Catastrophic Cyber Insurance: The Clause That Breaks Deterrence
11/08/25
War-exclusions, reinsurer risk, and how payout uncertainty changes attacker and defender behavior.
By: The Security Nexus
🧩 Framing the Problem: When “War” Moves into the Policy
Insurance pools are independent; they do not love synchronized infernos. In cyber, common dependencies—Identity providers, widely deployed software, core payment rails—can turn a single exploit into correlated losses across entire portfolios. When correlation spikes, risk-sharing collapses. Reinsurance —the layer meant to save the day —also strains when the whole book lights up.
Empirically and theoretically, that’s where things wobble: heavy-tailed, system-wide cyber shocks can defeat reinsurance equilibrium and invite calls for public intervention (Pal et al. 2021).
⸻
⚖️ The Clause: How War-Exclusions Became the System’s Circuit Breaker
After NotPetya (2017) and the Merck litigation, courts signaled this: if you wanted cyber “war” off the books, you needed explicit cyber-specific language. Old boilerplate wouldn’t cut it; the judge focused on policy text and traditional understandings of “warlike,” not diplomatic attributions (Wolff 2023).
The market responded. Lloyd’s required exclusions for state-backed cyberattacks that could “significantly impair” a state’s functioning or security (Lloyd’s 2022; Wolff 2023). And the LMA 5564A–5567A templates defined “cyber-operation,” extended exclusions to global spillover, and gestured at an expedited attribution basis (LMA 2023).
Strategic consequence: the faster, broader, and more state-centric these exclusions become, the more payout uncertainty firms face in exactly the scenarios where macro-resilience matters most. That uncertainty feeds back into attacker math (more pressure on victims) and defender investment (more self-insurance).
⸻
🏦 The Capital Stack: Why Reinsurers Blink
2022 estimates suggest 50–65% of cyber premiums were ceded to reinsurance—far higher than in most non-life lines (Cremer et al. 2024). As severity increased, reinsurers raised attachment points, tightened quota shares, and sought alternative risk transfer (ART) such as ILS and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to grow capacity (Cremer et al. 2024).
There’s a caution here: even with ART, truly systemic cyber events may still be too fat-tailed for sustainable private cover, pointing back to federal backstop concepts (U.S. Treasury RFI, 2022; Pal et al. 2021).
⸻
🛠️ What the Market Does Well (and Where It Struggles)
Micro-level: Insurers are excellent at orchestrating post-breach incident-response panels—the hotline, the lawyers, the forensics. Panels triage, reduce transaction costs, and shape the ransom/legal playbook (Arce, Woods & Böhme 2024). This is where cyber insurance adds operational value.
Macro-level: For catastrophic, state-linked operations, exclusions and ambiguity dominate. Insurers are now setting de facto international norms by defining what counts as “state-backed” and how fast attribution must occur—often faster than governments advise (UN GGE 2021; Wolff 2023).
⸻
🎯 Deterrence Effects: How Fine Print Changes Behavior
1. Defender side. If boards believe the biggest cyber shocks won’t pay out, they shift from premium to self-insurance + resilience CAPEX, prioritize supply-chain isolation, and demand sovereign backstops. That is rational—but it also hollows the market, raising prices and narrowing cover.
2. Attacker side. Once payouts look uncertain in “state-backed-adjacent” operations, sophisticated actors face a softer economic landing for victims, potentially increasing the appeal of disruptive campaigns that skirt kinetic thresholds.
3. State side. Governments inherit tail risk anyway. Backstops will arrive—the question is design—or we hobble recovery after the worst day. U.S. Treasury has already explored this path (2022).
⸻
🧭 A Better Architecture (Policy & Practice)
1) Triggered Backstop with Guardrails.
Design a cat-cyber backstop that turns on via pre-specified, auditable triggers (impact-based, not attribution-only), with sliding coinsurance to avoid moral hazard. Publish the trigger taxonomy now; don’t improvise mid-crisis (Treasury 2022; Wolff 2023).
2) Narrow, Auditable War-Exclusions.
Adopt the narrowest feasible LMA variant (e.g., LMA5567A’s geographic restraint) and require attribution process transparency and independent review windows. Tie any exclusion to measurable impacts rather than vague “state-backed” labels (LMA 2023).
3) Capital Deepening via ART—With Discipline.
Permit ILS/cat bonds for cyber but standardize disclosure, triggers, and modeling assumptions. Pair with a public liquidity facility to avoid fire-sale dynamics when a trigger looms (Cremer et al. 2024; Pal et al. 2021).
4) Panel Quality Metrics.
Because most paid losses are crisis services, regulators should require panel transparency: assignment logic, provider performance, and sublimit structures (Arce, Woods & Böhme 2024).
5) Federated Stress Testing.
Mandate joint stress tests across carriers/reinsurers for shared dependencies (e.g., SSO outage, notarized by independent model shops). Publish aggregate—not firm-level—findings to guide premiums and public preparedness (Wolff 2023).
⸻
Arce, Daniel, Daniel W. Woods, and Rainer Böhme. 2024. “Economics of Incident Response Panels in Cyber Insurance.” Computers & Security 140: 103742.
• Cremer, Frank, Barry Sheehan, Martin Mullins, Michael Fortmann, Stefan Materne, and Finbarr Murphy. 2024. “Enhancing Cyber Insurance Strategies: Exploring Reinsurance and Alternative Risk Transfer Approaches.” Journal of Cybersecurity 10(1): tyae027.
• Pal, Ranjan, Ziyuan Huang, Sergey Lototsky, Xinlong Yin, Mingyan Liu, Jon Crowcroft, Nishanth Sastry, Swades De, and Bodhibrata Nag. 2021. “Will Catastrophic Cyber-Risk Aggregation Thrive in the IoT Age? A Cautionary Economics Tale for (Re-)Insurers and Likes.” ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems 12(2): 17:1–36.
• U.S. Department of the Treasury. 2022. “Potential Federal Insurance Response to Catastrophic Cyber Incidents.” Federal Register, September 29, 2022.
• Wolff, Josephine. 2023. “The Role of Insurers in Shaping International Cyber-Security Norms about Cyber-War.” Contemporary Security Policy 45(1): 1–26.
• Lloyd’s Market Association (LMA). 2023. “Cyber War & Cyber-Operation Clauses (LMA5564A–LMA5567A).” (As summarized and quoted in Wolff 2023.)
• Transcript: “Catastrophic Cyber Insurance: The Clause That Breaks Deterrence,” Security Nexus Deep Dive. Selected remarks on correlation risk, Merck ruling implications, and deterrence feedbacks.
