Hidden accumulation is reshaping casualty and cyber underwriting

Casualty, cyber and credit exposures are becoming harder to aggregate, pushing reinsurers to assess portfolio impact before contracts are bound, says Allphins’ Joseph Harrison.

Key points:
Non-cat accumulation is moving pre-bind
Operational links hide clashes
Richer data enables accurate risk analysis

Casualty, cyber and credit underwriters are moving towards pre-bind exposure checks as reinsurers seek a clearer view of how new treaties could add to portfolio accumulations before they sign the business.

Unlike property catastrophe, where exposures can be tied to known locations and defined physical events, non-cat losses can spread across corporate, financial and technology networks that are much harder to map.

“Underwriters need to understand what an account will do to their aggregates before they sign,” said Joseph Harrison, senior exposure manager at Allphins.

The challenge, he said, is that event definitions become much less clear outside of the nat cat space.

“Property cat is very well understood. You have known locations and a defined physical event,” Harrison said. “Once you move into casualty or cyber, the event definition becomes much blurrier and it is far harder to predict how losses will develop and propagate."

Because those losses can spread through networks rather than remain within clear physical boundaries, exposure managers cannot rely on simple policyholder checks alone.

“If you’re pricing single-risk business and looking at individual insureds, name matching and some additional enrichment may be enough,” Harrison said. “But when you step back and try to build large-scale scenarios, that misses a lot.”

For treaty portfolios, the problem is not simply whether the same insured appears twice. Exposure managers also need to understand how companies are linked, how losses might travel between them and whether a single event could affect multiple cedants at the same time.

Incomplete policy schedules can therefore obscure the true extent of portfolio overlap. Without linking insureds to ultimate parent companies across different cedants, concentrations may remain hidden until the portfolio is viewed as a whole.

Hidden connections

Data deficiencies vary considerably by line of business. In cyber, one of the biggest challenges is identifying the software and infrastructure dependencies that connect underlying policyholders.

“I don’t think the market necessarily falls short here. The data is simply very difficult to obtain, particularly for smaller companies,” Harrison said.

He compared the problem to trying to identify how a single component sits within a much larger supply chain. “It is like being given one bolt and asking which car it belongs to, whether it appears in several vehicles, or whether those vehicles share the same components.”

Similar gaps exist elsewhere. Credit portfolios may omit the ultimate parent company, while casualty policy schedules can lack basic information such as industry sector or company size. Exposure teams may then need to infer or reconstruct missing information before realistic stress testing is possible.

Ownership alone does not necessarily determine how risks should be grouped. Harrison said exposure managers increasingly distinguish between financial ownership and operational relationships.

“You want to end up with an aggregation where your entities are not just financially connected, but operationally connected as well,” he said.

That matters because two businesses under the same holding company may not share meaningful operational exposure, while apparently separate companies can still be linked through common suppliers, systems or infrastructure.

Reinsurers are also asking cedants for richer underlying data at treaty renewal as pre-bind analysis becomes more important.

“Treaty reinsurers are not asking for more data simply because they want it. They need it,” Harrison said. “Cedants understand that, and they also understand that better data can lead to more accurate analysis of their risks.”

Judgment still matters

Where exact dependency data is unavailable, underwriters still rely on market assumptions and realistic disaster scenarios to test portfolios against possible shocks.

“AI is not making the decisions for you. The responsibility still sits with exposure managers and underwriters.”

AI can help exposure teams cleanse policy data and categorise business, but Harrison cautioned against treating automation as a substitute for judgment.

Using the example of a schedule containing 60,000 insureds across 30 treaty portfolios, he said running raw AI models across hundreds of thousands of records can quickly become slow and expensive.

“AI is not making the decisions for you, and I don’t think it should,” Harrison said. “The responsibility still sits with exposure managers and underwriters.”

Before the bind

That distinction becomes more important as non-cat lines move towards the systematic pre-bind assessment already established in property catastrophe.

“It is much like the nat cat space, where everything is assessed pre-bind before the signatures go on paper,” Harrison said.

“The market is moving casualty, cyber and credit towards the same approach, so underwriters understand what an account will do to their aggregates before they accept the deal.”

Joseph Harrison is senior exposure manager at Allphins. He can be contacted at joseph.harrison@allphins.com

To explore how Allphins can support your business, click here.

For more news from Baden-Baden Today, click here.

Did you get value from this story?  Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox.