Denmark is primarily a civil law country and the major piece of legislation for insurance in Denmark is the Danish Insurance Contracts Act, which mainly governs the relationship between the insurer and the insured. However, the Insurance Contracts Act is heavily supplemented by case law and Danish insurance law today is a combination of statutory regulation, case law, and general contracts and tort law.

The Danish insurance market is widely regulated; however, no explicit statutory rules apply to reinsurance. With regard to reinsurance, an analogy of the Insurance Contracts Act is applied alongside general contract law.

The Danish Financial Business Act is the main piece of legislation regarding the rules for establishing and carrying out insurance business, along with a number of other acts governing financial business in Denmark (eg, the Danish AML Act, the Danish Companies’ Act and the Danish Marketing Practices Act).

The Danish Insurance Mediation Act, which implements the EU Directive 2006/97 on Insurance Distribution, regulates insurance brokers and other intermediaries that distributes insurance commercially.

Moreover, the Brussels I Regulation’s rules on jurisdiction for insurance contracts also apply in Denmark.

In addition to case law and the above-mentioned statutes, insurance and reinsurance will also rely on administrative practice (especially from the Insurance Complaints Board) and preparatory legislative works.

Insurance and reinsurance companies are part of the financial market in Denmark, which is supervised by the Danish Financial Supervisory Authority (the FSA).

The FSA supervises and monitors the financial market in Denmark and has the authority to issue orders and report issues if an insurance or reinsurance company does not comply with the Danish Financial Business Act. Moreover, the FSA may report companies to the police if they do not comply with the Financial Business Act. The FSA further monitors compliance with AML regulation. Violation may result in fines or up to four months’ imprisonment.

Insurance and reinsurance contracts activities can only be carried out after an authorisation given by the FSA. Companies and persons that carry out insurance and/or reinsurance contracts activities are required to register in a publicly available register controlled by the FSA.

Generally, the requirements for establishing an insurance company in Denmark are the same for all types of insurance products. Special additional requirements apply to life insurance companies and to motor insurance companies.

Similarly, the requirements for writing insurance are the same for all types of insurances. Special information duties and limitations apply when entering into consumer insurance contracts, which are subject to certain consumer protection laws. In the case of life insurance, limitations apply to insurance contracts for third parties.

As mentioned in 2.1 Insurance and Reinsurance Regulatory Bodies and Legislative Guidance, it requires an authorisation from the FSA to write insurance and reinsurance business in Denmark. Authorisation is given upon an application to the FSA, which must set out a plan of business and operation for the insurance company. The FSA has the authority to establish the rules for the application and the application process. The requirement to obtain an authorisation applies to all insurers.

Furthermore, the Danish Financial Business Act stipulates certain requirements to the insurer’s and reinsurer’s capital, organisation and solvency. The requirements depend on which group the insurer or reinsurer belongs to. Group 1 consists of companies that meet the listed requirements on, among other things, their gross annual income. Group 2 consists of all companies not included in group 1.

Generally, the minimum capital requirement must not be less than 25% or more than 45% of the insurer’s or reinsurer’s solvency capital requirement.

The board of directors and the executive board of group 1 companies have a responsibility to make sure that the company has sufficient capital to cover the minimum capital requirement.

The solvency requirements for group 2 companies depend on which activity they carry out. The board of directors and the executive board of group 2 companies have a responsibility to make sure that there are sufficient capital to cover all the company’s insurance obligations at all times.

The insurance company must pay tax on non-life insurances in certain circumstances.

However, some insurance products are exempt from taxation. Workers’ compensation insurance and reinsurance are examples of exemptions.

The insurance premium is not subject to VAT.

The requirements described in 2.2 The Writing of Insurance and Reinsurance also apply to foreign insurance and reinsurance companies.

Companies outside the EU and European Economic Area (EEA) need to establish a branch or a company in Denmark and obtain an authorisation from the FSA to undertake insurance and reinsurance business in Denmark. As a result of Brexit, UK-based insurance and reinsurance companies are subject to these rules as well.

Companies in the EU may carry out insurance and reinsurance business in Denmark without an authorisation from the FSA, if the company already has been granted an authorisation from its home country. The companies will have to notify the FSA who, in turn, will obtain proof of solvency, proof of authorisation, etc, from the home country. The foreign insurer will be subject to the same rules as Danish insurers regarding good business practices, consumer protection regulation, the Insurance Contracts Act, etc.

Fronting is permitted in Denmark and the cedant takes no risk. Fronting normally comes with a fronting fee, which is individually agreed between the parties.

The M&A market in Denmark has been quiet in relation to insurance companies for a long period of time. However, in recent years there have been a couple of M&A activities relating to insurance companies.

In 2018 the largest Danish insurance company, Tryg Insurance, acquired Alka Insurance. Up until May 2022, there had not been any mergers or acquisitions since 2018. In May 2022 Alm. Brand Insurance acquired Codan Insurance for DKK12.6 billion (approximately GBP1.5 billion) and thereby became the second-largest insurance company in Denmark, just behind Tryg. Whether there will be further consolidation on the Danish insurance market is difficult to predict.

Both insurance brokers, agents and bancassurance brokers are active in the Danish insurance market. All insurance intermediaries must obtain a licence from the FSA in order to sell or convey commercial insurance products. The Danish Insurance Distribution Act, which governs insurance distribution in Denmark, is – to a large extent – an implementation of the Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (the “EU Insurance Distribution Directive”).

The FSA issues a licence for insurance distribution when, inter alia, the following basic conditions are met: 

• the company is registered in Denmark;
• members of management comply with the “fit-and-proper” rules, which include requirements concerning knowledge, reliability, responsibility and integrity;
• the company has a liability insurance or another equivalent guarantee against claims for damages; and
• the company has taken measures to protect customers against the company’s inability to pay.

Ancillary insurance products are widely used in Denmark as a supplement to services or goods, such as insurance for electronic products or luggage. Intermediaries who distribute such insurance products are exempt from the licence requirement, but must still be registered with the FSA.

The general rules of the parties’ obligations when entering into an insurance contract are set out in the Insurance Contracts Act. In respect of consumer insurance, the Danish consumer protection laws supplement the Insurance Contracts Act.

An insurance contract is usually initiated by an insurance application or through an insurance broker. The insured usually completes a questionnaire issued by the insurer containing information about the insured and the risk the insurer would be undertaking. The insurer then makes an offer of insurance or denies the application based on the information provided. Except for mandatory insurances (eg, third-party liability motor insurances), the insurance companies are not obligated to write insurances.

The Duties of the Insured

The insured is obliged to loyally provide correct and complete information to the insurer. However, when the contract is initiated by an insurance application, the insured’s obligation does not expand further than to loyally provide correct and complete answers to the insurer’s questions and the insured only has a duty to reply. There is no obligation to provide further information beyond that requested by the insurer.

If the insured fraudulently provides false information, fraudulently fails to disclose information, or in any other way misrepresents during the contract negotiation the insurance contract will be deemed null and void.

The Duties of the Insurer

Insurers do not have an obligation to actively seek verification of the accuracy of the information provided by the insured. However, insurers cannot assert that the information given is incorrect, if they ‒ at the time the contract is issued ‒ knew or ought to have known that the information was incorrect. This implies an obligation for the insurer to actively seek clarification on the correct information when it is suspected that incorrect or incomplete information has been given.

It is not uncommon that bigger companies are represented by an insurance broker who designs the insurance package (or even writes the terms) and issues them for tender between insurers. In such cases, the insurance contract will ‒ to a large extent ‒ be based on the tender provided by the broker and and thus, in turn, the insured.

The insurer is obliged to provide a wide range of information to the consumer before a consumer insurance contract is concluded. This includes information on the insurer’s right of withdrawal, as well as extensive information about the company and the price and conditions of the insurance.

Generally, insurers in Denmark have become more and more aware of collecting extensive risk information from the insured. This might entail a greater responsibility for the insured to provide accurate risk information.

Consequences of the Insured’s Fraudulence

If the insured fraudulently provides incorrect information or fails to disclose facts of importance during the negotiation of the insurance contract, the contract is not binding upon the insurance company and will be deemed null and void.

Consequences of the Insured’s Negligence

If the insured provides incorrect information or fails to disclose facts of importance by negligence, the insurance company will only be liable on a pro rata basis calculated based on the premium. The insurer must document what premium they would have claimed had the correct facts been known and the insurance claim is calculated on this basis.

Would the insurer presumably not have offered insurance to the insured had the correct information been disclosed, the insurer is exempt from liability.

If the insured did not know or could not have been expected to know that information provided by them was incorrect, the insurer is liable to the same extent as they would be had no incorrect information been given.

It is not uncommon for intermediaries to be involved in the negotiation of insurance contracts. The most common intermediary is the insurance broker, who acts on behalf of the insured. The Danish Insurance Distribution Act specifically states that insurance brokers act on behalf of their customers and may not receive remuneration from insurers.

The Danish Insurance Distribution Act, which – to a large extent – implements the EU Insurance Distribution Directive, regulates insurance intermediaries and insurance distribution. The FSA is responsible for monitoring insurance brokers and intermediaries and issues licences for same.

The Insurance Distribution Act sets out several requirements for intermediaries. They must have sufficient professional liability insurance, they must be registered with the FSA, they must adhere to the fit-and-proper requirements and must comply with various disclosure duties vis-à-vis the FSA. Finally, the intermediary must have general knowledge of insurance mediation and distribution and must ensure that its employees have proper training in insurance distribution on a general level and sufficient training in the specific products that the company distributes.

There are no formal requirements in the Insurance Contracts Act for the format of the insurance contract in general, nor a requirement for it to be concluded in writing. However, the insurer will typically issue a policy confirming the insurance contract containing the terms of the insurance. There is no legal obligation to do so, but an obligation to issue a policy may arise from custom in certain industries.

For some types of insurance products however, certain requirements do exist.

Consumer Insurance Contracts

The Insurance Contracts Act sets out certain mandatory rules that apply to consumer insurance contracts.

The provisions herein state that consumers must receive clear written information on the right of withdrawal. This information must be received before or together with the other insurance terms. For consumer contracts initiated through a remote sale, the required information by the insurer mentioned in 6.2 Failure to Comply with Obligations of an Insurance Contract must be provided to the consumer “on paper or on other durable medium” before the contract is concluded and the consumer can at any point require the insurance terms on paper.

Non-Life Insurance (Property Insurance)

Any legitimate interest that can be valued in money can be subject to non-life insurance, according to the Insurance Contracts Act. The insurable interest must be present at the time of the occurrence of the insurance event. It is thus not a requirement that the interest is present when the insurance contract is concluded. The line between a legitimate interest and an illegitimate interest is not perfectly clear; however, as a general rule, it is not possible to ensure the interest to avoid criminal liability.

The fact that the interest must be measurable in money entails non-economic interests, such as the sentimental value of an object, cannot be insured under a non-life insurances. The interest must be measurable according to an objective monetary measure.

Insurance of Fixed Sums (Life and Personal Injury Insurance Primarily)

The legitimate insurable interest requirement only applies to non-life insurances. It is therefore possible to conclude a life or personal injury insurance contract or insurance for accidents or sickness without an insurable interest. In order to avoid speculation in the death of a third party, the Financial Business Act prohibits insurers from signing insurance contracts in which it undertakes a duty to pay an amount exceeding the paid premiums for the death of a third party without said third party’s consent. Such a requirement does not exist for insurance of a third party’s personal injury insurance.

Multiple parties can be beneficiaries under an insurance contract without being named. The requirements for such insurance contracts are the same as listed earlier. For property insurance, the general statutory rule is that – unless there is a named beneficiary – the insurance is written for the benefit for anyone who either owns the piece of the property, a mortgagee or other with a property right to it.

Among others, D&O insurances may cover the “board of executives” or “the management” without naming each individual. Professional liability insurances also cover unnamed insureds and, in car insurances, the insurance also normally covers unnamed sub-contractors.

Each insured/covered under such insurance will be identified with the individual negotiating the contract, however. This entails that any wrongful information provided, or any misrepresentation, will affect all insured notwithstanding their own good faith.

For consumer contracts, reference is generally made to 6.1 Obligations of the Insured and Insurer and 6.4 Legal Requirements and Distinguishing Features of an Insurance Contract on the insurer’s duty to provide the consumer with certain information.

In addition, consumer contracts are subject to the general Danish consumer protection laws (eg, the Marketing Practises Act).

Consumers can complain to the Insurance Complaints Board if they have a dispute with their insurer concerning payment of insurance claims.

Alternative risk transfers (ARTs) have not reached the Danish insurance market as of yet. For this reason, there is no legislation regulating this type of insurance for the time being.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this issue has not been raised and therefore no position has been taken at this time.

Insurance contracts are interpreted in the same way as any other contracts.

The provisions of an insurance contract are subject to a strict interpretation of the wording. If the wording is unclear, the interpretation will be based on a natural understanding of the language in the provision together with the other provisions and the circumstances under which the insurance contract was conducted.

When interpreting unclear wording in standard insurance contracts drafted by the insurer the interpretation that is most unfavourable to the insurer will generally be chosen. However, the purpose of the agreement must still be taken into consideration. As mentioned in 6.1 Obligations of the Insured and Insurer, it is not uncommon that larger insurance schemes are drafted by an insurance broker and sent to insurers on a tender basis. In such cases any unclear terms will ‒ to a larger extent ‒ be interpreted against the broker (and thus the insured).

As regards consumer contracts, the rules of interpretation are more favourable to the consumer. A clear example is that events occurred after the conclusion of the contract cannot be used to the detriment of the consumer.

The parties are free to determine which evidence should be considered when interpreting an insurance contract. However, the court may preclude evidence with no significance to the case. Generally, notes from meetings, minutes of meetings, and emails from the negotiation phase are all admissible evidence when interpreting an insurance contract. Moreover, market practices, case law and standard insurance products are also used when interpreting insurance contracts.

Warranties are treated and interpreted no differently than other contractual terms.

Condition precedents are treated as other contractual terms. Condition precedents will normally be singled out and stated as such, but it is not a firm requirement that they be. There is a distinction in the Insurance Contracts Act between condition precedents for cover and safety measures that need to be in place in order to grant insurance cover. Whereas condition precedents for cover need to be in place at the time of occurrence for cover to activate, condition precedents for certain safety measures would need to have prevented the occurrence had they been adhered to (causation). In practice this means that, even if the insured needs to undertake certain safety measures (eg, keep a fully functioning fire prevention system), the insurer will still be liable for cover if the occurrence could not have been prevented despite the safety measure being in place – for example, where a truck hit the house and there was no fire.

The Insurance Contracts Act contains a number of statutory condition precedents that primarily require the insured to notify the insurer of an occurrence without undue delay.

There is no specialised insurance court in Denmark and insurance disputes are largely handled by the general courts. However, some insurance contracts contain an arbitration clause requiring specific insurance disputes to be settled by arbitration. A consumer is not bound by an arbitration agreement unless it was agreed to after the dispute arose. Arbitration clauses regarding insurance disputes are relatively common in Denmark, especially in matters within reinsurance, and are widely used in warranty and indemnity insurance and other corporate insurances.

Disputes concerning insurance coverage between a consumer and an insurer are dealt with both by the courts and by the Insurance Complaints Board. The latter is often preferred, owing to shorter case handling time and lower litigation costs.

The Insurance Complaints Board

A complaint with the board has to be initiated by the consumer.

Decisions from the Insurance Complaints Board are not binding on the consumer and do not preclude subsequent court proceedings, nor is a complaint to the board a prerequisite for subsequent court proceedings.

In addition to disputes between consumers and insurers, the board is also competent to handle all complaints relating to motor insurance and to rule in insurance disputes between professional parties, provided that the matter is not essentially different from private insurance matters.

The Limitation Period

The general limitation period is three years under the Danish Limitation Act. The limitation period will commence at the earliest point in time at which the claimant could demand satisfaction of the claim.

The Limitation Act is supplemented by special limitation provisions in the Insurance Contracts Act, according to which the limitation period for personal injury claims is extended to ten years. Upon filing of an insurance claim, the limitation will be suspended until at least one year after the insurer’s full or partial rejection of the claim. Negotiations between the insurer and the insured similarly suspend the limitation period until one year after the negotiations have ended.

The court will then either proceed with the case, refer it to the right forum or dismiss the case entirely.

If the court has assumed jurisdiction, then the defendant will have to challenge jurisdiction either in their defence or during the first case management conference at the latest. Failure to challenge jurisdiction in the defence or at the case management conference will preclude the defendant from challenging jurisdiction at a later stage. If jurisdiction is challenged, the court will normally schedule an interim hearing on jurisdiction before proceeding with the case on the merits.

The Danish Administration of Justice Act governs the rules of jurisdiction together with the Brussels I Regulation. Denmark is not party to the Rome I and II Regulations and thus the Rome Convention applies in Denmark with regard to choice of law for contractual obligations.

If the parties have opted for arbitration, the choice of law will be determined in accordance with the applicable rules for arbitration – unless the parties have opted for a specific choice of law.

Denmark is generally a favourable jurisdiction for litigation. The courts are efficient and fast, and the court process is transparent.

The litigation process consists of an oral hearing that ranges from half a day up to several weeks – although most oral hearings are conducted in a single full court day – and a pre-hearing phase.

The litigation proceedings are commenced by filing a writ of summons with the relevant city court (or, in some cases, the Maritime and Commercial Court) through an online joint court portal. There is a fixed fee of DKK1,500 for filing a writ of summons. The courts will ensure that the writ is properly served on the defendant(s) and will set a deadline for the defendant to submit a statement of defence.

Following the submittance of the statement of defence, the court will call for a case management conference. The case management conference is normally done by telephone and will set out how the proceedings will move forward, the date of the hearing, the need for expert evidence, etc. Depending on the subject matter and complexity of the case, the court and parties may have several case management conferences.

During the pre-hearing phase the parties are generally free to submit evidence and pleadings as they deem necessary up until a cut-off date by which the pre-hearing phase ends (normally four weeks before the hearing). It is generally not possible to submit new evidence or new arguments after the cut-off date.

During the pre-hearing phase the court may rule on procedural questions and may even schedule part-hearings (on jurisdiction, statute of limitation, choice of law, etc). Depending on the decision in question, the decision may either be directly appealed or leave to appeal will have to be granted through the special Appeal Permission Board.

Before the oral hearing, the court will normally ask the parties to provide skeleton arguments outlining the arguments they wish to rely on during the oral hearing. Moreover, the claimant will be asked to provide a bundle of evidence that has been agreed to by the defendants. The parties are furthermore free to submit bundles of the evidence they expect to rely on during the oral hearing.

Prior to the oral hearing, a listing fee becomes due. The listing fee is calculated on the basis of the monetary claim in question and ranges from DKK3,000 to a maximum of DKK160,000. Court fees and listing fees are recoverable should the claimant prevail in their claim.

The courts generally have up to four weeks to render a judgment.

All cases commence in the city courts or with the Maritime and Commercial Court. During the pre-hearing phase, parties may request the court to refer the case to the High Courts. The High Courts will decide whether to admit the case in first instance.

All judgments rendered by the courts in first instance are appealable to a higher court. Third-instance appeals to the Supreme Courts require the permission from the Appeals Permission Board.

Judgments are enforceable 14 days after being rendered. The losing party may suspend their duty to pay by appealing within the 14-day enforcement deadline.

Domestic judgments can be enforced through the bailiff’s court. The bailiff’s court is a subdivision under each of the city courts. An enforcement application can be submitted once the time limit for execution has lapsed, and the bailiff’s court will assist in enforcing the claim.

The bailiff’s court has various measures available when assisting in enforcing a judgment, including levying of attachment or execution, forced sale, and arrest.

The general rule under the Danish Administration of Justice Act is that foreign judgments are not enforceable in Denmark. However, in practice there are several important exceptions to this rule. Denmark is party to the Brussels I Regulation, the Lugano Convention and the Hague Choice of Court Convention, which are all implemented in Danish law by the Danish Act on Recognition and Enforcement of certain foreign judgments (the “Enforcement Act”). This entails that judgments from EU member states, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland are generally recognised and enforceable in Denmark. Please note that, following Brexit, the UK is no longer party to the Brussels I Regulation and the UK is not yet a party to the Lugano Convention. The UK became a party to the Hague Choice of Court Convention in 2021 and, consequently, judgments rendered by a UK court that are covered by the HCCC are enforceable in Denmark ‒ but, otherwise, they are not.

The procedure for enforcing foreign judgments is generally the same as for domestic judgments. However, judgments covered by the HCCC and the Lugano Convention must be declared enforceable by the bailiff’s court before they can be enforced (the exequatur procedure).

Judgments not covered by the Enforcement Act (in practice, the conventions mentioned in the Act) are neither recognised nor enforceable in Denmark. Consequently, a party wishing to enforce a foreign judgment in Denmark must obtain a Danish judgment on recognition of the foreign judgment. Such a judgment of recognition may potentially require a full Danish court hearing on the merits of the case, including witness testimonies, submission of evidence and an oral hearing.

Denmark is party to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (the “New York Convention”) and thus the Danish courts generally recognise and enforce arbitration clauses by dismissing the case should it be governed by an arbitration clause.

However, if a case has been commenced before the courts and one party alleges that the matter is subject to an arbitration clause, the courts will rule on jurisdiction before referring the matter to arbitration (albeit only prior to commencement of arbitration). The court may also order interim measures or assist in enforcement.

As mentioned in 9.5 The Enforcement of Arbitration Clauses, Denmark is party to the New York Convention and awards rendered in countries party to the convention are immediately enforceable in Denmark. In addition, arbitration in Denmark is governed by the Danish Arbitration Act (which, to a great, extent follows the 1985 UNCITRAL Model Law), according to which foreign awards are recognised irrespective of whether the award was rendered in a contracting state to the New York Convention.

Enforcement of an arbitral award may be refused owing to the reasons listed in Section 39 of the Danish Arbitration Act. The grounds for refusal are equivalent to the grounds listed in the Article V of the New York Convention and the UNCITRAL Model Law’s Section 36.

Enforcement of arbitral awards otherwise follows the rules for enforcement of foreign judgments.

Litigation and arbitration are the overriding means of dispute resolution involving insurance claims in Denmark. Arbitration is more used for reinsurance claims than for ordinary claims.

Mediation and negotiation do not – at least, as yet do not – play any notable role when it comes to resolving insurance disputes in Denmark. Although the courts may offer mediation, they cannot force the parties to mediate or negotiate.

Pursuant to the Danish Insurance Contracts Act, the insurer must pay out the claim 14 days after it was possible to obtain the information and evidence necessary in order to assess the claim and calculate the claim.

The insured is entitled to interest on the insurance claim from the point that the insurer was obligated to pay out the claim. Interests are calculated on the basis of the Danish Interest Act. The interest rate on claims due to late payments is the official lending rate of the Danish National Bank plus 8%.

Theoretically, the insured may claim additional damages for the insurers delay of payment under the general rules on liability in damages. However, the Danish “shortage of funds” doctrine – by which the injured party’s lack of funds or access to funds does not in itself create liability for the tortfeasor – limits the access significantly.

Punitive damages are not available in Denmark.

The insurer generally subrogates in the insured’s claim against the tortfeasor upon payment of the claim, with a few limitations. The subrogation right is statutory and no letter of subrogation or other documentation for the subrogation is required.

For claims that are covered by a property insurance or loss of profit insurance, the insurer does not subrogate in the claim against the tortfeasor if the tortfeasor is a private individual.

Further, the insurer subrogates in the rights of the insured with the limitations of the insured’s rights as well. A tortfeasor may invoke any defences against the subrogated insurer that the tortfeasor could invoke against the insured, notwithstanding any insurance payout.

Finally, the insurer does not subrogate in claims paid out under a life insurance, personal injury insurance or other personal insurance, or if the parties have entered into non-recourse terms in the insurance contract.

App-based insurance products continue to make their way into the Danish insurance market.

One example is the Swedish insurance company Hedvig Försäkring AB, which established a Danish branch in 2021. The company offers home, travel, accident and housing insurance, as well as a separate insurance package for students. Insurance claims are primarily processed through the Hedvig mobile app, which by their own admission has an average claims processing time of six minutes – the fastest recorded processing time was only 195 seconds. The insurance product appeals mostly to a younger demographic, owing to the digital solutions.

A similar app-based insurance company, Undo, has been established in the Danish market for some years now. Older and well-established insurers like IF Insurance have also started to move in a more digital direction by introducing app-based solutions. This could indicate that a generational shift is underway in the Danish insurance industry, as it moves away from traditional ways of doing insurance business towards more digital solutions.

There are as of now no specific regulations applying to insurtech issues. App-based insurances and other insurtech products are subject to the same rules as conventional insurance.

Cyber-risk continues to be a risk that both insureds and insurers have focus on. Insurers who underwrite cyber-risk insurance are requiring insureds to undertake heavier measures to prevent phishing, hacking, ransomware attacks, etc. Most insurers will require an insured to document what countermeasures they take in order to prevent cyber-attacks and will make countermeasures a conditions precedent for cover.

Cyber-risks and other emerging/new risks are often excluded from the standard insurance products and will often need to be covered by specific insurance products covering these risks.

Moreover, more insurers are offering “cyber forensic teams” and training to insureds as part of the cyber cover.

New products are constantly being developed to counter cyber-risk. As mentioned in 11.1 Emerging Risks Affecting the Insurance Market, insurers are now also offering additional services to high-risk insureds in order to counter cyber-attacks.

There have been some cases regarding insurance cover arising from COVID-19. The cases have, among other things, concerned the extent to which there is cover for interruptions caused by COVID-19 under normal business interruption clauses (eg, traffic congestion or supply chain breakdowns). Moreover, the cases have concerned the question of “occurrences” in the context of COVID-19 (both with regard to deductibles as well as payment of claims subject to a limit).

There has been no legislative response in relation to insurance cover of COVID-19; however, most insurers have either excluded or limited the pandemic cover to certain amounts.

There have not been any significant legislative or regulatory developments within the insurance and reinsurance industry in 2022.