who listen to competing interpretations of evidence, consider and reconsider their positions and, ultimately, reach a collective decision. Research on hung juries, however, has long shown that the process does not always work that way. A 2002 study by the National Center for State Courts found that deadlocked juries experienced substantially more conflict than juries that

MARINE | Hung juries In association with JuryConnect

“Hung juries are nothing new. But there are growing signs that jury reached verdicts. Jurors were more likely to describe fellow jurors as unreasonable, more likely to report that one or two people dominated deliberations and less likely to believe other jurors were open-minded. These findings predate today’s political environment but also describe many of the dynamics now evident in political discourse. Polarisation can teach people to view disagreement not merely as a difference in judgment, but as evidence that the other person is irrational, uninformed, dishonest or morally suspect. When that dynamic enters a jury room, where strangers are asked to reach a collective decision, it is unsurprising that deliberations can become highly contentious. In recent post-verdict interviews following a case that ended in a hung jury, jurors described a point at which a dissenting juror moved his chair away from the table, faced the corner and refused to speak with the others. In mock trials, we have increasingly observed jurors storm out of the room and engage in verbal and even physical altercations. As this type of interaction becomes more frequent, so does the risk of a hung jury.

IMPLICATIONS FOR JURY RESEARCH AND TRIAL STRATEGY Polarised deliberations may raise concerns about the future of the jury system, but particularly for civil defendants. What we had previously observed in mock trials was the defence jurors would typically reference more evidence and the jury instructions, talk about “hindsight is 20/20,” and that

deliberations are becoming less collaborative and less capable of reaching consensus.”

everything comes with risks. All things being equal, they could typically articulate their positions better than plaintiff jurors and were more persuasive in deliberations. However, we now see people sticking to their positions regardless of whether they can back it up with evidence or not. So, what we have observed is that plaintiff jurors are less likely to give in to the arguments and evidence that defence jurors discuss in deliberations. Therefore, the hung juries of today were more likely to be defence verdicts when Americans were less polarised. This is where jury research becomes particularly valuable. Mock trials and focus groups can reveal not only which arguments resonate, but whether a particular factual, legal or credibility issue is likely to divide jurors into opposing camps - and whether those divisions are strong enough to make consensus difficult or impossible. In an increasingly polarised jury room, understanding where those fault lines lie can be incredibly important. And conducting research can not only help with honing messages that will resonate with more jurors, but also identifying factors to look out for in jury selection so that someone who is likely to be an adamant plaintiff supporter will not be seated on the jury. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

52 MARINE | Heroic Idun In association with Gard

Alexandra Couvadelli, senior lawyer and vice president UK and Joakim Bronder, vice president, global claims lead defence and claims legal at Gard,explain the significance of the Heroic Idun ruling The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’s (ITLOS) judgment in the M/T Heroic Idun (No. 2) case is one of the most significant law-of-the-sea decisions in recent years. Beyond the facts of a single vessel detention, the ruling reinforces the fundamental principles on which international shipping relies, highlights the potentially significant consequences of unlawful state action and places renewed emphasis on the welfare of seafarers caught in geopolitical disputes. For shipowners, insurers and maritime stakeholders, the decision offers important lessons on freedom of navigation, exclusive flag state jurisdiction and the importance of early intervention when vessels become entangled in complex enforcement actions.

BACKGROUND

The dispute arose from the interception and detention of the Marshall Islands-flagged VLCC M/T Heroic Idun in August 2022. The vessel had approached the Nigerian coast to load crude oil but, as the necessary authorisations had not yet been received, remained offshore awaiting instructions. After being approached by a Nigerian navy vessel with its AIS switched off, the Master moved further offshore, concerned that the approaching vessel might be involved in piracy. The Heroic Idun subsequently entered the EEZs of Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Príncipe. Following allegations from Nigeria that the vessel was involved in illegal bunkering and had raised a false piracy alarm, an Equatoguinean naval vessel intercepted the ship and ordered it to an Equatoguinean port, where the vessel and crew were detained. A fine of more than E2m was imposed on the Master for alleged unlawful entry into Equatorial Guinea’s jurisdictional waters. The vessel and crew were later transferred to Nigeria, where the crew remained detained for several months. Following a plea bargain, Nigeria dropped the charges and the vessel was finally released on 27 May 2023. The 26 crew The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Heroic Idun: A landmark ruling for maritime law, navigation freedom and seafarer protection members had then been held in detention for 288 days. The Marshall Islands subsequently commenced proceedings against Equatorial Guinea under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), seeking compensation for the unlawful interception, detention and transfer of the vessel and crew.

REAFFIRMATION OF FREEDOM OF NAVIGATION

In its landmark ruling, the Special Chamber unanimously found that Equatorial Guinea breached the foundational principles of freedom of navigation and exclusive flag state jurisdiction, as enshrined in Articles 87(1), 90 and 92(1) of UNCLOS. The chamber found that the interception, and all enforcement measures taken by Equatorial Guinea against the M/T Heroic Idun with a causal connection to the interception, were contrary to international law and constituted “a continuing wrongful international act”.

MARINE | Heroic Idun In association with Gard

plus interest - the largest sum ever awarded by ITLOS and indeed in any UNCLOS dispute-settlement proceeding. The case therefore sends an important message to states that may be tempted to disregard the basic rules of the international law of the sea or to take coercive action against vessels and crews without proper legal basis. It also demonstrates the significant compensation exposure that can arise from unlawful detention.

RECOGNISING THE HUMAN COST

Importantly, the Chamber decisively rejected Equatorial Guinea’s contention that the arrest of the vessel was justified on suspicion of piracy. It emphasised that piracy represents a narrow and carefully circumscribed exception to the freedoms of the high seas and concluded that the evidence provided “no support for the suggestion that the M/T Heroic Idun was suspected of engaging in piracy”. The ruling also confirmed that regional agreements designed to suppress unlawful activities at sea, such as the Yaoundé Code, do not confer powers beyond those already provided under UNCLOS with respect to vessels flying the flag of non-signatory states. For the maritime industry, the message is clear: the core UNCLOS principles of freedom of navigation and exclusive flag state jurisdiction cannot simply be set aside, even where regional security concerns exist.

SIGNIFICANT CONSEQUENCES FOR UNLAWFUL DETENTION The judgment also serves as a reminder that unlawful enforcement action can carry substantial financial consequences. The Special Chamber unanimously upheld the Marshall Islands’ position regarding the E2m fine imposed on the Master for failing to seek authorisation to enter Equatorial Guinea’s exclusive economic zone. The tribunal found the fine to be contrary to international law and stated unequivocally that there is “no foundation” for interpreting UNCLOS as permitting a coastal state to take enforcement measures based on non-compliance with national laws requiring authorisation for entry into the EEZ. The Chamber further concluded that the vessel’s transfer to Nigeria was unlawful because it had been carried out “without consideration of due process of law”. Overall, the tribunal awarded compensation exceeding $14m

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the judgment was its recognition of the hardship suffered by the crew. The Special Chamber confirmed that considerations of humanity apply with full force at sea and gave explicit recognition to the mistreatment suffered by the crew of the M/T Heroic Idun. Having regard to the conditions and duration of their detention, the denial of due process, the violation of the rights of the detainees and the physical and mental suffering caused by the acts and omissions of Equatorial Guinea, the chamber awarded compensation in excess of $4m in moral damages. This is a powerful affirmation that the human dimension of law-of-the-sea violations will not pass unrecognised by international tribunals. Importantly, the judgment recognises, in concrete financial terms, the hardship suffered by seafarers who are wrongfully detained in such circumstances. For marine insurers, this aspect of the ruling is particularly significant. Crew welfare has become an increasingly important consideration in casualty response and claims handling, and the judgment reinforces the principle that seafarers must not be treated as collateral damage when maritime disputes arise.

LESSONS FOR SHIPOWNERS AND INSURERS

The wider importance of the Heroic Idun case is clear. The judgment reinforces the legal protections on which international shipping relies and confirms that regional security concerns do not displace the fundamental freedoms established by UNCLOS. It also highlights the importance of early legal, flag state and P&I support when vessels become caught in complex geopolitical disputes. Swift engagement and coordinated action can be critical in protecting both vessels and crews during prolonged detentions and enforcement proceedings. In that sense, the M/T Heroic Idun case is about more than legal principles. It is a reminder that the maritime order created by UNCLOS exists to protect trade, safety and people alike. The Tribunal’s recognition of the crew’s unacceptable hardship may prove to be one of the most enduring aspects of this landmark ruling.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

54 MARINE | Green energy In association with Tokio Marine GX

Green insurers must adapt to sustain energy innovation Fraser McLachlan, chairman of Tokio Marine GX, the specialist underwriter of green initiatives, explains why the insurance market needs to up its game and become and enabler rather than inhibitor of the energy transition

Innovation has taken the renewable energy market to new heights both literally, in the case of enormous new wind turbines, and figuratively, in terms of renewables now supplying a significant share of the world’s power. According to clean energy think tank Ember, renewables accounted for over a third of global power generation in 2025 for the first time. The energy transition has kicked on to reach a new phase of sophistication. At the same time, operating in the energy market has become increasingly complex, partly because of this sophistication and partly because of external pressures. What was once a relatively straightforward task of constructing and operating renewable assets and covering The Marine Insurer | October 2026 The Marine Insurer | May 2026

potential risks that could interrupt business or cause asset losses has become much more demanding. Besides assets today being more technically sophisticated, the ways in which they generate revenue are now more diverse than before. Energy demand has ramped up, and geopolitical tensions have created more policy uncertainty for developers. Above all, the climatic conditions these assets are exposed to have intensified with secondary natural catastrophe perils inflicting more damage more often. The insurance market is struggling to keep pace with both innovation and complexity and that is leaving a critical gap in how risk is managed and transferred. There is certainly no shortage of insurance capacity, especially in the offshore wind

MARINE | Green energy In association with Tokio Marine GX

is because of the scale of innovation taking place as clean energy technologies assert themselves at the centre of the market’s future. Take the rise of battery energy storage (BESS), for instance. According to the International Energy Agency, global BESS capacity additions reached 108GW last year, exceeding the historic peak for gas-fired power additions in 2002 of 107GW. Battery costs have reduced by 90% since 2010 and they play a crucial role in bringing flexible energy discharge to intermittent renewables assets, with which they are often paired. Batteries are not simply finding a home in the energy landscape, they are actively redesigning it as they are deployed, opening up a wider range of services to support grid stability. Traditional renewables such as wind and solar are continuing to evolve. The race to scale has spurred rapid growth in wind turbine capacity, with the largest onshore model now having a capacity of 15MW and the largest offshore model having a capacity of 26MW. Economies of scale have also encouraged the deployment of solar megaprojects. In the US alone there are now 20 solar projects with capacities over 500MW either online now or due to come online in the next few years. Besides this, Power-to-X technologies are being pioneered to meet specific clean power demands, such as green molecule production for industrial processes and aviation and marine fuels. Likewise, nuclear fusion technologies have progressed and are emerging as a potential clean energy solution too.

COMPLEX ASSET RISK MANAGEMENT

market, and the green transition opportunity has become more appealing for new entrants (both on and offshore) largely due to insurers seeking to bolster income from more traditional Power Generation or Energy lines. However, the insurance market must adapt to fulfil its role as an enabler of growth. The sector is calling for new insurance products, data-driven underwriting decisions, and a collaborative approach to risk management. If insurers do not respond to these needs, they run the risk of becoming inhibitors of growth instead.

RAPIDLY EVOLVING GREEN TRANSITION

The energy market has been defined by change since the start of the transition from fossil fuels to cleaner sources of energy. Today, that change is happening at a spectacular pace and this

Technical innovation brings new benefits and revenue possibilities to the energy market but, in terms of risk management, it also introduces challenges and potential gaps in coverage and understanding. External factors are compounding new levels of complexity in today’s more sophisticated renewables market. The relative immaturity of BESS technologies means that underwriters do not have a comprehensive record of how units typically degrade over their lifecycles. This is important because BESS operators use their batteries in different ways – often co-located with renewable generation assets - to achieve different results, but the understanding of how this impacts their condition over time, and how a BESS loss affects a co-located project’s revenue generation, is still not well understood. What we do know is that BESS failures are currently most likely to occur within four years of operation. Scaling in wind and solar presents new problems for underwriters. Larger wind turbines have performed less reliably and 8MW+ turbines were commonly experiencing faults within two years of operation. More than half of these were attributable to component failures. The technological standardisation that underwriters like to see has reduced as bigger turbine models are pushed to market, increasing risk exposure. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | Green energy In association with Tokio Marine GX

Solar panels have deviated less from standard models as they have grown but are often thinner and larger than before, making them far more susceptible to damage. Projects also face increased risk exposure where they are sited in less desirable locations than their predecessors, for which owners had more choice to choose the better locations. Selecting potentially inferior sites for solar has come with intensified risk in recent years thanks to one of the biggest challenges the green insurance market faces: extreme weather. Solar is especially vulnerable to natural catastrophe losses. Earlier this year we observed approximately $200m in early stage estimates for solar losses in the Middle East alone. The renewables market experienced its worst start to the year for extreme weather losses for over a decade and this was before the traditional season for weather-related losses had begun. Climate risks are rising year-on-year globally while the number of exposed assets increases too. As another El Niñopowered climatic period starts, insurers have to think as much about managing risk in the aftermath of a disaster as they do about proactive prevention of losses. Simultaneously, demand for 24/7 power from data centres is exploding at a time when the imperative to achieve energy security and sovereignty through renewable sources of power is similarly urgent. These growing needs are finding bottlenecks with strained supply chains, lengthy grid interconnection queues, and uncertain policy support. Meanwhile, emerging technologies such as green hydrogen and nuclear fusion must have a role in the future of energy. But, to date, insurers have not been meaningfully involved in supporting these technologies, with only a few specialised MGAs filling the space.

INSURANCE AS ENABLER NOT INHIBITOR

Innovation has pushed the green transition forwards to an impressive degree in a short space of time and has brought the internal and external complexities of asset management into sharper focus. In response, the worlds of energy development and banking have changed to keep up, but the world of insurance has been slower to adapt to the new realities of the energy market. This new phase needs insurers to reinforce their appetite to support the market with the key values that have enabled growth in the renewables industry before. That is a commitment to deepening knowledge of the market, maintaining an ambitious vision for the future, consistency on prices and claims, and transparency around the challenges that exist. There are already positive examples of how these values have helped the insurance market adapt to extreme weather issues, such as catastrophe models being adjusted to understand site-specific risks, catastrophe exposure being spread more equitably across reinsurers and capital markets, and earlier engagement between insurers and insureds to design more

The Marine Insurer | May 2026

“The insurance market is struggling to keep pace with both innovation and complexity and that is leaving a critical gap in how risk is managed and transferred.”

resilient projects. This can be a blueprint for how insurance fulfils its role as a growth enabler, rather than the growth inhibitor it threatens to become when the risk exposure rises unsustainably. Enabling growth requires the industry to come out of its siloes and work more collaboratively across the value chain. It requires insurers to respond to green innovation with insurance product innovation to cover the gaps that start to form. And it also requires insurers to double down on data-driven approaches to quantify risks by investing in data collection and analytics. It is an uncomfortable question, but it is one that the insurance market must ask itself at this pivotal moment: are we sophisticated enough to bring stability to the green transition today? The transition will naturally hit bumps in the road as it navigates heightened complexity, but insurers must avoid becoming part of the volatility that disrupts progress. Underwriting green initiatives is not easy, it depends on discipline and adaptability – and this is what green insurers must prioritise to push the transition through its next phase.

QBE Marine – Leading specialists on → Cargo and STP → Ports, Terminals and Logistics → Inland Marine → Hull and Machinery → Marine War → Marine Liability → Specie and Fine Art

1051704/2511

For more information visit QBEeurope.com

QBE European Operations is a trading name of QBE UK Limited, QBE Underwriting Limited and QBE Europe SA/NV. QBE UK Limited and QBE Underwriting Limited are both authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority. QBE Europe SA/NV is authorised by the National Bank of Belgium under licence number 3093.

58 MARINE | Silent blade risk In association with Bladena

What’s already hitting your balance sheet

With wind turbines growing larger and offshore capacity expanding fast into sites that are harder to reach and more expensive to insure, Mathias Reding, managing director of Bladena, an RES company, explains why blade failure, one of the most common and least understood causes of wind turbine insurance claims, points to a data gap the industry can no longer afford. Innovation has taken the renewable energy market to new heights both literally, in the case of enormous new wind turbines, and figuratively, in terms of renewables now supplying a significant share of the world’s power. According to clean energy think tank Ember, renewables accounted for more than a third of global power generation in 2025 for the first time. The energy transition has kicked on to reach a new phase of sophistication. Onshore fleets are heading in the same direction: bigger rotors, longer service lives and less patience for unexplained downtime. We see this gap play out repeatedly: a defect that could have been identified, with the cost recovered from the The Marine Insurer | October 2026 The Marine Insurer | May 2026

manufacturer, instead becomes a slow, contested insurance case months or years later. For a marine market increasingly underwriting offshore wind alongside its traditional hull, cargo and liability book, that data gap sits on unfamiliar ground. The same asset now carries loss patterns the wider marine book wasn’t built to price.

THE MOMENT THE RISK CHANGES HANDS The clearest example is what happens at the end of a turbine’s warranty period. Overnight, responsibility for undetected blade defects moves from the manufacturer to the owner. The warranty period is, in effect, a window to identify and remedy manufacturing-related issues while the

MARINE | Silent blade risk In association with Bladena

OEM is still contractually responsible; once it closes, the same issue becomes the owner’s problem and often ends up on the insurance book instead. In our experience, this window is still treated as a formality rather than a commercial opportunity. Inspections in the run-up to warranty expiry are frequently no more thorough than routine annual checks, when they should be looking specifically for the kind of latent defect that only shows up years later. Catching a defect while the OEM is responsible is materially cheaper than arguing, after the event, that a later failure was caused by something that predates the policy, a case that only gets harder to make once an asset gets older, sits further offshore and out of easy reach.

ANATOMY OF A BLADE CLAIM

When a blade claim does reach an insurer, it rarely stands alone. The clearest illustration comes from AXIS Capital’s recent review of its offshore wind claims portfolio, which found that turbines account for 57% of all claims by count and 37% of incurred losses, with blade damage making up 16% of claim count at an average cost of around $1.5m. The pattern of turbines, and blades specifically, as a leading loss driver is consistent with what we see across the wider fleet, onshore included. Underneath the physical repair sits business interruption, frequently the larger part of a blade claim. Establishing why a blade failed, and whether that cause was a sudden external event or a slower, pre-existing issue, is where most disputes between owners, insurers and maintenance contractors play out. Insurers respond to a sudden, external triggering event, not to the material tolerances and manufacturing variability inherent in any complex composite structure. The practical effect is that a borderline defect only becomes insurable once something external, most often a lightning strike, turns it into damage and untangling that sequence is rarely straightforward.

THE LIGHTNING PROTECTION BLIND SPOT

The least understood part of blade risk is the lightning protection system itself. Even a system designed to current international standards is not expected to intercept every strike. In our engineering assessments, a well-specified lightning protection system can still allow damage in a small proportion of events, commonly cited at around 2%. Owners who have paid for a top-tier system rarely expect that and the gap between the standard and the expectation is where a lot of confusion, and cost, sits. Two further developments compound this. The first is that changes in blade materials and construction mean lightning damage can be unpredictable. The second is a monitoring gap. Most standard lightning monitoring setups only record whether a strike occurred and its peak current, in kiloamps.

They do not capture voltage, which is often the more useful indicator of whether the system actually functioned as designed. Two turbines can register an identical, modest current reading and end up with entirely different outcomes: one undamaged, one with a shattered blade, and the standard record cannot tell you why. None of this is a reason to distrust lightning protection technology. It is a reason to invest in better instrumentation once an asset is large enough to justify it, onshore or offshore.

BETTER DATA, NOT FEWER DISPUTES

The industry does not need fewer disputed blade claims. It needs better shared data before those disputes happen: more rigorous end-of-warranty inspection; monitoring that captures voltage as well as current; and a shift in mindset from treating blade risk as an unavoidable cost to something that can be actively managed down. That case only strengthens as offshore capacity keeps expanding, where access is harder, weather windows are shorter and every extra day of downtime is worth more. Two questions matter most at renewal: whether end-ofwarranty inspection records exist, rather than the annual maintenance log alone, and whether lightning monitoring on site captures voltage as well as peak current. Together, they address most of the risk described in this article.

“Catching a defect while the OEM is responsible is materially cheaper than arguing, after the event, that a later failure was caused by something that predates the policy, a case that only gets harder to make once an asset gets older, sits further offshore and out of easy reach.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

60 MARINE | Crew health In association with Britannia P&I Club

Drawing on nearly 3,000 crew-related claims reported during the 2023/24 and 2024/25 policy years, Britannia P&I Club’s Crew Claims Report reveals a striking reality: 81% of all crew fatalities arose from illness, while only 19% resulted from injury. The findings signal an important shift in how shipowners, managers and insurers should think about crew welfare and risk management. The report, produced in collaboration, with maritime medical specialist Dr Katherine Sinclaire, of MedSea, provides one of the most comprehensive assessments of crew health and safety risks currently available through P&I claims data. The analysis found that 60% of all reported crew claims related to illness, compared with 36% for injuries and 4% for fatalities.

THE HIDDEN RISK: ILLNESS AT SEA

While injuries often attract immediate attention because of their visibility and operational impact, the claims data highlights the growing significance of underlying health conditions. Cardiovascular disease emerged as the largest single cause of crew fatalities, accounting for 58% of illness-related deaths. Heart attacks and other circulatory conditions were disproportionately represented among fatal cases, particularly among older seafarers. Significantly, circulatory conditions accounted for only 9% of illness claims overall, yet represented the majority of deaths, underlining the severity of such conditions when they occur at sea. The findings reinforce the importance of preventative healthcare within shipping. Lifestyle factors including obesity, poor diet, inadequate exercise, smoking and excessive alcohol consumption are well-known contributors to cardiovascular disease. While employers cannot control every aspect of an individual’s health, the report suggests there is substantial scope to improve outcomes through enhanced health screening, wellness programmes and greater awareness of cardiovascular risk factors. The prominence of illness claims also reflects the unique realities of seafaring. Long periods away from home, irregular schedules, physical demands and limited access to medical care can amplify health issues that might otherwise be managed more easily ashore.

ABDOMINAL ILLNESSES AND HYDRATION CONCERNS Among non-fatal illnesses, abdominal conditions accounted for almost a quarter of all illness claims, making them the largest medical category identified in the report. Cases ranged from appendicitis and hernias to haemorrhoids and a variety of non-specific abdominal complaints. A particularly notable finding relates to kidney stones, The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Beyond accidents: why crew health is now maritime safety’s biggest challenge As Jacob Damgaard, head of loss prevention at Britannia P&I Club, observes, protecting seafarers requires attention not only to their physical safety but also to their long-term health and psychological wellbeing. The evidence from nearly 3,000 claims suggests that the next frontier in maritime safety will be defined not simply by preventing accidents, but by helping crews stay healthy throughout their careers at sea

which represented more than half of all genitourinary claims. According to the report, dehydration remains one of the most significant contributing factors. Seafarers working in engine rooms or operating on deck in hot climates face elevated risks if fluid intake is not maintained. For operators, the message is straightforward: promoting hydration is not simply a comfort issue but a medical necessity. Encouraging regular water intake, improving awareness of heat stress and ensuring crews have easy access to drinking water can help reduce preventable medical incidents and potential vessel disruption.

TRADITIONAL INJURY RISKS REMAIN

Although illness dominates the claims picture, the report also highlights several persistent operational hazards. Hand and finger injuries remain the most common injury category, accounting for 27% of all injury claims. Given the manual nature of much shipboard work, this comes as little surprise. Tasks involving machinery, power tools and cargo operations continue to expose crew members to significant risks. Leg injuries represented the second-largest category, followed by arm and shoulder injuries. Notably, nearly half of

MARINE | Crew health In association with Britannia P&I Club

found that suicides and incidents involving seafarers missing at sea were disproportionately concentrated among younger crew members. Of the 11 reported cases involving suicide, presumed suicide or missing overboard incidents, a significant proportion involved seafarers aged between 20 and 29. The Club notes that a similar pattern has been observed across a wider fouryear dataset, suggesting this may be more than a statistical anomaly. Several factors may contribute to this vulnerability. Younger seafarers often face the pressures of early career development while adapting to the isolation and demands of life at sea. Separation from support networks, cultural barriers surrounding mental health and limited opportunities to seek assistance can all compound stress The findings reinforce the industry’s growing recognition that psychological wellbeing must be treated as an integral component of safety management. Access to communication, mental health awareness training, peer support networks and collaboration with welfare organisations will all play important roles in reducing risk. arm and shoulder injuries resulted in fractures or dislocations, often requiring repatriation and extended recovery periods. Back injuries also featured prominently, frequently linked to poor manual handling techniques, repetitive lifting and awkward working postures. The data suggests that many injuries share common root causes: inadequate risk assessment, complacency during routine tasks, insufficient communication and failures to follow safe working procedures. Britannia’s recommendations focus on strengthening toolbox talks, reinforcing situational awareness and improving teamwork during hazardous operations. Head and eye injuries together accounted for 15% of injury claims, highlighting ongoing concerns regarding the effective use of personal protective equipment (PPE). The report notes that eye injuries frequently occurred when protective guards had been removed from equipment or when routine tasks were undertaken without adequate eye protection.

MENTAL HEALTH DEMANDS GREATER ATTENTION Perhaps the most concerning trend identified in the report relates to mental wellbeing. While mental health claims remain relatively few, Britannia

BUILDING A BROADER SAFETY CULTURE

The report’s most important message may be that maritime safety must now be viewed through a wider lens. While traditional accident prevention remains critical, the analysis demonstrates that health, wellbeing and lifestyle factors increasingly shape the overall risk profile of vessel operations. Illness claims outnumber injury claims and illness-related deaths overwhelmingly exceed those caused by accidents. For insurers, shipowners and managers alike, this presents both a challenge and an opportunity. Improving crew welfare is no longer solely a human resources objective; it is a core risk-management strategy. Investments in preventative healthcare, mental wellbeing support, ergonomic working practices and robust safety cultures can reduce claims, improve operational resilience and, most importantly, save lives. This is not the first time the maritime industry has experienced disruption. As geopolitical tensions continue to influence global trade routes, organisations must embed supply chain resilience across their operations to mitigate potential losses.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

62 MARINE | People risk In association with London P&I

The human element of shipping: putting crew welfare front and centre Shipping runs on people and the pressures on them are mounting. Victoria Papageorgiou, commercial director, and Deborah Yu, (right) regional director, Asia, at London P&I look at what the latest workforce and sentiment data says about life at sea, and what it means for owners and their insurers CONTINUED ON PAGE 64

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | People risk In association with London P&I

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

People risk In association with London P&I

There are roughly 2.57 million seafarers supporting international trade according to figures, from this year’s Seafarer Workforce Report by BIMCO and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). Our seafarers are the backbone of the trade our industry insures but we need to realise that the pressures on them are changing. Going to sea as a career has never been easy. Long contracts, months away from family, physical work and confined living are all part of the challenge. However, it has also been, and remains, a route to a good living. For seafarers from countries where shore-based wages are lower, a career at sea offers earnings, training and progression that can be difficult to match at home. That bargain has supported families and communities for generations and is why the profession still attracts people. For many, it remains a noble and rewarding profession, especially for those working under a responsible and supportive ship owner. The Mission to Seafarers’ Seafarers Happiness Index, which enables seafarers to anonymously share how they feel about life at sea, continues to highlight the challenges seafarers face, from wages and workload to shore leave and connectivity. In its most recent index, one respondent put it simply: “I am heard. My company looks after the crew”. Yet the difference between a good ship and a poor one is rarely mysterious. It comes down to effective manning levels, respect for sign-off dates, reliable communication with home and a shore team that treats the crew as people. However, there are growing concerns about the crew sentiment with overall happiness falling to 6.87 in the second quarter of 2026 from 7.18 in the first. War zones dominate the headlines, but it is the ordinary conditions of the job that are wearing crews down. Shore leave recorded the lowest score in the survey, at 5.72, as geopolitical tensions, short port calls, tight schedules and immigration barriers make getting ashore harder to arrange. Shore leave is not a perk, it is vital to their psychological wellbeing, and its absence compounds fatigue and feelings of unhappiness. The comparison seafarers are making has shifted with it. Respondents told the survey that young crew are leaving because the advantages of a career at sea no longer compare with a shore job. If that advantage narrows far enough, crew recruitment and retention become considerably harder and that is a problem for owners and insurers as much as for seafarers.

REPATRIATION DURING CONFLICT

There is almost always a conflict somewhere that affects shipping. The Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Black Sea and now the Persian Gulf have each made the same point in The Marine Insurer | October 2026

‘‘With more female seafarers holding senior positions, such as roles in engineering and deck operations, it is a welcome step in the right direction that females are being considered when it comes to normal operational procedures”

turn. Seafarers have been navigating hostile waters for as long as there have been trade routes. Current issues are focused on the Persian Gulf, which is reflected in the Seafarer Happiness Index scores for the Middle East, which sit at 4.94; the lowest of any region by a clear margin. What is different about the current situation is that ships are restricted. With the Strait of Hormuz closed, vessels are stuck and so are the crew who reach the end of their contract. Under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006 and under their own contracts, those seafarers are entitled

People risk In association with London P&I

to go home. However, the practicality of getting them out of high-risk regions, and the cost of doing so, has risen exponentially in recent months, while finding willing crew able to provide relief has become just as challenging. All of this means that thousands of crew members are still awaiting repatriation. Questions about the cost of repatriation and related insurance claims are now a key issue of the marine insurance industry and are likely to continue. Crew claims remain one of the key categories that P&I clubs handle in any year. In normal conditions, the response is quick and practical. A ship reports a crew issue, the club engages immediately and moves to ensure the crew member is evacuated, or the vessel is deviated to the nearest port for repatriation. Our function is to be understanding, empathetic and stand behind an owner’s liability to their crew financially so a seafarer’s contractual protections mean something in practice. Geopolitical tension is making every stage of that harder. Injuries arising from hostile action fall outside standard P&I cover and sit with war risk underwriters, while the practical work of moving a seafarer out of a restricted area depends on correspondents, agents and medical providers who may be operating under constraint themselves. While we ensure the cover responds, the logistics behind it are slower and more expensive than they once were. We do whatever we can within the terms of the cover to support our members through all kinds of crew-related incidents. Owners are absorbing real costs and, in our experience, they do so because crew welfare is not something they will leave unresolved.

CHANGING CREW PROFILE

All of this is coming at a time when the global crew pool is being redrawn. Before 2022, Russia and Ukraine together supplied 14.5% of the world’s seafarers, according to BIMCO and ICS figures. Many shipping companies are now sourcing crew from nationalities they had not previously used, leading to issues around crew experience and potential gaps in certification. This crew supply risk comes as demand for seafarers is on the rise. The 2026 Seafarer Workforce Report forecasts a need for more than 113,000 officers by 2030 as the growing global fleet will need more qualified people at precisely the

point the supply base is being restructured. Despite these pressures, we are seeing positive signs about the make-up of the crew of the future. Traditionally, female seafarers make up just 1.28% of the global workforce but more shipping players are recruiting women in response to crew supply issues. One of our members recently welcomed its first cohort of female crew graduates while several of the newbuildings we are insuring include female-specific facilities before they hit the water. With more female seafarers holding senior positions, such as roles in engineering and deck operations, it is a welcome step in the right direction that females are being considered when it comes to normal operational procedures. This includes more varied medical provision for onboard personnel, cultural support and new claims handling processes to take on new types of personnelrelated claims. The face of marine insurance is changing alongside the crews we cover. As such, marine insurers need to adapt and evolve to support a more diverse and dispersed crew that are operating in more difficult places and in harder conditions. In these circumstances, our job is to continue to support our seafarers each and every day, as well as guaranteeing that being a seafarer is a career that offers personal growth, competitive salaries and unparalleled global experience. At a time when seafarers are facing unimaginable uncertainty and the industry needs them more than ever, insurers can go a long way to provide stability during times of global disruption.

“There is almost always a conflict somewhere that affects shipping. The Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Black Sea and now the Persian Gulf have each made the same point in turn. Seafarers have been navigating hostile waters for as long as there have been trade routes.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

66 MARINE | AI management In association with Noria

Leading people in the age of AI: Why marine insurance’s next advantage is human

The Marine Insurer | October 2026 The Marine Insurer | May 2026

MARINE | AI management In association with Noria

Marine insurers are investing heavily in AI. The returns will be decided less by the models than by whether leadership modernises at the same pace argues Ronny Reppe, CEO at the Noria Group Marine insurance is being rewired. Underwriting submissions are read by machines, hull and cargo claims are assesed by models, sanctions and dark-fleet screening runs continuously, and loss-prevention analytics increasingly shape pricing and advice. Almost every carrier, club and broker now has an AI programme of some description. Very few are being paid for it yet. MIT’s Project NANDA, reviewing more than 300 enterprise AI deployments in 2025, found 95% produced no measurable P&L impact despite $30bn -$40bn of investment. Further it was explicit that the gap was not model quality or regulation, but how organisations adopt, integrate and govern the technology. Fewer have an equivalent programme for the thing that decides whether that investment pays off: how they lead people. This is the paradox at the centre of the shift: the more powerful the technology, the more decisive the human element. Technology scales; people decide whether it creates value. A risk score produced in seconds is worth little if the underwriter does not trust it, the claims handler cannot explain it, and the manager has no idea what “good performance” now means for either of them. The shape of the problem is easy to recognise. A claims team is given a tool that ranks cargo notifications by likely severity. Within a month it is being worked around: handlers who disagree re-open files by hand, nobody records why, and the model never learns from the overrides. The tool works; the management system around it does not, because no one decided what a handler should do when they disagree, or made it safe to say so.

CHANGE IN UNDERLYING LOGIC

For most of the industry’s history, marine insurance was built for stability: predict, plan, optimise, control, annual renewals, established structures, slow-moving loss patterns, expertise accumulated through decades. That logic is being replaced by another: sense, adapt, learn, reconfigure. Geopolitical risk shifts within weeks, sanctions regimes move faster than policy wordings, alternative fuels

create exposures with no loss history and the tools your teams use change every quarter. The organisations that struggle are not those with the weakest technology, but those running new technology on old management logic.

COGNITIVE WORK

Previous waves of technology changed how we produced things. AI changes cognitive work — how we think, learn, communicate and decide. That matters enormously in an industry whose product is judgement. What AI touches is not just routine processing. It is analysis, drafting, problem-solving and decision support: the substance of underwriting submissions, claims narratives, subrogation strategy and wording review — the work that used to define seniority. So the question is not “how do we roll out the tool?” but “what does expertise mean now and how do we build it when the apprenticeship model that produced it is being automated?”

LEADERSHIP CONTROL

One of the sharpest changes is where a leader’s control sits. Teams typically move through three modes. Human in the loop: AI proposes, a person approves, the action is executed. A model scores a submission as outside appetite; the underwriter still signs it. Human on the loop: AI acts on its own, a person monitors and can intervene. Continuous sanctions and dark-fleet screening runs unattended; a person reviews the exceptions. Human out of the loop: AI decides and executes in real time — data validation, document extraction, routine renewals processing. Marine insurance will sit in all three at once. The implication is constant: control moves from approving individual decisions to designing the frame within which decisions are made. That is a governance skill and not the one most technical managers were promoted for. For mutuals answerable to members, it is also an accountability that cannot be delegated to a vendor.

THREE BATTLES WORTH WINNING

In leadership work across asset-heavy, safety-critical industries, three capabilities separate the organisations getting value from AI from those merely deploying it. Performance culture. Clear expectations, ambition and accountability. If productivity gains simply disappear into unchanged targets, nobody sees the benefit and cynicism sets in. Psychological safety. Not comfort. Safety is what makes it possible to be uncomfortable. To ask the obvious question, challenge a model output, or say the score looks wrong. High The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | AI management In association with Noria

ambition without safety produces a zone where people hide mistakes. Where a suppressed doubt about an exposure can become a large loss. This is a risk control, not an HR nicety. Learning speed. The ability to learn faster than the environment changes. Where tooling turns over faster than the training cycle, this is the durable advantage - worth more than any perfect plan.

WATCH FOR AI FATIGUE

There is a failure mode to watch out for now. Constant change, new tools and performance pressure wear people down. Enthusiasm becomes overwhelm and overwhelm becomes resistance. The warning signs are tool fatigue, change saturation, fear of using AI “wrongly” in a compliance-heavy environment, and early enthusiasts going quiet. The antidotes are unglamorous: fewer, clearer priorities; a realistic pace with real recovery time; explicit permission to fail inside defined guardrails; and a consistent link between AI and why, not just how.

THREE DILEMMAS WITHOUT CLEAN ANSWERS

Honest leadership means naming the trade-offs rather than pretending they resolve. If AI does the analytical groundwork faster, how do junior underwriters still develop the judgement that groundwork used to build? How much freedom should people have in how they use AI, and how much standardisation do audit, regulators and clients require? And, as more work is automated, where do mastery and pride in the job come from?

THE CASE FOR CAUTION, AND ITS LIMIT

There is a serious argument on the other side. Marine insurance is long-tail, judgement-heavy and highly regulated; an error priced today may not surface for a decade. Moving slowly on automated decision-making is prudence, not timidity. But caution about deployment is not caution about leadership. The organisations in that 95% did not fail because they were careful; they failed because they bolted new tools onto unchanged workflows, targets and habits. You can be conservative about where AI is allowed to decide and still be years ahead on how your people learn and how doubt escalates. That work carries no underwriting risk and cannot be bought in.

THE REAL RISK

The biggest mistake is to modernise the technology without modernising the leadership. A carrier that invests seriously in AI while keeping old management logic will fall far short of the potential and the gap will show up in retention, in inconsistent underwriting discipline and eventually in loss ratios.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

“Previous waves of technology changed how we produced things. AI changes cognitive work - how we think, learn, communicate and decide. That matters enormously in an industry whose product is judgement.”

Future people management will not become less human, it has to become more consciously human. In a market moving this quickly, the leader’s job is to create clarity, safety, learning and the capacity to act, not to have every answer. So here is the testable claim. Two carriers will buy the same models this year, post different results and the difference will not sit in their technology budgets. It will sit in whether a handler felt able to say the score looked wrong and whether anyone was listening.

WHAT TO DO IN THE NEXT 12 MONTHS

> Define a written position on AI and leadership, not just on AI tooling. > Train managers on the consequences of AI, not the features of it. > Build a high-frequency learning culture: short cycles, visible experiments, fast feedback. > Update the performance logic so productivity gains are visible to the people who created them. > Set principles for human-AI collaboration, including what to do when a person disagrees with a model. > Invest in middle management, where transformation is either delivered or quietly stalled.

CANNON E V E N T S

L T D

Upcoming Events 2027 MARCH

23 cargoinsurancelondon.com

APRIL

MAY

11-12

marineinsuranceasia.com

marineinsurancegreece.com

marineinsurancelondon.com

energyinsurancelondon.com

JUNE

SEPTEMBER

OCTOBER

22-24

TBC

marineinsuranceturkey.com

marineclaimsinternational.com

marineinsurancenordics.com

NOVEMBER

TBC energyinsuranceamericas.com

marineinsurancemiddleeast.com

marineinsuranceaustralia.com

70 MARINE | Maritime risks In association with AXA XL

Navigating change: lessons from three decades in marine insurance Anne Marie Elder, global chief underwriting officer for Specialty at AXA XL, reflects on what more than three decades in marine insurance have taught her about expertise, resilience and collaboration and how they can help clients move forward with confidence I have worked in marine insurance for more than 30 years and uncertainty has always been part of the job. Weather and shipping routes change and a decision made in one part of the world can disrupt a supply chain thousands of miles away. That experience has taught me something important. We cannot remove every uncertainty, but we can understand it well enough to help clients make decisions with confidence. That is where specialty insurance has a distinctive role. Capacity matters, but clients also need technical knowledge, clear insight and a long-term partner. I see that need across marine, aerospace, political risk, credit and other specialty lines. Geopolitical shifts, new energy sources, cyber threats, new technologies and supply-chain disruption are increasingly connected. The world does not operate in silos and insurance cannot either. My maritime career has shown me how our industry can help clients navigate that complexity.

A MARITIME PERSPECTIVE

My route into insurance began with a lifelong love of the ocean. I followed my uncle and cousin to the US Merchant Marine Academy, where I earned my Merchant Mariner Credentials and received a commission as a naval officer. It gave me first hand experience in an industry that sits at the The Marine Insurer | October 2026

heart of global trade. I moved into insurance because I wanted to help businesses manage the risks that come with operating in that environment. Every role since then has taught me more about risk, leadership and people. But one principle has stayed the same: clients do not need an insurer only when something goes wrong. They need a partner that understands their business and can help them prepare for what may come next.

EXPERTISE TURNS UNCERTAINTY INTO CONFIDENCE

Risk never stands still. Shipping is going through another major transformation as the industry explores new energy sources, vessel designs and ways of operating. Before new technology can scale, people need to understand how it works, how it will be financed and how its risks can be insured. That means underwriters, risk consultants and clients need to work together from the start. We need to look at how vessels will be designed, built and operated, identify hazards and reduce exposure where we can. Insurance has two roles here: creating confidence for investment and helping new technologies enter service safely. Our work to support the construction of the world’s first commercial sail-assisted cargo ship is one example. It is a hybrid vessel with powerful wind-assisted propulsion that significantly reduces fuel use helping to move maritime transport closer towards decarbonisation. We worked with the company and other industry partners to develop a first-of-its-kind solution combining marine hull coverage with credit protection to support financing for additional vessels. The project shows how marine and credit expertise can help investors assess an unfamiliar technology, while giving insurers an opportunity to understand how new vessels will be built and operated. Our participation in the Nuclear Energy Maritime Organization (NEMO) reflects the same thinking. Advanced nuclear technologies could eventually offer another way to power long-range maritime operations with lower emissions. But they also raise difficult questions about safety, regulation, operations and liability. Working with experts from the maritime and nuclear sectors helps us understand those risks, share insurance expertise and contribute to the frameworks that any future applications would need.

RESILIENCE IS A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE

We cannot predict every disruption. The Covid-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflict and changing trade routes have shown that efficiency alone is not enough. Businesses also need to adapt when assumptions, routes or technologies change. That is why I see resilience as a competitive advantage, not simply a compliance exercise. Organisations that understand where they are exposed, test alternatives and plan for disruption

MARINE | Maritime risks In association with AXA XL

are better placed to protect their operations and act when conditions shift. Insurance can help by going beyond risk transfer. Risk consulting, data and specialist underwriting can show clients where they are vulnerable, how scenarios might change and what action they can take. Bringing that expertise into a project early can influence design choices, strengthen safeguards and give everyone a clearer view of the exposure.

CURIOSITY AND COLLABORATION

Changing risks require leaders and teams to stay curious. Early in my career, I thought a leader needed to have all the answers, but experience has taught me otherwise. Strong leaders create an environment where people can ask difficult questions, share what they know and find answers together. I still learn through reverse mentoring and from colleagues across generations, disciplines and markets. In a fast-changing industry, we need the humility to challenge assumptions and recognise when a familiar approach no longer works. That mindset matters in underwriting. No single discipline can fully assess the technological, operational, geopolitical and financial risks shaping global trade. We make better decisions when we bring together different experiences and remain willing to learn. Authenticity matters too. I have been open about being a gay woman because people should not have to hide who they are to succeed. When colleagues can bring their full perspective to work, teams are better able to question established thinking, understand clients and solve difficult problems. Helping the next generation develop is a business priority and a personal passion. I want talented colleagues, particularly those from

underrepresented groups, to see a path into leadership and feel confident taking it. Our industry will need their ideasand expertise in the years ahead.

MAKING PROGRESS POSSIBLE

The maritime industry has always reinvented itself. Containerisation transformed global trade in the 1950s. Today, new fuels, digital technologies, artificial intelligence and changing supply chains are reshaping the sector again. There will not be one simple path forward. Our report produced in association with Reuters Events - Freight in a Low-Carbon Economy: Managing the Risks shows the scale of the challenge. More than 80% of the world’s goods are transported by sea, but shipping still relies heavily on bunker fuel. Alternatives such as ammonia and hydrogen bring technical, safety and infrastructure challenges, however no single solution is ready to scale across the industry. This is why we need to consider risk across the full life of an asset and involve insurers as new technology, infrastructure and operating models develop. Standing still is not an option. Innovation needs investment and investors need to understand how exposure can be managed. Specialty insurance brings together capacity, insight and partnership to help clients act. After more than three decades in marine insurance, that is the lesson I carry forward. We cannot know exactly what the next transformation will bring. But if we stay curious, work together and build resilience, we can help clients navigate change and keep moving forward.

“More than 80% of the world’s goods are transported by sea, but shipping still relies heavily on bunker fuel. Alternatives such as ammonia and hydrogen bring technical, safety and infrastructure challenges, and no single solution is ready to scale across the industry.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

72 MARINE | Equipment risk In association with CNA Hardy

Beyond launch and recovery: How marine equipment risk is changing From remote operating centres and Starlink-enabled subsea operations to shifting offshore activity in regions such as Brazil and Guyana, technological innovation is fundamentally changing how marine equipment is deployed and managed. Trevor McAuley, senior marine underwriter at CNA Hardy, explores how evolving operational models are reducing some traditional loss drivers while creating new challenges for operators, brokers and marine insurers alike Marine equipment plays a critical role in offshore energy, subsea construction, scientific exploration and underwater infrastructure. As offshore operations become increasingly global and technologically advanced, the risk landscape surrounding these assets is changing rapidly. Some traditional loss exposures are reducing, while new operational and technological risks are emerging.

REDRAWING THE MAP

One of the biggest changes has been geographical. Offshore activity is no longer concentrated in traditional centres such as the North Sea. While the region remains important, increasing investment in offshore renewables and growing activity in regions such as South America, the Middle East, The Marine Insurer | October 2026

Australasia and the Gulf of Mexico are changing where marine equipment is deployed and how it is used. This shift has required operators to become considerably more international in their outlook, deploying assets and personnel wherever demand is strongest. As a result, equipment usage varies significantly from one region to another. Clients operating in Latin America, particularly in Brazil and Guyana, continue to report strong usage rates supported by ongoing investment and project activity. In contrast, some UK operations are experiencing lower usage levels as domestic investment is affected by the current fiscal environment facing oil and gas producers. These regional differences matter. Equipment operating in Brazil or Guyana may face a very different operating

MARINE | Equipment risk In association with CNA Hardy

environment, regulatory landscape and claims profile from equipment deployed in the North Sea. For insurers, understanding not only the asset itself but how, where and by whom it is being used is becoming increasingly important. The nature of offshore activity is also evolving. Alongside energy projects, demand is growing for subsea infrastructure to support telecommunications, data transmission, research and national security applications. These assets often operate in remote environments, remain in service for extended periods and can be difficult or costly to access when problems arise. As subsea infrastructure becomes more critical to global economies, the consequences of equipment failure become more significant, placing greater emphasis on resilience, maintenance and risk management.

TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION TRANSFORMING RISK, NOT ELIMINATING IT Geography is only part of the story. Technology is also transforming the marine equipment sector and fundamentally changing how offshore and subsea operations are carried out. In the past decade, advances in remote operational control, sonar, tracking and telemetry have helped reduce a number of traditional loss scenarios. Improved monitoring and asset visibility have contributed to fewer lost equipment incidents and better recovery outcomes. One of the most significant developments has been the growth of remote operating centres (ROCs), allowing remotely operated vehicle (ROV) pilots to operate assets from shore, sometimes hundreds of miles from the vessel itself. These developments can improve efficiency, reduce downtime and remove personnel from high-risk environments. The growth of ROCs has been made possible not only by advances in subsea technology but also by improved connectivity. Satellite communication systems, including low-earth-orbit networks such as Starlink, are enabling operators to maintain real-time visibility of equipment thousands of miles from project headquarters. This has the potential to improve decision-making, reduce unnecessary vessel movements, and enhance operational efficiency. However, it also creates a greater dependence on reliable communications. Operational success is becoming increasingly linked to network performance, data availability and information integrity. Another example of innovation can be seen in the work undertaken by Equinor in Norway’s Njord A field. Its ROV system was designed to remain underwater for extended periods, stored in a subsea garage and deployed when required. The system remained underwater for 240 continuous days, demonstrating both technological maturity and the commercial benefits of reduced downtime. From an insurance perspective, this is significant because launch and recovery operations have historically been among the riskiest stages of subsea activity. Reducing the frequency of those operations can materially alter the loss profile and potentially

support more tailored insurance solutions. However, technology does not remove risk altogether. Where operators once faced predominantly physical exposures, they must now also consider cyber-physical risk, connectivity failures, operational interdependence and increasingly complex technology stacks. As offshore operations move into deeper waters and become more reliant on remote systems, new technical challenges inevitably emerge. Historically, marine equipment losses were often driven by physical incidents involving assets, vessels and personnel. Increasingly, risk managers and insurers must also consider scenarios linked to connectivity failures, system integration issues, remote decision-making and technological dependency. The risk has not disappeared. In many cases, it has simply changed form. Understanding these emerging exposures will become increasingly important as adoption of advanced subsea technologies accelerates across the offshore sector. While innovation continues to improve operational performance, the pace of change means traditional assumptions around marine equipment risk may need to be continually reassessed. The changing risk landscape extends beyond technology. As operators move equipment and personnel across borders, insurers must respond to increasingly complex operating environments. Utilisation patterns, regulation, infrastructure, contractual requirements and local market conditions can differ significantly between jurisdictions. Operational complexity is also increasing. Equipment may now be deployed across multiple regions during its lifespan, supporting projects that vary significantly in both scale and risk profile. Assets can move between offshore energy, renewables, research and infrastructure projects, often operating under different regulatory and contractual frameworks. This creates additional challenges for operators seeking consistency and insurers assessing exposure across increasingly global operations. Mergers and acquisitions across the contractor landscape add another layer of complexity, particularly where larger fleets require higher limits in storage or operation, or where capacity needs to be shared across the wider marine insurance market.

LOOKING AHEAD

Technology, globalisation and changing offshore activity patterns are reshaping marine equipment risk in ways that would have been difficult to imagine a decade ago. Some traditional loss drivers are becoming less frequent as operational practices improve and equipment becomes more sophisticated. At the same time, new exposures linked to remote operations, connectivity and increasingly complex systems are emerging. The strongest marine insurers will be those that combine technical underwriting expertise with a deep understanding of how offshore operations are evolving in practice. As the sector continues to change, underwriting success will increasingly depend not only on understanding the asset itself, but also the operational environment, technological ecosystem and interconnected risks that surround it. The Marine Insurer | October 2026

74 MARINE | Mare Liberum, Mare Clausum In association with American P&I Club Mutual Protection & Indemnity Association

Maps matter again Christopher Hall, managing director (Hong Kong), American P&I Club, says that freedom of the seas rested on norm and practice at least as much as on law, that the insurance market has repriced accordingly and that owners can no longer rely on access being guaranteed and uniform For most of my career, and really for the last 80 years, the map didn’t much matter. That is an odd thing for someone in marine insurance to say. We spend our days on routes and voyages. But the narrow places in the world were something the industry had largely overcome. Open routes. Guaranteed access. Predictable rules of the road. Oil moved from where it was produced to where it was burned and the corridors it passed through were treated as neutral space. There were exceptions. Somali piracy made geography matter in the Gulf of Aden for about four years. But look at how that ended. Naval coalitions deployed, best management practices and armed guards became routine and the problem receded. The map asserted itself and was pushed back down. That is not what is happening now. Hormuz, the Red Sea, the Black Sea. Geography is back and this time it is not receding.

and needed the capture justified. Portugal claimed exclusive dominion over navigation in Asian waters; Grotius argued that no such dominion could exist, so the exclusion of the Dutch was itself the original wrong. Freedom of the seas was not born as a peace settlement. It was born as a weapon in a commercial war. John Selden answered for England in Mare Clausum, the closed sea, in 1635. Grotius is generally taken to have won, but it is worth being precise about when. For three centuries afterwards, freedom of the seas meant freedom for those with fleets. The version we grew up with, genuinely open access available to any flag, is a post-1945 arrangement. Grotius supplied the idea in 1609. The world took delivery of it in 1945. It’s been a much shorter tenure than our industry tends to assume.

AN OLD ARGUMENT, AND A YOUNG ONE

The instrument said to govern all this is less solid than its reputation. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea provides that ships enjoy a right of transit passage through straits used for international navigation, that this passage shall not be impeded and that it shall not be suspended. The doctrine exists because of geography. At its narrowest the Strait of Hormuz is about 21 miles across, so with 12 mile

In 1609 Hugo Grotius published Mare Liberum, the free sea, arguing that the sea could not be owned and that navigation was open to all. It is worth remembering what he was actually doing. Grotius was a young lawyer acting for the Dutch East India Company, which had seized a Portuguese carrack in the Singapore Strait The Marine Insurer | October 2026 The Marine Insurer | May 2026

THINNER THAN IT LOOKS

MARINE | Mare Liberum, Mare Clausum In association with American P&I Club Mutual

territorial seas either side, there is no international water in the middle at all. Every transit is through somebody’s territorial sea. Now look at the parties. Iran signed in 1982 but never ratified, recording on signature its understanding that transit passage was a bargain available to treaty parties rather than a codification of custom. It has legislated consistently ever since, asserting authority over vessels carrying materials dangerous or harmful to the environment, a category quite capable of taking in a laden tanker. Oman, on the southern side of the same strait, is a party and has entered its own reservations. And the US never signed at all, due to an objection concerning the deep seabed mining provisions rather than the navigational ones. Administrations of both parties have treated transit passage as customary law and operated accordingly. So, the rule that kept the world’s chokepoints open, and the oil moving through them, was never really a rule of treaty. It rested on norm and practice at least as much as on obligation. That does not matter while the norm holds. It matters enormously when it stops. A law everyone observes and a norm everyone observes look identical from the deck of a ship. The difference only becomes visible at the moment someone declines. The security picture is no tidier. US Central Command runs escort and interdiction operations. The European Union’s Operation Aspides, defensive by design, is separately commanded from Greece and runs to February 2027. On 30 July, Saudi Arabia announced a Multinational Maritime Defense Alliance, 14 founding signatories, headquartered in Riyadh; the EU attended and did not sign. Iran maintains its own requirements for the northern route. It is not new that several navies work the same water. What is new, certainly in my working life, is that they do so without a shared position on who may pass.

WHAT IT MEANS FOR SHIPOWNERS

I said at a conference in April that the key question had changed. It is no longer simply: is this voyage physically safe? It is: is this voyage insurable? The question now is whether the vessel is entitled to be where it is going and the coastal states, the flag state, the charterer and the underwriter may not provide the same answer. Cover has not been withdrawn. Press reporting in late July put additional war risk premiums for Hormuz well into the high single digits as a percentage of hull value, against one to three percent weeks earlier. My understanding from brokers is that transits are still being written at broadly those levels before the discounts that apply in practice. Capacity was never the binding constraint. The thing to watch is not price but scope. Cover of this kind rarely disappears; it narrows. Exclusions, warranties and conditions do that work move faster and more quietly than rates do. But price is not what is keeping ships out. A modern container vessel is worth around $180m, may carry $600m of cargo and has more than 20 crew aboard. No premium makes it rational to put all that at risk to save a few days’ steaming, which is why transits have run at fewer than ten a

day against a pre-conflict norm many times that. Many owners are simply declining to go. This is not only a pricing question. War risk warranties are now appearing that require an owner to have no payment or communication with certain authorities, while also requiring the vessel to comply if instructed to turn back. Both conditions are rational on their own terms. Read together, they tell you exactly where we are: the owner is being asked to obey an authority they are forbidden to acknowledge. Our clauses were not drafted with that in mind. And note what has not happened. In early August, as Tehran and Muscat announced agreed coordinates for a new corridor, Brent fell to around $79. War risk pricing did not follow. Lloyd’s List Intelligence observed on 5 August that reports of diplomatic progress had yet to translate into any credible development that would alter risk calculations. The oil market priced the headline. The insurance market did not. Within a fortnight, Brent was back above $90 and it has kept climbing since.. Naval presence has not converted into a pricing benefit either. Capability reassures politically. Predictability reassures commercially and predictability is what is missing. The most telling development is quieter. Of the vessels that do transit, most now follow the routing the coastal state requires, whatever the legal position may be. Owners are not waiting for the argument to be resolved. Meanwhile the pattern since the spring has been consistent: ceasefire, memorandum, alleged breach, re-closure. I do not think we go back to 2024 levels and owners planning on the assumption that we do are, I think, planning for the wrong world.

GEOGRAPHY, AGAIN

We have spent decades pricing voyages on the assumption that access was a fact about the world. It was law and norm together and, while both pointed the same way, there was no need to ask which was carrying the weight. Now there is. Geography stopped mattering because access was guaranteed and uniform. It matters again because access has become conditional, and conditional on different things at different points in the same voyage. All this makes the map an underwriting document. I would keep it where you can see it. This article reflects the position as at 18 August 2026

“A law everyone observes and a norm everyone observes look identical from the deck of a ship. The difference only becomes visible at the moment someone declines.”

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

76 MARINE | Project monitoring In association with DBI Consultants Bryan Heikkinen, partner and south region leader, and Diana Acosta, director and Houston branch manager, are leaders at DBI Consultants, a construction consulting firm serving insurance and legal clients. They discuss how traditional clerking has evolved into project monitoring, which provides an independent view of post-loss repair activity, going beyond data collection and providing dynamic, real-time analysis that identifies emerging risks while the claim team can still act to mitigate their financial impact When a major loss shuts down an energy, manufacturing, or industrial facility, usually the property damage exposure pales in comparison to the business interruption exposure. In these cases, the recovery cannot wait for the claim adjustment to catch up. Emergency work begins, contractors mobilise and repair strategies take shape before the full scope, cost and schedule are known. With business interruption accumulating by the day, recovery speed becomes paramount. However, moving forward without a clear understanding of the work performed, not to mention the cost and the schedule, creates more risk.

INDEPENDENT VIEW

The traditional solution, placing a clerk of the works onsite to “clerk the project” is intended to give the claim team an independent, on-site view of contractor activity and repair progress. On a major loss, staffing the clerking effort across multiple work areas and shifts, often 24 hours a day, represents a substantial claim expense investment. Despite that investment, the claim team too often receives lagging status reports that do little more than count heads, list equipment and record where contractors worked. That level of reporting may document activity, but it does not always provide the analysis needed to inform and support timely claim decisions. When project clerks are tasked solely to observe and record, without the construction knowledge required to interpret the scale The Marine Insurer | October 2026

When every hour matters and complexity of the work, the collected data is left with no context. The resulting reports may not reliably show whether resources are advancing the recovery, whether critical work is moving toward restart, or where cost overruns and delays are developing. Without this contextual view of the work, repair costs and business interruption exposure continue to mount, while the claim team lacks the information to test the construction schedule or act on emerging issues. The recovery schedule may also be impacted by factors beyond the loss site. Specialised transformers, turbines, control systems and replacement components are frequently sourced through global supply chains. Manufacturing constraints, port congestion, shipping disruption and geopolitical events can alter procurement assumptions after the recovery plan has already been established. Effective monitoring must therefore follow not only field activity, but also the procurement decisions and external dependencies affecting the critical path.

MAKING IT WORTH THE INVESTMENT

To be truly useful, project monitoring must move beyond the typical clerking duties – simply documenting presence – to explaining performance. It requires construction professionals who can interpret specialised repairs for stakeholders, understand how systems connect and anticipate how current work affects the path to completion. That expertise must be integrated into the working project environment through a continuous field presence, close coordination with site teams and attendance at daily meetings. By becoming embedded in the project, the monitoring team can follow decisions across workstreams and understand the context behind changes in labour, activity, progress and report promptly on

MARINE | Project monitoring In association with DBI Consultants

planned completion date months before the updated schedule was formally presented. That advance notice allowed stakeholders to test the recovery plan, prepare for the delay and consider mitigation measures. The projection later aligned closely with the reasonable completion date established for the loss-related work. That projection supported a more precise evaluation of the plant restart and helped to distinguish it from delays associated with other project and operational factors.

DRAW THE LINES WHILE WORK IS UNDERWAY

Following a control room fire at a major power plant, DBI’s team monitored day and night shifts as the workforce grew to several hundred. how they will impact the claim. Expertise and site integration alone are not enough. They must be combined with robust technology, that captures field data to support the analysis. This produces dynamic, daily reporting that reflects changing conditions, and provides stakeholders a clear, current view of performance indicators and exposures while adjustments remain possible. When each day of delay carries substantial business interruption exposure, information that arrives late can increase the loss.

DEEPER ANALYSIS WITHOUT THE DELAY

Following a control room fire at a major power plant, our team monitored day and night shifts as the workforce grew to several hundred. The planned repair schedule established an estimated completion date that the project and claim teams used as the anticipated startup date for the damaged plant. Meeting that date required many thousands of feet of control wiring to be identified, documented, replaced, tested and commissioned before affected sectors could return to service. Not only was technology key to daily reporting, it also supported a deeper level of analysis. By structuring field observations as the work occurred, it gave DBI’s construction professionals a real-time body of data for connecting the daily activity with the planned schedule, daily burn rates, projected expenditures and restart requirements. This allowed the team to identify developing trends and continually test whether actual progress supported the planned completion date. Producing that analysis manually, with the volume of data collected, would have taken considerably longer, narrowing the time available to respond on a loss with business interruption exposure measuring hundreds of thousands per day. The analysis showed that observed progress did not support the

Major energy, manufacturing and industrial recoveries rarely involve insured repairs alone. Emergency mitigation, permanent restoration, planned maintenance and ownerdirected capital improvements often proceed simultaneously, sometimes through the same contractors and within the same schedule. If those activities are not distinguished as they occur, the claim team may later have to reconstruct months of intertwined work after costs have accumulated and positions have crystallised. A different challenge emerged after an explosion and fire at a major agricultural processing facility. Work extended across a seven-story process building and surrounding structures, with required restoration and planned improvements moving forward at the same time. We connected structured field observations with schedule analysis and actual cost submissions to follow changes to the critical path and distinguish the two work efforts as the project advanced. Contemporaneous analysis gives the parties a stronger basis for evaluating which costs and delays arise from the loss. It also allows emerging differences to be addressed while conditions are current and adjustments remain possible, reducing the need for extensive invoice reconciliation, forensic schedule reconstruction and dispute support after the work is complete.

WHAT PROJECT MONITORING SHOULD DELIVER

Documentation remains essential on a major energy, manufacturing, or industrial loss, but it is not a solution by itself. Effective project monitoring must convert daily field activity into a timely and reliable understanding of progress, cost and the path to operation. It should explain what has changed, why it matters and where a decision may be required. Achieving that requires more than continuous field presence. It requires construction professionals who can interpret the work, technology that can structure large volumes of field information and analysis that connects those observations with cost, schedule, procurement, and restart requirements. When this level of daily reporting becomes de rigueur, it provides a stronger foundation for subsequent claim evaluation and resolution. However, its greatest value exists while the recovery is still underway – when stakeholders can test assumptions, address emerging delays and consider alternatives. When every hour matters, project monitoring should ultimately be measured by one question: can the claim team act on the information now? The Marine Insurer | October 2026

MARINE | American Salvage Association

A Greek at the helm Elias Psyllos, president of the American Salvage Association (ASA) explains why the association has a more important role than ever and its deep ties with the Greek maritime community In December 2025, the American Salvage Association’s (ASA) annual meeting in New Orleans marked a watershed moment. Elias Psyllos, vice president at T&T Salvage LLC in Houston, Texas, was appointed as the association’s new president, becoming the first Greek American ever to lead the organisation.

GREECE AND THE ASA: NATURAL PARTNERS

The relationship between Greek shipping and American salvage is not new. Greek-managed vessels - which constitute more than 21% of the global merchant fleet by tonnage - regularly transit US waters, call at American ports, and operate under the jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard (USCG). When incidents occur, it is often ASA member companies that respond. T&T Salvage, the Houston-based firm where President Psyllos serves as VP, has long maintained active relationships with the Greek maritime community through its regional representative in Piraeus. That connectivity - exemplified by his profile at the Marine Insurance Greece and Marine Claims International conferences signals a deepening of the transatlantic maritime bond. “In the realm of Greek shipping, a formidable global presence, T&T Salvage have steadfastly supported this industry for numerous years,” ELNAVI, the monthly shipping review, noted in its coverage of their Athens event. It is a relationship built on mutual respect, shared professional values, and a common understanding that when ships are in danger, nationality matters far less than competence, speed and coordination.

THE ASA IN ACTION

Behind the headlines, the ASA’s daily work is less glamorous but arguably more consequential. Its most enduring contribution is the 22-year partnership with the USCG in delivering specialised marine salvage response training. In March 2025, the ASA completed its latest iteration of this

programme at USCG Base Alameda, California. The three-day course provided Coast Guard members with comprehensive training across the business of salvage, marine firefighting regulations, commercial diving safety, heavy lift and rigging techniques and emergency towing procedures. Five months later, in August 2025, the ASA delivered the same course to 30 members of the USCG National Strike Force at the NOAA Disaster Response Centre in Mobile, Alabama. The programme covered salvage and marine firefighting (SMFF) regulations, NFPA standards, commercial diving qualifications and mixed-gas diving operations supplemented by daily tabletop exercises on rapid salvage assessment, barge lightering calculations, tunnel dewatering and logistics planning.

THE ASA’S VOICE IN WASHINGTON

Beyond the training room and the operations dock, the ASA fulfils a critically important advocacy role. It is the definitive spokesperson for the salvage industry in Washington, D.C., meeting regularly with federal agencies including the USCG, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Corps of Engineers and Congressional committees to shape the regulatory environment in which salvors operate. This advocacy work has particular relevance for Greek shipowners whose vessels operate in American waters under OPA 90 (Oil Pollution Act of 1990) - the legislation that mandates pre-contracted SMFF response plans for tank vessels. The ASA has been at the forefront of ensuring that these regulations are applied fairly, consistently and with full understanding of operational realities. The association’s flagship publication, Soundings magazine, disseminates these developments to 3,000 print subscribers and 120,000 digital subscribers - key industry leaders across the global maritime community.

THE ASA UNDER HELLENIC LEADERSHIP

As Elias Psyllos leads the ASA through 2026, the Greek connection to America’s salvage industry enters a new chapter. The priorities are clear: deepening the USCG partnership, expanding the Latin American membership programme and continuing to advocate for a regulatory environment that enables professional salvors to respond swiftly and effectively to maritime emergencies. For the Greek maritime community - whether you are a shipowner with vessels in US waters, an underwriter assessing casualty exposure in the Gulf of Mexico, a P&I Club correspondent in Houston, or a maritime lawyer navigating OPA 90 compliance - the ASA is not a distant American institution. It is, increasingly, an organisation with Greek blood in its veins, Greek maritime values in its philosophy and a Greek at its helm. For more information visit: www.americansalvage.org

The Marine Insurer | October 2026

& TOWAGE | ELNAVI 627 | 9 content by T&T Salvage 80 MARINE | Salvage & Tonnage sponsoredSALVAGE

T&T SALVAGE OPA90 SMFF provider in USA and Worldwide Emergency Responder A Generation of Innovative Salvage is the future of emergency services Since its founding in 1957 as part of the Teichman Group, T&T Salvage has bridged the gap between the “raw mechanical power” required for emergency response and the sophisticated digital and environmental demands of the modern blue economy. In this insightful exchange, Anna Shipilli, Regional Representative for T&T Salvage LLC, outlines how a legacy family-owned business has evolved into a global maritime powerhouse. Mrs Shipilli provides a deep dive into the company’s current strategic posture, including the Power-Environment Balance,End-to-End Evolution, the “Human-First” Digital Shift, the regulatory Mastery and Geopolitical Resilience. As the maritime industry faces a dual challenge of decarbonization and shifting global trade routes, Mrs Shipilli explains why T&T’s philosophy of “investing in flexibility, not rigid bets” ensures they remain the infrastructure upon which the global shipping sector depends. - Describe the goals of your association and how do you balance the need for high efficient salvage & towage projects with the requirement of lowair emission marine operations? Are you moving towards providing end - to - end maritime solutions beyond the traditional salvage & towage task with offshore support services or subsea environmental protection? - T&T Salvage’s renewal strategy is Anna Shipilli, Regional Representative | deliberately dualT&T Salvage LLC tracked: maintaining the raw power necessary for global emergency response while progressively integrating cleaner propulsion technologies. High Bollard Pull is Non-Negotiable. Our towing vessel network — spanning all major global regions and USCG Captain of the Port (COTP) zones — includes vessels ranging from harborclass tugs up to 16,000 HP and 400,000 lbs of bollard pull, as documented in our January 2026 vessel list. In salvage, power is life safety. You cannot compromise on the ability to hold a casualty off a lee shore or tow a disabled VLCC in heavy weather. The physics of ocean salvage demand absolute mechanical authority. T&T is not simply a towage company. Through the Teichman Group’s ecosystem of subsidiaries — T&T Marine Salvage, T&T Offshore, T&T Survey, T&T Subsea, and T&T Marine — we have evolved into a full-spectrum maritime services platform: Traditional Towage & Emergency Salvage — Salvage and Marine Fire Fighting, offshore towing, wreck removal Offshore Support — vessel charter, crew transfer (46,000+ passengers served, 19,000+ vessels serviced) Subsea & Environmental Protection — underwater bunker/cargo removal, hazmat response, spill containment, commercial diving Survey & Renewables — The Marine Insurer | May 2026

hydrographic and topographic surveying supporting offshore wind farm planning and design The most dramatic demonstration of this integration is the TX-10,000, the largest heavy-lift vessel ever built in the United States, christened on March 23, 2025 at Gulf Copper Shipyard, Galveston. Its connection to the Teichman Group — via the Versabar partnership and the Golden Ray operation — embodies exactly the “end-to-end” model: concept engineering, heavy lift, environmental containment, and post-operation survey all delivered by a single, integrated family of companies. - While technology improves safety, the human factor remains critical for the unpredictable nature of salvage. How has your organisation balanced ‘hands-on’ traditional expertise with the need for a digitally-fluent workforce? - T&T’s workforce philosophy rests on a fundamental conviction: technology serves the expert — it does not replace them. Our personnel roster represents a deliberate blend of hard-won expertise and modern technical capability. Our team includes salvage masters, master mariners, marine engineers, naval architects, incident command specialists, commercial divers, riggers, and equipment operators — a configuration that mirrors the complexity of the missions we undertake. Digital Fluency as Force Multiplier. We invest heavily in custom training and exercises — including salvage methodology, marine firefighting, and marine casualty response — because a digitally-fluent crew compounds the effectiveness of experienced salvors, it does not dilute it. Digital tools for realtime weather routing, structural stress modeling, ROV-assisted assessment, and incident command communication allow our masters to make faster, better-informed decisions. But the judgment remains human. The balance is this: we hire for experience and judgment first, then invest in digital upskilling. Not the reverse. - In a maritime landscape defined by rigorous regulatory frameworks and operational complexity, how can salvage & towage companies thrive by transforming bureaucratic challenges into competitive advantages? - “OPA 90 was never a burden to us — it was a business model.” Where competitors see compliance complexity as overhead, T&T Salvage has systematically transformed regulatory frameworks into structural competitive moats. The OPA 90 Advantage. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 imposed strict liability on vessel owners and mandated pre-contracted

MARINE | Salvage & Tonnage sponsored content by T&T Salvage Salvage and Marine Firefighting (SMFF) services. Many in the industry viewed this as an administrative burden. T&T recognized it as an opportunity to build durable, long-term client relationships before any emergency occurs. Today, T&T Salvage retains SMFF compliance and emergency standby contracts covering over 60% of the US tanker market, as well as some of the world’s largest dry bulk operators. The Emerging Regulatory Frontier. With Canada now consulting on pre-contracted salvor requirements for 2026, the OPA 90 playbook is being replicated internationally. T&T’s decades of experience in this compliance model positions us exceptionally well to lead in any jurisdiction that adopts similar frameworks. The strategic lesson: regulatory depth is infrastructure. The companies that master the compliance architecture become the infrastructure upon which entire maritime sectors depend. - As the world shifts away from total globalization toward a more fragmented system of “blocks”, how is your organisation future-proofing its global emergency response network against sudden port closures, sanctions, or the rerouting of major shipping lanes? - The shift from globalization toward a multi-polar, block-based maritime order is one of the defining challenges of our era — and one we have been preparing for, structurally, for decades. Partnership Networks as Force Projection. T&T’s capacity to respond to rapidly evolving geopolitical scenarios is amplified by strategic partnerships. Our quality partnership agreement with the US NAVY on complex war projects demonstrates the ability to assemble ad-hoc coalitions of trusted, credentialed partners when scale demands exceed any single company’s deployed assets. This coalition model is inherently more adaptable to geopolitical fragmentation than a monolithic corporate structure. Adaptive Posture. Our response network is continuously reevaluated against live intelligence on shipping route evolution, port access restrictions, and emerging energy infrastructure (offshore platforms, subsea cables, LNG terminals) that generate new casualty risk hotspots. The geopolitical fragmentation of the world is, for T&T, a demand signal, not a threat. - How is your organisation leveraging strategic partnerships and fleet diversification to achieve economies of scale and at what point do you find that salvage often requires smaller, highly specialized, and agile “Swiss Army Knife” vessels? - T&T’s assets philosophy deliberately navigates the tension between scale economics and mission-specific agility — and undertakes it through strategic diversification rather than choosing one at the expense of the other. Economies of Scale — The TX-10,000 Paradigm. The TX-10,000, christened in March 2025, is the single most powerful statement of our commitment to large-scale capability. The “Swiss Army Knife” Principle — When Agility Wins. Salvage experience consistently demonstrates that the most complex operations are not won by the largest vessel, but by the fastest, most versatile, most precisely configured response assets. Our network of specialized portable salvage assets — portable pumping systems, patching equipment, inert gas generators, nitrogen generators, high-capacity firefighting systems — can be mobilized and air-freighted to virtually any location globally. These assets, combined with compact, shallow-draft support vessels, allow T&T to respond in ports, rivers, and coastal environments where larger assets are operationally excluded. Diversification Across the Energy Transition. T&T Survey’s positioning in offshore wind farm support — providing 3D georeferenced data and CAD services from planning through construction — represents a deliberate hedge: as decommissioning of oil-and-gas infrastructure grows and wind energy scales, our survey and subsea capabilities ensure revenue continuity across energy paradigm shifts. T&T Survey Renewables The Synthesis: Scale assets (TX-10,000) capture high-value, long-duration contracts and deliver the credibility that wins the

largest insurance and P&I mandates. Specialized, portable assets (the “Swiss Army Knife” package) deliver rapid-response, precision intervention that scale assets cannot. Both are necessary. Neither is sufficient alone. - Given the current ‘pragmatism’ in the industry following IMO regulatory delays, how does this green transition influence your long-term asset Useful Life? Do you believe that investing now is a gamble on future fuel availability versus immediate carbon-tax savings? - Our Position on the “Gamble” Question. We reject the binary framing of “gamble on future fuels vs. immediate carbon-tax savings.” The pragmatic reality for a salvage and emergency response operator is this: • Immediate carbon-tax avoidance via costly alternative fuel retrofits on specialized vessels (which are already low-mileage relative to commercial trading vessels) may not produce the ROI that justifies the capital expenditure on the timeline available. • Fuel-flexible design — dual-fuel capability, engine room modularity, and biofuel compatibility — offers the most rational path: build for current operations, architect for future fuel transition. • “Resilience”, T&T’s eco-friendly tug, represents our proof-ofconcept investment: test, learn, integrate, and scale the lessons rather than making a single irreversible technology bet. The Long-Term View. T&T’s family-owned structure — unbeholden to quarterly earnings cycles — is a strategic advantage in this environment. We can take the multi-decade view that a publicly listed competit or cannot. The question is not whether to invest in green technology, but in which technology, on what timeline, and with what level of optionality built into the asset. Our answer: invest in flexibility, not in rigid fuel bets — and do so within a capital allocation framework that protects the core emergency response mission which is, by definition, always funded regardless of commodity cycle or regulatory regime. T&T Salvage LLC is a member of the Teichman Group, founded in 1957. Corporate headquarters: Pasadena, TX. Emergency operations: 24/7/365. Coverage: All 41 USCG COTP Zones + international bases in South America, Europe, and Asia.

The Marine Insurer | October 2026