ISO CG 40 47 and CG 40 48: the AI absolute exclusion decoded

What "absolute exclusion" actually means in insurance language

Policy exclusions come in several varieties. A standard exclusion removes coverage for a defined category of loss but may contain exceptions that restore coverage in specific circumstances. A pollution exclusion, for example, often preserves coverage for hostile fire events. A war exclusion may contain a carve-back for terrorism under certain conditions. These partial exclusions leave room for argument about whether the exception applies.

An absolute exclusion contains no such exceptions. It removes coverage for the defined category entirely, regardless of how the loss arose, how minor the causal connection was, or how sympathetic the facts. In insurance drafting, the term "absolute" is not always used explicitly, but the effect is the same when an exclusion is written without any exception language. Several of the AI exclusions now entering the market function as absolute exclusions in this technical sense.

The distinction matters because policyholders have traditionally argued around standard exclusions by pointing to their exception language. Where an exclusion reads "we do not cover X, except in circumstances Y," the insured's argument is that circumstances Y apply. Where the exclusion reads "we do not cover X, with no exceptions," that argument is foreclosed. On the two ISO forms we have read, CG 40 48 01 26 and CG 35 08 01 26, there is no exception language at all: the endorsement adds one sentence of exclusion and one sentence of definition, and nothing else. Each is a single page. That is what makes them function as absolute exclusions within their coverage part, whether or not the word appears.¹

The word "absolute" also signals something about the carrier's intent. When a carrier files an absolute exclusion with a regulator, it is communicating that it does not want to price AI risk into the general policy, it does not want to litigate AI causation questions at the claim stage, and it does not intend this to be a negotiable position at the renewal table. That intent shapes how the exclusion will be administered and how coverage disputes will be argued in court.

The ISO standard endorsements: CG 40 47 vs CG 40 48 vs CG 35 08

In January 2026, Verisk's ISO Core Lines Services made three new endorsement forms available to member carriers across the United States as part of a multistate filing.² The forms address generative AI exposures in commercial general liability coverage. Each form is optional: carriers choose whether to adopt them, and buyers should not assume that their carrier has or has not adopted them without checking the endorsement schedule of their current policy.

CG 40 47 01 26: the full CGL exclusion

CG 40 47 is the broadest of the three forms. When attached to a standard ISO CGL policy, it removes Coverage A and Coverage B simultaneously for losses arising out of generative artificial intelligence. Coverage A covers bodily injury and property damage. Coverage B covers personal and advertising injury, which includes defamation, wrongful eviction, copyright infringement in advertising, and reputational harm.

The practical scope of CG 40 47 is wide. A customer-facing AI agent that provides incorrect medical information, causing a user to be physically harmed, would previously have been a Coverage A claim. Under CG 40 47, that claim is excluded. An AI marketing tool that generates advertising copy containing a third party's copyrighted phrase, exposing the business to an infringement claim, would previously have been a Coverage B claim. Under CG 40 47, that claim is also excluded.³

CG 40 47 is applicable to both the occurrence version and the claims-made version of the ISO CGL form. The endorsement attaches at the policy inception date of the renewal. Any loss that occurs after the endorsement attaches is subject to the exclusion, even if the AI system was deployed before the endorsement took effect.

What CG 40 47 does not exclude are losses that have no causal connection to generative AI. A premises liability slip-and-fall has nothing to do with AI output and is not affected. A traditional advertising injury claim arising from a human copywriter's work is not affected. The exclusion is triggered by the causal connection to generative AI, not by the mere presence of AI technology in the insured's business.

CG 40 48 01 26: Coverage B only

This is one of the two forms we have read. It is titled Exclusion – Generative Artificial Intelligence (Coverage B Only) and it modifies the Commercial General Liability Coverage Part. Its whole operative text is two short paragraphs. The first adds an exclusion to Paragraph 2. Exclusions of Section I, Coverage B, Personal And Advertising Injury Liability, reading: This insurance does not apply to: "Personal and advertising injury" arising out of "generative artificial intelligence". The second adds a definition: "Generative artificial intelligence" means a machine-based learning system or model that is trained on data with the ability to create content or responses, including but not limited to text, images, audio, video or code.

Read those two sentences together and the reach becomes clear. There is no carve-out for human review, no exception for incidental use, and no requirement that the system act autonomously. A marketing assistant that drafts a paragraph is a machine-based learning system trained on data with the ability to create content. If the paragraph defames someone, the claim arises out of generative artificial intelligence, and Coverage B does not respond.

A carrier attaching CG 40 48 rather than CG 40 47 has made a deliberate underwriting decision: it will still respond to bodily injury and property damage claims with an AI causal link, but it is not prepared to cover content-related liability arising from AI outputs.

For operators running generative AI in content-heavy contexts, CG 40 48 represents a significant gap. Coverage B is where defamation claims, copyright infringement claims, and reputational damage claims live. These are among the most common categories of claim arising from AI-generated text, images, and code. A business that generates customer-facing content using AI tools and holds a CGL policy with CG 40 48 attached has effectively lost coverage for the most likely category of AI-related claim.⁴

At the same time, CG 40 48 preserves more coverage than CG 40 47 for operators whose AI risk is concentrated in physical or operational contexts rather than content production. A logistics company using AI to route vehicles has a different risk profile from a marketing agency using AI to produce copy. CG 40 48 is a better outcome for the logistics company than CG 40 47 would be.

CG 35 08 01 26: Products and Completed Operations

This is the second form we have read. It is titled Exclusion – Generative Artificial Intelligence and it modifies the Products/Completed Operations Liability Coverage Part, which is a separate coverage part from the main CGL form. It adds to Paragraph 2. Exclusions of Section I, Coverages, Bodily Injury And Property Damage Liability: This insurance does not apply to: "Bodily injury" or "property damage" arising out of "generative artificial intelligence". It carries the identical definition of generative artificial intelligence, word for word, as CG 40 48.⁵

In practice: if a product your company designed, manufactured or supplied incorporates generative AI and that product causes injury or damage after it leaves your premises, the Products/Completed Operations coverage will not respond to the AI-related element of that claim.

CG 35 08 is particularly relevant for technology companies, software developers, and manufacturers building AI into their products. A software vendor whose AI-enabled product causes property damage to a client's systems after installation would normally look to Products/Completed Operations coverage. Under CG 35 08, that coverage is removed if the damage arose from the AI component.

The three ISO forms can operate together or independently. A carrier could attach all three to a single policy, producing a CGL that excludes AI from Coverage A, Coverage B, and Products/Completed Operations. Or a carrier could attach only one, depending on its underwriting appetite for different segments of AI risk.

Carrier-specific endorsements vs the ISO standard

The ISO forms represent the industry's attempt to standardise AI exclusion language across the CGL market. But standardisation is not universally adopted. Several major carriers had already filed their own AI exclusion language before the ISO forms were released, and that language does not always align with the ISO standard definitions or scope.

W.R. Berkley, and why we no longer print the form number

This section used to name a W.R. Berkley form number and describe its wording in detail. On 17 August 2026 we removed both, and the reason is worth setting out, because it applies to every carrier form you will read about anywhere.⁶

W.R. Berkley is widely reported to have filed an absolute AI exclusion reaching directors and officers, errors and omissions, and fiduciary liability. The reporting is credible and it comes from serious law firms. But the accounts do not agree on what the form is. Some describe an absolute exclusion. At least one describes an affirmative AI coverage endorsement. Those are opposite instruments: one removes the cover, the other grants it. We carried both descriptions on this site at the same time, attached to the same number, which is how we found the problem.

W.R. Berkley publishes no forms library and no statement on AI underwriting on its own site. There is no public filing record we could reach. So we are in the position of being able to print a number that looks like a citation, attached to a description we cannot stand behind. A form number is the highest-confidence-looking, lowest-verified thing a coverage article can contain, and it is precisely what an underwriter or a coverage lawyer will search for. Getting it wrong is found immediately by the people most able to act on it.

What is true and useful: management liability and professional lines carriers in the United States are filing AI exclusions of their own, ahead of and independently of the ISO forms, and those exclusions are typically drafted to reach artificial intelligence generally rather than generative AI specifically. That distinction matters, because a general AI definition also catches automated decision-making, predictive scoring and algorithmic systems that predate the generative wave. If a D&O or E&O policy on your programme is on carrier paper rather than ISO paper, ask for the endorsement itself and read the definition of artificial intelligence in it first.

Hamilton Insurance Group

Hamilton Insurance Group is reported to have filed AI exclusion language of its own.⁸ We are not stating what that language does, because the accounts do not agree: some describe a generative AI exclusion on professional liability, others a sublimit inside errors and omissions or cyber cover. For a buyer those are opposite outcomes, one removing the cover and the other capping it. Hamilton publishes nothing about AI underwriting on its own site, so there is no way to settle it from the carrier. Ask your broker for the endorsement itself if Hamilton paper sits on your programme.

This is worth pausing on as a general habit. Where a carrier position reaches you through a law firm alert or a trade summary rather than through the carrier, the summary is describing a filing that the writer may or may not have read. Endorsement wording is the only thing that binds at renewal, and it is the thing your broker can actually obtain.

AIG and Great American

AIG filed a proposed AI exclusion with US state regulators, noting at the time that it had "no plans to implement" the exclusion immediately but wanted the option available as AI claim frequency increased.⁹ Great American Insurance filed equivalent language for its E&O and management liability lines. Both carriers' exclusion language targets claims arising from autonomous AI decision-making and AI-generated content, consistent with the general direction of the market.

The AIG filing is notable for its regulatory transparency. By filing the form in advance of implementation, AIG signalled that the question is not whether it will use an AI exclusion but when. Operators whose AIG policies do not currently contain an AI exclusion should confirm the position at the next renewal rather than assuming the current wording will persist.

The cyber market: QBE, and what nobody publishes

The cyber market has moved differently from the general liability market. Rather than excluding AI, QBE North America has published affirmative AI-focused cyber endorsements: one responding to AI regulatory compliance exposure, meaning fines, penalties and defence costs under emerging AI regulation, and one responding to LLMjacking, where an attacker steals credentials to a cloud-hosted large language model and burns the victim's compute. QBE's own material describes the LLMjacking cover as responding to the increased cloud service fees and the cost of retraining damaged models.¹¹

This article previously carried percentage and sterling figures for AI sublimits at two named London cyber carriers. Those figures came from trade summaries of a newspaper report rather than from either carrier, and we removed them on 17 August 2026 rather than restate them here. Neither carrier publishes an AI or LLMjacking sublimit on its own site. Where a carrier publishes nothing, the honest thing to write is that the carrier publishes nothing. The withdrawn wording is recorded in the corrections log.

What survives the removal is the shape of the market, and it is the useful part. On general liability, the direction is exclusion. On cyber, the direction is affirmative but managed cover, which usually means a sublimit rather than the full policy limit. A sublimit is materially better for an insured than an absolute exclusion where AI losses are likely to be modest. It is materially worse than it looks where a single agent failure could produce a seven-figure loss. Whichever direction your carrier has taken, the number that matters is on your schedule, not in an article.

The five trigger phrases to look for in your renewal

AI exclusion language does not always use the phrase "artificial intelligence" in the heading. It may appear under headings like "Emerging Technology Exclusion," "Digital Content Exclusion," or "Automated Systems Exclusion." The substance of the exclusion is determined by the operative language, not the heading. These are the five phrases that signal the presence of an effective AI exclusion.

What survives an absolute exclusion

An absolute AI exclusion is not the end of the coverage analysis. Courts apply consistent interpretive principles to exclusion disputes, and several of those principles can preserve coverage even where the exclusion language appears to remove it entirely.

The first principle is narrow construction. Courts read exclusions narrowly and against the insurer as the drafter of the policy language. An exclusion that could be interpreted broadly or narrowly will be interpreted narrowly. An exclusion that could reach a particular loss or not will be read as not reaching it if the facts support that reading.

The second principle is independent causation. Where a loss has multiple causes, one of which is excluded and others of which are not, coverage may attach if the non-excluded causes are independently sufficient to produce the loss. In an AI-related claim where the plaintiff alleges both autonomous AI action and human negligence in deploying the AI, the human negligence may be an independent basis for the claim that survives the AI exclusion. This argument has been used successfully in analogous contexts in pollution exclusion litigation.¹³

The third principle is the mixed-claim analysis. A complaint that alleges AI-related wrongful acts alongside non-AI-related wrongful acts creates a mixed claim. The insurer may have a duty to defend the entire action if the non-AI allegations independently trigger coverage, even if the AI allegations do not. The duty to defend standard is lower than the duty to indemnify: it requires only that the complaint contain allegations that could potentially fall within coverage, not that those allegations will succeed at trial.

The fourth consideration is the attachment date. An AI exclusion takes effect when the endorsement attaches, which is typically the renewal date of the policy. A loss that occurred before the endorsement attached is governed by the prior policy's wording. If the prior policy was silent on AI, the loss may be covered under the prior policy even though it would be excluded under the renewed policy. Operators managing ongoing AI incidents that straddle a renewal date should review the attachment date carefully.

What does not survive an absolute exclusion is a claim where AI is the primary or sole cause, the loss occurs after the endorsement attaches, and the complaint does not include non-AI allegations that could independently trigger coverage. In that scenario, the exclusion will apply and coverage will be denied.

The negotiation room: rare but real

Buyers who accept AI exclusions at renewal without negotiation leave potential coverage on the table. The exclusions currently in the market are carrier filings, not statutory requirements. Carriers have discretion to modify them for specific accounts, and some are prepared to do so for accounts that present a favourable risk profile.

The practical factors that create negotiation leverage are: account size and premium volume, the quality of the buyer's documented AI governance programme, the quantified scope of AI use within the business, and the existence of an AI risk register that the carrier can use to price the residual exposure. A buyer that presents a board-approved AI governance policy, a named AI officer or responsible AI team, a documented scope of all AI deployments, and a quantified estimate of maximum probable AI-related loss is in a fundamentally different negotiating position from a buyer that has not addressed AI governance at all.¹⁴

The negotiation outcome, where it is achievable, is a buyback endorsement that reinstates coverage for defined AI losses on specific terms. The buyback should be defined by form number and should specify exactly which coverage parts are reinstated, which categories of AI loss are covered, which exclusions from the buyback apply, and the sublimit that applies to reinstated AI coverage. A general description in a renewal letter is not enforceable in the same way as a policy endorsement.

For most SMEs, the more practical path is not negotiation but supplementation. A specialist AI insurance product from a carrier that writes affirmative AI coverage on defined terms fills the gap that the generalist carrier's exclusion creates, without requiring the insured to negotiate against a carrier that has already filed its position with the regulator.

When the exclusion is silent vs explicit: why both matter

Before the Verisk ISO forms and the carrier-specific exclusion filings, most standard CGL, E&O, and cyber policies were silent on AI. A silent policy is one that neither explicitly grants nor explicitly excludes coverage for AI-related losses. The silence created an ambiguous coverage position that could be argued in either direction when a claim arose.

The ambiguity cut both ways. Insureds could argue that a loss arising from AI activity was covered because the policy did not exclude it. Carriers could argue that the same loss was not covered because the policy was written before AI existed as a coverage category and the parties could not have intended to cover it. The outcome depended on the specific facts, the jurisdiction, and the court's interpretation of the policy language.¹⁵

The market has resolved the ambiguity in one direction. Primary carriers are increasingly being asked, at reinsurance renewal and by their own boards, to say what their policies do about AI rather than leaving it unsaid: either add an affirmative AI coverage endorsement granting cover on defined terms, or add an exclusion removing AI losses from the standard policy. The ISO forms are the standardisation of that at the primary market level. We do not name individual reinsurers here, because none of them publishes its cedent requirements and we would be repeating a market rumour as a fact.

For operators, the shift from silence to explicit exclusion is a significant development. A silent policy preserved the argument for coverage. An explicit exclusion eliminates it. A policy renewed in 2026 that contained an AI exclusion the insured did not notice has a fundamentally different coverage position from the policy it replaced, even if all other terms are identical. This is why reading the endorsement schedule at renewal is not optional in 2026.

At the same time, a policy that remains silent in 2026 should not be read as an affirmative grant of AI coverage. The market has moved far enough that carriers are administering silent policies conservatively: an insurer whose policy is silent on AI will argue that the policy was not intended to cover AI losses and will look for causation arguments to decline the claim. Silence in 2026 is better than an explicit exclusion, but it is not the same as affirmative coverage.

How to map an exclusion to a specialist coverage gap fill

The structured response to an AI exclusion in a standard policy is a gap analysis followed by a specialist coverage placement. The gap analysis identifies which categories of AI loss are excluded from the standard policy. The specialist placement fills the identified gaps with affirmative coverage on defined terms from a carrier that is pricing AI risk rather than excluding it.

The categories of AI loss that most commonly need gap-filling after CG 40 47 or equivalent exclusions attach are: Coverage B losses arising from AI-generated content (defamation, copyright infringement, reputational damage); Coverage A losses arising from AI decisions that cause physical harm or property damage; E&O losses arising from AI agent errors in professional services contexts; and regulatory penalty exposure under the EU AI Act and the revised Product Liability Directive.

The carriers currently writing affirmative AI coverage for these categories include Armilla (Lloyd's coverholder, affirmative AI liability), Munich Re aiSure (AI performance coverage), HSB (Hartford Steam Boiler, Munich Re subsidiary, for bodily injury and advertising injury from AI use), Counterpart (professional liability with affirmative AI coverage), and Corgi (full-stack AI-native coverage for technology companies). The full Carrier Comparison Matrix, which maps each carrier's product against the coverage categories created by the exclusion wave, is available at agentinsured.eu.

The mapping exercise should produce a coverage architecture document that shows, for each category of potential AI loss, which policy is intended to respond and the limits available. Gaps in that architecture are uninsured exposure. The document also serves as evidence of a documented AI risk management programme, which is relevant both for negotiating with generalist carriers and for the EU AI Act's Article 26 operator obligations.

See the Coverage Audit tool to run a structured gap analysis against your current policy schedule. The tool maps your policy terms against the exclusion categories created by the ISO forms and produces a gap register formatted for broker submission.

The five-step renewal review

The following five steps represent the minimum review that any operator running AI agents should complete at the next CGL, E&O, or cyber policy renewal.

1. Collect the full policy document, not just the schedule. The endorsement schedule, definitions section, conditions, and exclusion schedule together determine the actual scope of coverage. Requesting only the policy summary or the declarations page is insufficient. Ask your broker for the full policy wording including all endorsements and their attachment dates.
2. Search the endorsement schedule for the five trigger phrases. Use the annotated checklist above. Run a text search for each phrase. If any of the phrases appear, locate the endorsement in which they appear and read the full operative clause, including the definition section. Confirm whether the endorsement is CG 40 47, CG 40 48, CG 35 08, or a carrier-drafted form of its own.
3. Map your AI use against the excluded categories. List every AI tool or agent your business currently uses. For each one, identify whether it produces content (Coverage B exposure), takes autonomous actions (Coverage A and E&O exposure), is incorporated into a product delivered to clients (Products/Completed Operations exposure), or is described in investor or board communications (D&O exposure, where carrier AI exclusions reach furthest). Match each use case against the exclusion categories you found in step two.
4. Identify the uninsured exposure and quantify it. For each category of AI use that falls outside your current coverage, estimate the maximum probable loss if that use case produces a claim. Use the Moffatt v. Air Canada refund quantum as a reference for customer-facing agent errors, and the Mata v. Avianca sanctions cost as a reference for AI-generated content in professional services contexts. The quantification does not need to be precise but it must be defensible enough to support a broker submission.
5. Initiate the specialist coverage conversation at least 90 days before renewal. The specialist AI insurance market is not yet commoditised. Placement takes longer than standard commercial lines, underwriters require detailed application information about AI governance, and the carrier options are fewer than in mature product lines. Starting 90 days out gives enough time to complete underwriting, negotiate terms, and bind coverage before the renewal date. Starting two weeks before renewal gives you none of those options.

Frequently asked questions

What is ISO CG 40 47?

CG 40 47 01 26 is reported to be the broadest of three ISO generative AI exclusion endorsements carrying the 01 26 edition date. It is described as an optional endorsement for the Commercial General Liability Coverage Part which, when attached, removes both Coverage A (bodily injury and property damage) and Coverage B (personal and advertising injury) for loss arising out of generative artificial intelligence. We have not read this form. We have read its two siblings from specimens of the forms themselves, and both define generative artificial intelligence in identical words: "a machine-based learning system or model that is trained on data with the ability to create content or responses, including but not limited to text, images, audio, video or code". Confirm the form and the edition date on your own endorsement schedule before relying on any of this.

What is the difference between CG 40 47 and CG 40 48?

CG 40 47 01 26 is the broader form, excluding both Coverage A and Coverage B for generative AI losses. CG 40 48 01 26 is narrower, excluding Coverage B only. Coverage B covers personal and advertising injury, including defamation, copyright infringement, and reputational damage from AI-generated content. Coverage A, covering bodily injury and property damage, remains intact under CG 40 48. A carrier attaching CG 40 48 will still respond to physical harm claims traceable to AI but will not cover content-related liability.

What does ISO CG 35 08 exclude?

CG 35 08 01 26 applies to the Products/Completed Operations Coverage Part. It excludes bodily injury and property damage arising from generative AI in the completed operations context. If a product incorporating generative AI causes harm after delivery, the Products/Completed Operations coverage will not respond to the AI-related element. The form operates independently from CG 40 47 and CG 40 48: a policy could carry all three simultaneously.

Which carriers have filed their own AI exclusions, and why do you not print the form numbers?

W.R. Berkley, AIG, Great American and Hamilton Insurance Group are all reported to have filed AI exclusion language of their own for management liability and professional lines, ahead of and independently of the ISO forms. We removed the specific carrier form numbers from this article on 17 August 2026. The published accounts contradict each other on what at least one of those forms is, describing it in one place as an absolute exclusion and in another as an affirmative coverage endorsement, which are opposite instruments. None of these carriers publishes its forms. A form number reads as citation-grade precision and is exactly what an underwriter or coverage lawyer will search for, so a wrong one is found immediately by the people most able to act on it. Ask your broker for the endorsement itself. What is safe to say generally is that carrier-drafted AI exclusions tend to define artificial intelligence broadly rather than limiting themselves to generative AI, which also catches automated decision-making and predictive scoring.

What is an AI absolute exclusion in insurance language?

An absolute exclusion removes coverage entirely for a defined category of loss, with no exceptions. It differs from a standard exclusion, which may contain carve-backs or exceptions that restore coverage in specific circumstances. On the two ISO forms we have read, CG 40 48 01 26 and CG 35 08 01 26, there is no exception language at all: one sentence of exclusion, one sentence of definition, one page. That is what makes them function as absolute exclusions within their coverage part, whether or not the word appears on the form.

Which trigger phrases should I search for in my CGL policy?

Five phrases most commonly activate AI exclusions: (1) "arising out of" generative AI, (2) "based upon, arising out of, or attributable to" AI, (3) "in any way involving" AI, (4) "automated or algorithmic decision-making," and (5) "machine-based learning system or model." The phrase "arising out of" requires only a minimal causal connection. "In any way involving" is even broader. Finding any of these in an endorsement schedule requires reading the full operative clause to determine which coverage parts are affected.

Does an absolute AI exclusion remove coverage for employee misuse of AI?

Most current absolute AI exclusion language does not distinguish between autonomous AI decisions and employee misuse of AI tools. The ISO definition, read off CG 40 48 01 26 and CG 35 08 01 26, covers any machine-based learning system or model trained on data with the ability to create content, which includes mainstream assistants used by staff. If an employee uses one of those tools, produces a defamatory output, and that output causes a third-party claim, the exclusion applies even though the AI did not act autonomously. The key question is whether the loss "arose out of" the AI system, not whether the AI acted independently.

Can I negotiate an AI exclusion off my policy?

In some cases, yes. Buyers with documented AI governance programmes, named AI officers, board-level AI oversight, and a quantified AI risk register have successfully negotiated buyback endorsements reinstating coverage for defined losses. The negotiation is more viable for accounts with significant premium and for carriers that have not yet adopted the ISO standard forms. For SMEs, a specialist AI insurance product typically fills the gap more efficiently. Any buyback should be defined by form number, not by a general renewal letter description.

What survives an absolute AI exclusion?

Courts interpret exclusions narrowly and against the insurer. Three categories may survive: mixed claims where the complaint alleges both AI-related and non-AI wrongful acts that are independently actionable; claims where the causal connection to AI is too remote to satisfy the "arising out of" standard; and claims where the loss predates the endorsement's attachment date. What does not survive is a claim where AI is the primary cause, the loss occurs after attachment, and the complaint contains no non-AI allegations that could independently trigger coverage.

What is the difference between a silent AI policy and an explicit AI exclusion?

A silent AI policy neither grants nor excludes AI coverage, leaving claims in an ambiguous middle ground. An explicit AI exclusion resolves that ambiguity against the insured. Pressure to resolve silent AI exposure has produced the ISO forms and a wave of carrier-specific endorsements. For operators, a silent policy preserves the argument for coverage while an explicit exclusion eliminates it. A 2026 policy that remains silent should not be read as an affirmative grant of AI coverage: carriers are administering silent policies conservatively.

Related reading

• AI policy exclusions: what SME operators must review before renewing - the four exclusion types that matter most for AI agent operators, with worked examples from Moffatt v. Air Canada and Mata v. Avianca.
• Does my business insurance cover AI errors in 2026? - a coverage category map for CGL, cyber, E&O, and professional indemnity policies, with a plain-language guide to where AI agent risk currently sits.
• Does your insurance cover AI mistakes? - the foundational explainer on AI coverage gaps for operators new to the coverage question.
• The 90-day AI agent insurance compliance playbook - a sequenced action plan from coverage gap analysis to binding specialist cover, calibrated to the EU AI Act August 2026 deadline.
• Coverage Audit tool - a structured self-assessment that maps your current policy wording against the exclusion categories created by the ISO forms and produces a gap register for broker submission.