War-Risk, K&R, and What Underwriters Now Ask First

February 18, 2026

In 2026, “war-risk insurance” is no longer a box you tick after the fixture. It is a live commercial variable that moves with routing, port calls, ownership links, cargo, and even how your bridge team proves they are running the voyage. The market has also gotten less forgiving about assumptions: Red Sea and wider Middle East pricing has whipsawed with attack patterns and geopolitics, while Black Sea risk remains volatile and can reprice fast. That is why underwriters now start with a short set of first questions that are really about one thing: how predictable your exposure is, and how defensible your risk controls are if something happens.

War-Risk: What underwriters now ask first, and what moves premium and terms Focus: listed-area touchpoints, time in area, evidence packs, and clean charterparty allocation of additional premiums

#	Underwriting checkpoint	Asked first	Moves premium, deductible, or capacity	Evidence that helps your quote	Heat
1	Route and listed-area touchpoints Exact corridor exposure is priced, not the general trade.	Full voyage plan, waypoints, ports, anchorages, and any STS plans Intended Suez vs Cape decision logic and trigger points Expected dates and expected time in defined risk waters	Listed-area entry often shifts cover into additional premium rating per voyage Longer time in area increases exposure and can raise rate and deductible During escalations, quotes can reprice quickly and some markets pause new cover	One-page voyage risk assessment with routing rationale and go / no-go criteria Named decision owner and escalation chain (ship and shore) Security intelligence sources referenced (dated and saved)	High Fast moving
2	Insured value and exposure density Percent-of-value pricing can turn into real voyage money fast.	Declared value basis used for rating and any recent changes Vessel type, speed profile, and maneuverability assumptions Any recent incidents, detentions, or security events	Higher hull value increases absolute additional premium at the same rate Lower speed or planned slow transit can raise underwriting friction Loss history can reduce appetite or tighten terms	Updated vessel particulars and class status snapshot Prior voyages in corridor and a clean incident record summary Security hardening inventory (what is actually on board)	Medium Pricing
3	Onboard security posture Underwriters prefer repeatable procedures over vague intent.	Threat-specific measures: watches, hardening, access control, lighting Bridge roles and response plan for approach, harassment, and attack Whether guards are used where lawful, and how they are managed	Weak or inconsistent measures can drive exclusions, higher deductibles, or refusal Clear measures reduce unknowns and can improve quote confidence Unclear responsibilities between ship and shore create claims friction later	Security SOP excerpt aligned with BMP Maritime Security risk process Drill records, citadel readiness checks, medical contingency plan Security provider scope letter (if applicable)	High Operational
4	Reporting discipline and corridor coordination Structure matters before an incident, not after.	How your team monitors advisories and updates the plan during transit Who reports, when, and what proof exists of reporting actions Named shore support contacts reachable 24/7 during passage	Clean reporting and time-stamped logs improve defensibility in disputes Documented monitoring reduces the perception of unmanaged risk	Passage briefing memo and contact cards Position reporting log template and incident reporting template Post-voyage summary that matches what was declared at placement	Medium Defensible
5	AIS, comms, and track integrity Underwriters hate unexplained anomalies in hindsight.	AIS governance approach consistent with safety and the ship security plan Comms plan for transit phases and escalation steps How GNSS interference is handled, logged, and reported if encountered	Unexplained gaps or anomalies increase scrutiny and can harden terms Documented GNSS disruption response reduces safety and liability exposure Clean logs help prevent claims arguments over navigation decisions	Bridge orders for corridor transit phases Watchkeeping plan and call tree Template for recording interference events and immediate mitigations	Medium Safety
6	Cargo and sanctions sensitivity Sanctions controls influence appetite and claims certainty.	Cargo description, counterparties, and exposure narrative Sanctions screening process and who signs off Any flags that could raise targeting or detention concerns	Weak documentation can reduce capacity or add warranties Sanctions uncertainty increases perceived claims and reputational risk	One-page sanctions screening process summary and approval chain Counterparty snapshot and cargo clarity in the submission pack Charterparty language supporting refusal of unlawful orders	High Legal
7	Coverage boundaries and binding proof Most expensive mistake: sailing before additional cover is bound.	Does this transit require additional premium and an endorsement to bind? Any notice of cancellation provisions or corridor limitations in play? Who confirms binding authority and when?	If additional cover is not bound, exposure can sit outside what the team assumed During escalations, insurers may pause or tighten terms for specific voyages	One-page placement summary: hull, war, P&I, and any add-ons Pre-sail checklist signed by operations and insurance confirming binding Clear allocation of additional premiums under VOYWAR 2025 style language	High Critical
8	Price reference points underwriters recognize Rates often move as a percent of hull value, sometimes sharply.	What rate environment is the corridor in this week? Any recent incidents affecting appetite and pricing? Is market capacity normal, constrained, or paused?	Red Sea rates have shown rapid jumps after attacks, with examples of moving from about 0.3% to about 0.7% of ship value in short windows Black Sea premiums have also been reported spiking toward 1% during heightened threats Ceasefires or lulls can pull pricing down, but underwriters often frame it as a temporary pause	Submission pack that emphasizes time-in-area minimization and hard controls Consistent template across voyages so underwriters see repeatable governance Documented deviation triggers and charterparty cost allocation	Medium Market

K&R and Crew Risk in 2026 Underwriting focus is shifting toward detention scenarios, crisis response readiness, and proof that crew duty-of-care is operational, not theoretical

K&R discussions in shipping are less about classic long-hijack piracy and more about a broader crew exposure set: armed robbery escalation, coercion and extortion patterns, unlawful detention scenarios, and whether the company can manage an incident with clean communications, verified facts, and a credible crisis response provider. Underwriters increasingly price and structure K&R around the same question they apply to war-risk: is this voyage run in a way that reduces ambiguity when something goes wrong.

Higher incident volume reporting Detention and coercion scenarios Anchorage and chokepoint vulnerability Proof packs reduce friction

#	Crew exposure signal	Question that follows in underwriting	Controls that read as credible	Proof that helps you get a clean quote	Heat
1	High-frequency incident waters and chokepoints Not always hijack risk, often approach and boarding risk.	What is your incident prevention posture for the specific transit and waiting areas? How do you reduce time stationary and reduce easy boarding windows?	Passage plan that explicitly minimizes loitering, drift, and slow holding in exposed approaches Watchkeeping intensification and clear approach response drills Deck access control and lighting plan for night and low visibility periods	Voyage risk assessment that names the high-exposure windows and mitigations Drill records and posted bridge team call tree Company statement of security posture for anchorages and approaches	Medium Chokepoints
2	Extended anchorage or waiting at high-risk ports Crew vulnerability rises when routines become predictable.	How do you protect crew during prolonged stationary periods? What is the plan if intimidation escalates or a boarding attempt starts?	Anchorage security checklist (access points, patrol patterns, illumination) Bridge and deck watch roles with clear trigger thresholds for escalation Secure muster plan and communications discipline under stress	Anchorage plan attachment to voyage pack and signed bridge brief Onboard security equipment inventory and readiness checks Incident reporting template with timestamps and contacts	High Stationary
3	Detention and coercion narrative risk Underwriters treat detention as a crisis management test.	Who is responsible for crisis management if authorities board, detain, or seize? Is there a defined external response partner and a 24/7 escalation chain?	Named crisis response provider and internal crisis team roles Document control discipline: logs, comms, and evidence preservation Pre-agreed comms posture to avoid contradictory statements	Crisis plan summary with named roles and reachable numbers One-page communications plan and media escalation path List of documents to produce quickly during an encounter	High Detention
4	GNSS interference and navigation ambiguity Safety risk that can cascade into incident narratives.	How does the bridge team operate safely during GNSS disruption? How will you log and evidence navigation decisions if disputed later?	Bridge drills for GNSS loss and fallback navigation methods Clear logging discipline: what happened, when, and what was done Reporting to corridor reporting points where relevant	Drill log entries and standardized interference log template Passage plan note showing fallback nav approach and responsibilities Post-voyage report section on anomalies and mitigations	Medium Safety
5	Contractor and riding squad exposure Coverage disputes start with who was onboard and why.	Who is covered: crew only, plus supernumeraries, plus contractors? How are manifests controlled and verified during the voyage?	Strict control of onboard person lists and role definitions Clear rules for access, muster, and documentation for all personnel Alignment with agents and terminals on embark and disembark discipline	Standard onboard personnel manifest and change log Company policy on supernumeraries and contractors Defined coverage scope statements in placement pack	Medium Scope
6	Ambiguous counterparty or cargo story Uncertainty drives conservative terms in K&R placements.	Is this voyage exposed to heightened scrutiny that can trigger detention or coercion? Is there a sanctions screening process that is fast enough for voyage pace?	Voyage-based screening refresh before high-scrutiny corridors Escalation path for pause and verify decisions Internal alignment on refusal of unlawful orders	One-page screening process summary and approval chain Counterparty and cargo snapshot attached to submission Clear charterparty language on lawful orders and refusal rights	High Legal
7	Weak incident communications discipline Underwriters want fewer uncontrolled statements and fewer contradictions.	Who is authorized to communicate externally during an incident? How do you keep ship-to-shore reporting consistent and time-stamped?	Single communications lead and backup on shore Time-stamped incident log process and evidence preservation steps Clear guidance to the ship on who talks and who does not	One-page communications plan and incident log template Evidence pack checklist: photos, VDR markers, timestamps, statements Post-incident reporting workflow that matches insurer expectations	Medium Defensible
8	Unclear K&R structure within the insurance stack Most problems appear when K&R is assumed to do what war-risk or P&I actually does.	What is covered: ransom reimbursement, crisis response costs, detention, extortion, business interruption? What is excluded, sublimited, or requires additional premium?	Single-page coverage map showing hull, war, P&I, and K&R roles Pre-sail confirmation that any voyage triggers are addressed Clear internal understanding of who contacts the response firm first	Coverage map attachment in the submission pack Binding confirmation process and responsible person identified Short narrative explaining why K&R is included for this trade	High Coverage

The Underwriter First-Question Pack The fastest quotes come from submissions that remove ambiguity: route specifics, time-in-area, security posture, reporting discipline, sanctions clarity, and proof that additional cover is bound

Underwriters tend to ask the same questions in the same order because those questions predict two things: how likely an incident is, and how messy the claim will be if it happens. The goal of this section is not to “answer everything.” It is to help you build a one-page voyage submission that anticipates the first pass questions, so you get fewer follow-up loops and fewer last-minute surprises.

Reduce ambiguity Show governance Time-stamped proof Bind before sailing

What a “clean submission” usually looks like

1-page voyage sheet with route, dates, ports, waypoints, and time-in-area estimate
Risk narrative in plain language: why this route, why now, what triggers a change
Security posture summary that is specific, not generic
Reporting plan plus 24/7 contacts and escalation chain
Sanctions and counterparty clarity in a short attachment, signed off
Binding proof for any additional premium cover required

Where quotes slow down or harden terms

Route plan is vague, dates shift, or time-in-area is unknown
Security measures are described as “standard” without specifics
Anchorage, STS, or waiting plans are omitted
AIS or GNSS handling is unclear, leaving track disputes possible
Sanctions narrative is incomplete or counterparty chain is unclear
No one can prove additional cover was bound before transit

#	First-pass question	Why it is asked	What a strong answer looks like	Proof item that prevents follow-ups
1	What is the exact route, and what are the listed-area touchpoints? Include waypoints, ports, anchorages, and any drift or waiting plans.	Defines exposure boundaries and whether additional premium rating is triggered.	A clear voyage plan with dates, waypoints, ports, and a short sentence explaining why the corridor is being used now, plus triggers for routing change.	1-page voyage sheet with map-style waypoint list and time-in-area estimate.
2	How long will you be in the exposure zone, and how do you minimize time stationary? Time in area is a direct proxy for event probability.	Longer time-in-area and long anchor windows increase exposure and uncertainty.	A time-in-area estimate, plus a specific plan to avoid loitering: speed profile, arrival windows, anchorage posture, and fallback options.	Transit timeline page and anchorage plan checklist.
3	What is your security posture for this voyage? Underwriters prefer repeatable measures over general statements.	Security measures influence both incident likelihood and claims defensibility.	A concise list of measures tied to the corridor: watchkeeping changes, access control, lighting, bridge roles, drills, and response triggers.	Security posture one-pager and drill record excerpt.
4	Who monitors threat updates, and who makes the go or no-go call? Governance lowers the risk of unmanaged decisions.	Markets want a defined escalation chain, not a “captain decides alone” ambiguity.	Named decision owner, named backup, and a short list of triggers that force a call. Include shore support availability and response time.	Escalation chain card with contacts and trigger list.
5	How do you handle AIS, communications, and navigation anomalies? Track disputes and conflicting records are where claims get ugly.	Unexplained gaps and navigation ambiguity create dispute risk and harden terms.	A simple governance statement: how AIS decisions are controlled, how GNSS disruption is handled, and how everything is logged and time-stamped.	Bridge orders excerpt and standardized anomaly log template.
6	What is the cargo and counterparty story, and how is sanctions screening handled? Clarity reduces appetite risk and post-event disputes.	Sanctions uncertainty can reduce capacity or add restrictive warranties.	Cargo description, counterparties, and a plain-language screening summary: tools, cadence, approver, and pause-and-verify process.	One-page screening process summary with approval chain.
7	Is additional cover required, and can you prove it is bound before sailing? Most expensive failure mode is sailing on assumptions.	Binding proof separates “covered” from “assumed” and changes claim outcomes.	Clear statement of whether additional premium cover is required, who confirms binding, and a pre-sail checklist confirming it is completed.	Binding confirmation record and pre-sail sign-off checklist.
8	Who is on board, and what is the crisis response plan if crew risk escalates? K&R conversations are about readiness and control.	Defines duty-of-care readiness and reduces crisis missteps.	Controlled onboard manifest process, named crisis lead, 24/7 call tree, and a communications discipline plan for incidents and detention scenarios.	Crisis response summary and onboard personnel manifest template.
9	What is your evidence pack plan if there is an incident? Underwriters are pricing the future dispute, not just the event.	Proof quality impacts claims speed, recoveries, and disputes.	A standard pack prepared before transit: routing rationale, monitoring sources, logs, timestamps, roles, and what gets preserved immediately after an event.	Evidence pack checklist and post-voyage report template.
10	How are costs allocated between owner and charterer if the risk picture changes? Commercial disputes can become insurance disputes.	Clear allocation prevents last-minute conflict and off-hire arguments.	A short statement that the fixture defines who pays additional premium, how deviations are handled, and who authorizes route changes.	Extract of the relevant charterparty clauses and internal authority memo.

Underwriting Readiness Scorecard

Time in exposure zone

Route clarity

Security posture specificity

Monitoring and escalation chain

Sanctions and counterparty clarity

Binding proof for additional cover

Readiness

Score

This is a friction predictor: higher scores usually mean fewer follow-up questions and fewer last-minute term changes.

Top friction drivers to fix first

We welcome your feedback, suggestions, corrections, and ideas for enhancements. Please click here to get in touch.

By the ShipUniverse Editorial Team — About Us | Contact

Related Posts