Armilla AI

One of the things that makes AI risk fundamentally different from traditional technology risk is that AI systems change their behaviour over time. A software application does the same thing every time you run it. An AI model can drift. Its accuracy can degrade. Its outputs can shift as real-world data diverges from training data. This has profound implications for insurance. You can't write a static policy for a dynamic risk. The assessment you did at deployment isn't valid six months later. That's why Armilla's underwriting process includes ongoing technical evaluation. When we assess an AI model for insurance, we evaluated the system's architecture, monitoring capabilities, and resilience to drift. For enterprises: your customers need assurance that your AI works as intended, not just at launch, but over time. Insurance that understands this distinction is what separates purpose-built AI coverage from everything else. Case study: armilla.ai/resources/armi…

AI governance is becoming insurable. Here's what that actually means: Companies with documented AI governance frameworks (inventories, risk assessments, monitoring) can now get better insurance terms. Insurance creates a market incentive for governance. Better governance = lower premiums = lower cost of AI deployment. This creates a virtuous cycle: insurance drives governance, governance drives trust, trust drives adoption. The governance-insurance nexus is the most under-appreciated force in responsible AI. Armilla AI sits at the centre of it. Want to learn more? Let's talk. armilla.ai/contact-us

The coverage gap explained. What your existing insurance policies DON'T cover when it comes to AI: CYBER: Covers data breaches, network intrusions. Doesn't cover AI hallucinations, output errors, model drift. D&O: Covers board decisions. Doesn't clearly cover autonomous AI decisions made without human oversight. E&O: Covers professional errors. Doesn't cover AI-generated IP infringement or content liability. PRODUCT LIABILITY: Covers physical defects. Doesn't cover software output failures or algorithmic harm. The result: gaps right where AI risks concentrate. This is exactly why Vanguard AI exists, combining Armilla's AI Liability Insurance with Chaucer's Cyber and E&O into one comprehensive solution. Learn more: armilla.ai/resources/chau…

What Boeing and the 2008 financial crisis teach us about AI oversight: Both disasters involved private entities trusted to evaluate risk independently. Both failed because independence was compromised and oversight was under-resourced. Credit rating agencies were supposed to evaluate financial risk objectively. They didn't. The 2008 crisis followed. In the Boeing 737-MAX case, the oversight process broke down because the institutions meant to provide accountability couldn't keep pace with the complexity. As we build private governance mechanisms for AI (including insurance), these failures are essential lessons. Independence matters. Funding matters. Accountability matters. At Armilla AI, underwriting independence isn't a nice-to-have. It's foundational. We're rigorously assessing AI deployments, not rubber-stamping them. That's the only way market-based governance works. Want to chat? armilla.ai/contact-us

Most company execs deploying AI can't produce a complete list of what AI systems they have in production. If you can't inventory it, you can't govern it. If you can't govern it, you can't insure it. Step one isn't a policy document. It's a spreadsheet. This is the first thing we hear from brokers evaluating AI liability coverage for their clients. The companies that can answer the inventory question get better outcomes. The rest are guessing at their exposure.

AI insurance is following the same trajectory as cyber insurance. Armilla's February 2026 white paper with Lockton Re documents the parallel in detail. Here's the playbook, stage by stage: Stage 1: New tech creates risks that existing policies don't cover. (We're here.) Stage 2: Early losses force market recognition of coverage gaps. (Happening now.) Stage 3: Specialist insurers build purpose-built products. (That's Armilla AI.) Stage 4: Regulatory pressure makes coverage standard. Stage 5: The market matures into a multi-billion dollar line. The white paper makes a critical distinction: AI risks aren't a subset of cyber risks. They're a distinct and broader category. AI systems can cause harm without any breach occurring. They can degrade, drift, and underperform in ways that cyber policies were never designed to address. That distinction is why purpose-built AI insurance matters. Cyber coverage is necessary. It's not sufficient. Cyber went from $600M to $15B+ in 15 years. AI insurance will compress that timeline. The companies that defined early cyber insurance defined the market for a generation. That's the opportunity we're building for. Read the Lockton Re + Armilla white paper: global.lockton.com/re/en/news-ins…

Insurance will do more for AI safety than regulation alone. Here's why: Regulation is slow. Insurance prices risk in real time. Regulation sets floors. Insurance incentivizes best practices. Regulation reacts. Insurance anticipates. This isn't theoretical. It's exactly how insurance improved safety in automotive, aviation, healthcare, and cyber: faster and more effectively than regulation alone. AI insurance is the next guardrail. Unlike regulation, it's market-driven, adaptive, and already available. Read our blog on insurance as AI's next guardrail: armilla.ai/resources/the-…

Agentic AI is already sitting between your wallet and the internet. And almost nobody is talking about the liability implications. AI agents now browse the web, execute purchases, send emails, make financial decisions with minimal human oversight. When an AI agent makes a bad purchase, sends a harmful email, or executes a wrong transaction on your behalf, who's liable? The user? The AI developer? The platform? The company that deployed it? The legal frameworks aren't settled. But the deployments are already live. For AI SaaS providers and enterprises deploying agentic systems, this is an exposure that traditional insurance simply does not cover. Purpose-built AI liability insurance matters now more than ever. Armilla AI is building coverage that evolves with the technology. Let's talk. armilla.ai/contact-us

What if the answer to AI governance isn't more government regulation alone? Hadfield & Clark's "Regulatory Markets" paper proposes something different: instead of governments building AI expertise in-house (which has proven difficult across multiple sectors), create a competitive market of private AI regulators. These regulators would be licensed by governments, compete on governance quality, and be accountable for outcomes. Insurance fits naturally here. Insurers already evaluate risk, set standards, and create financial incentives for compliance. AI insurance is market-driven governance. The future of AI governance is probably not regulation OR markets. It's both, working together. Armilla AI sits at that intersection. TechUK explores similar themes: techuk.org/resource/ai-in…

Armilla AI offers up to $25M in limits per policyholder, backed by Lloyd's of London. Dedicated AI liability coverage at enterprise scale. Our insurance capacity partner ecosystem includes Chaucer Re, Axis Capital, and Convex Insurance. This is what the market has been asking for. Available now for companies domiciled in the US and Canada. FFNews: ffnews.com/newsarticle/in…

In 1982, Berliner published a framework for evaluating whether any risk is insurable. The Geneva Association applied it to generative AI. The results tell us exactly where AI insurance is headed: RANDOMNESS: AI losses aren't random. They can be systematic. This challenges traditional actuarial models but doesn't make AI uninsurable. It requires new modelling approaches. LOSS FREQUENCY: Data is sparse. Few historical claims exist. But mid-term frequency is expected to grow rapidly as deployment scales. INFORMATION ASYMMETRY: High. Insurers struggle to verify how companies manage AI risk. This is where governance and observability become critical for insurability. LEGAL PERMISSIBILITY: Evolving rapidly. AI-specific liability law is being written in real time, creating both risk and opportunity for insurers. Conclusion: AI is insurable, but only by insurers willing to build new frameworks. That's Armilla AI. Full report: genevaassociation.org/sites/default/…

The Geneva Association, one of the most respected research bodies in global insurance, recognized Armilla AI as a standalone AI insurance provider. Here's why that matters: @TheGenevaAssoc doesn't make casual endorsements. Their research shapes how the global insurance industry thinks about emerging risks. Being named in their Gen AI report alongside the analysis of AI insurability means the market recognizes that purpose-built AI insurance isn't a future concept. It's a present reality. The report applies Berliner's 1982 insurability framework to AI risks. The conclusion: AI is insurable, but requires new approaches. That's exactly what specialist insurers like Armilla bring. Not retrofitted cyber policies. Purpose-built AI liability coverage. Read the full report: genevaassociation.org/sites/default/…

TechUK's panel on AI insurance and assurance surfaced something most risk conversations miss: Insurance and assurance are not competing frameworks for managing AI risk. They're complementary, and you need both. Assurance tells you whether an AI system is working as intended. It covers testing, evaluation, auditing, and certification. It's the "is this system doing what it should?" question. Insurance tells you what happens financially when it doesn't. It covers output liability, performance degradation, third-party harm, and regulatory exposure. It's the "what are we on the hook for when something goes wrong?" question. Most enterprises deploying AI today have invested in neither adequately. They have AI ethics policies but no assurance programs. They have cyber coverage but no AI-specific liability protection. The @techUK panel explored how these two mechanisms reinforce each other. At Armilla, our underwriting process is built on exactly this insight: we assess the assurance and governance frameworks in place before we write a policy. Better assurance leads to better coverage terms. Better coverage creates incentives for better assurance. It's a virtuous cycle. And it starts with asking the right questions about both. TechUK panel on AI insurance and assurance: techuk.org/resource/ai-in…

MKIII, an AI-powered fintech platform, needed assurance that their AI models were performing as intended. Armilla ran an independent assessment of their model. Based on that assessment, MKIII purchased an AI Performance Warranty from Armilla, backed by Swiss Re. This is a new category of AI coverage. It doesn't just cover catastrophic failure. It guarantees a standard of AI model performance over time. If the AI doesn't deliver, the warranty covers the gap. For AI SaaS providers and enterprises, the AI Performance Warranty provides a powerful trust signal: "Our AI is independently assessed and performance-guaranteed." armilla.ai/resources/armi…

Independent research into the AI insurance market has found something that should concern every CFO and risk manager deploying AI: The supply of AI-specific insurance is not keeping pace with the demand. Most insurers are doing one of three things: avoiding AI risks entirely, attaching limited AI endorsements to existing cyber or E&O policies, or writing exclusions to protect themselves from exposure they don't know how to price. The result is a market where companies carrying real AI liability often have no meaningful coverage. Research examining the "Who Insures AI" question found that standalone AI insurance providers, those willing to write dedicated AI liability coverage rather than retrofit existing products, remain rare. The few that exist are operating in a market where demand is high and supply is genuinely thin. That's the gap Armilla AI was built to fill. Lloyd's-backed, purpose-built, with up to $25M in limits per policyholder. Available now for companies in the US and Canada. If your clients are deploying AI without purpose-built coverage, they're carrying exposure their current program wasn't designed to handle. openreview.net/pdf?id=YOBJIwQ…

Cyber insurance took 15 years to go from niche curiosity to $15B+ market. AI insurance won't take nearly that long. Here's why: AI adoption is faster. Enterprise AI deployment is accelerating across every industry simultaneously. The exposure is growing in real time. Losses are materializing earlier. AI-related lawsuits, regulatory actions, and financial losses are already happening, not in 5 years, but now. Regulatory pressure is building faster. The EU AI Act, state-level legislation, and sector-specific rules are creating compliance obligations that require insurance. The demand signal is stronger. 90% of businesses want GenAI coverage. 2/3 will pay more. The market pull is there. We've seen this movie before. The ending is the same: AI insurance becomes a standard line of commercial coverage. The only question is timing. Armilla AI is building now. Lloyd's-backed, purpose-built, available for companies domiciled in the US and Canada. deloitte.com/us/en/insights…

Your cyber insurance policy has an AI-shaped hole in it. Here's what it doesn't cover: AI hallucinations that give customers wrong advice? Not covered. AI-generated content that infringes copyright? Not covered. Model drift that degrades decision quality over months? Not covered. Autonomous AI decisions that cause financial harm? Coverage unclear at best. AI agent executing unauthorized transactions? Good luck with your claim. These aren't edge cases. These are the core risk surfaces of modern AI deployment. And they're sitting completely uninsured for most companies. Purpose-built AI liability coverage fills these gaps. Vanguard AI combines our AI Liability Insurance with Chaucer's Cyber and E&O, is designed specifically for this. Check your policy. Then check in with us. Forbes: "AI Gone Wrong: Now There's Insurance for That" forbes.com/sites/ronschme…

Governance isn't a drag on AI innovation. It's the thing that makes AI actually deployable at enterprise scale. We keep hearing from AI teams that governance slows them down. Here's what slows them down: blocked deployments because the CFO can't quantify the exposure. Pulled products because legal flagged liability. Board pushback because no one can answer the risk question. Good governance answers all of those objections. It creates the visibility, accountability, and risk frameworks that let organizations say "yes" to AI instead of "not yet." And here's the link most people miss: governance directly affects insurability. Better governance = better coverage terms = lower cost of risk = faster deployment. This is what we see every day talking to brokers and risk teams. The companies with the strongest governance get the best insurance outcomes. Want to know how your AI governance practice can earn you better insurance terms? Let's talk. armilla.ai/contact-us

Vanguard AI brings together Armilla's AI Liability Insurance with Chaucer's Cyber and E&O coverage into one comprehensive solution. Instead of piecing together separate policies and hoping the gaps are covered, Vanguard AI provides purpose-built protection across the full spectrum of AI risk. Output liability, model performance, data security, professional errors: all under one roof. Armilla's deep expertise in AI risk assessment combined with Chaucer's underwriting strength in the Lloyd's market means businesses get coverage that actually understands AI. If you're a broker advising clients on AI exposure, or a CFO evaluating your risk program, Vanguard AI is purpose-built for this moment. More details: armilla.ai/resources/chau…

5 data points from 5 different sources that prove AI insurance is no longer optional: 1. AI premiums projected to reach $4.8B by 2032 (Deloitte). This isn't a niche market. It's a multi-billion dollar inevitability. deloitte.com/us/en/insights… 2. The Lloyd's Market Association's AI Exposures Survey found AI-related risk already appearing across professional indemnity, cyber, and product liability lines. Underwriters are encountering it whether they've priced for it or not. lmalloyds.com/campaigns/unde… 3. Forbes headline: "AI Gone Wrong: Now There's Insurance for That." When mainstream business media frames it this way, enterprise procurement teams start asking their brokers about it. forbes.com/sites/ronschme… 4. Inc. covered how companies are already using insurance to cover the costs of AI mistakes. The claims aren't hypothetical. They're happening. inc.com/kit-eaton/arti… 5. TechUK's panel on AI insurance and assurance concluded that neither governance frameworks nor financial protection alone is sufficient. Both are necessary, and most organizations have neither.techuk.org/resource/ai-in… Armilla AI is purpose-built for this moment. Up to $25M in limits per policyholder. Available for companies in the US and Canada.