PartnerRe survey quizzes underwriters and brokers on where cyber perils should sit
A PartnerRe survey on cyber has revealed a difference in opinion between underwriters and brokers on whether cyber perils should be covered in property claims.
Speaking to Baden-Baden Today, Chris McEvoy, senior underwriter specialty casualty at the reinsurer, said that cyber historically has been a financial loss policy for third party liability with the clear potential for property-related claims to come through.
This year’s PartnerRe client cyber survey attempted to move the debate forward by asking respondents whether this should still be the case, and if not, where should responsibility for cyber coverages sit?
More than half of underwriters (55 percent) said they felt that property exposure, or a bodily injury exposure, or a property damage exposure should sit within a dedicated property policy.
Respondents from the broking community were less convinced. Only 50 percent said that the policy should cover cyber perils.
McEvoy said that while there was no overwhelming preference from either group, it was interesting for the reinsurer as it’s very topical. The divergence between brokers and underwriters may be one to keep an eye on.
“From an underwriting perspective there is always this preference or understanding that for the individuals with the experience and capabilities to price and manage the risk and underwrite it best, physical damage tends to sit with property and financial loss tends to sit with casualty,” he explained.
“The underwriting community is probably clearer than the brokers are, although it’s not an overwhelming result.
“We have a view that those exposure should sit with the markets that best understand them. I think as a reinsurer, where we are comfortable that we underwrite the underwriter and that is something we would look for,” he said.
This finding was backed up by more than two-thirds of underwriters reporting they are worried by the fact that there’s non-affirmative coverage in specialty risk.
