Skip to content
You can now search across every topic, entity and event.What's new
Iran Conflict 2026
3SEP

Cover cancelled, rebought in three days

2 min read
16:40UTC

Twelve P&I clubs cancelled their regional war-risk extensions after reinsurers pulled their backing, then arranged replacement cover within three days, Lloyd's List reported on 18 August.

ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

War-risk cover returned within three days at a price set by a week of bad data.

Twelve leading P&I clubs (Protection and Indemnity mutuals, which carry a shipowner's third-party liabilities) cancelled their ancillary regional war-risk extensions after reinsurers, the insurers who take slices of rare catastrophic risk off other insurers, withdrew their backing. The clubs then arranged replacement buyback cover, war-risk insurance repurchased at current market prices, within three days. Lloyd's List reported the sequence in its daily briefing on 18 August 1.

The cancelled class covers specialist war-risk liabilities rather than core Protection and Indemnity, which remained available throughout. Any account of Gulf shipping as uninsured overstates it. The same briefing recorded three ADNOC vessels targeted in the preceding week.

One reading has an insurance market behaving exactly as designed: cover withdrawn the moment the reinsurance layer vanished, cover repurchased at a fresh price seventy-two hours later. The other reading follows a single owner through the week, from continuous cover, to a lapsed policy, to a repriced one. Nobody budgets for that middle stage, and neither reading can be settled from outside the market.

What can be examined is the material the underwriter had when setting the new price. Pricing a Hormuz voyage means pricing the chance of a hit against how many voyages actually take place, and that figure arrived in irreconcilable versions this week. It also means reading a sanctions register whose most recent Iran entry, a 35-party shadow-banking designation dated 14 August, reached the gazette as scanned images rather than machine-readable text . Frequency data and legal data both degraded together, and war-risk premiums travel down the chain into the delivered cost of crude, gas and containerised freight.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Twelve big insurance clubs that cover ships against war risks briefly cancelled some of their extra Gulf-related cover after the companies that back them, called reinsurers, pulled out. Within three days, the clubs found replacement cover and reinstated it. Ordinary insurance for cargo damage or crew injury kept working throughout; only the special war-risk add-on was affected. This matters because insurance is what lets a ship legally sail and get financed. A gap of even a few days can leave a shipowner unable to send a vessel through the strait, and this shows how quickly that cover can now come and go as the conflict continues.

Deep Analysis
Root Causes

P&I clubs do not carry Gulf war-risk exposure on their own balance sheets; they buy reinsurance to back it, so a reinsurer pulling its backing forces a club to cancel cover it can no longer itself afford to underwrite, independent of any change in the underlying shipping risk.

The $40 billion US Development Finance Corporation Hormuz reinsurance facility, launched earlier in the conflict, has had zero uptake , meaning the private market has no functioning public backstop to fall back on when a reinsurer withdraws; clubs must find replacement private capacity or go without.

What could happen next?
  • Consequence

    A three-day cancel-and-rebuy cycle shows Gulf war-risk cover can now disappear and return faster than during earlier phases of the conflict, when whole P&I clubs stayed out for weeks.

First Reported In

Update #172 · The strait nobody can count, insure or pay

Lloyd's List· 19 Aug 2026
Read original
Causes and effects
This Event
Cover cancelled, rebought in three days
Reinsurer withdrawal sits a layer above anything a shipowner can negotiate, so the new premium is not a matter of shopping around.
Different Perspectives
China's foreign ministry
China's foreign ministry
Spokesman Lin Jian rejected Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's 25 August warning that Iranian oil buyers face an "economic D-Day", saying sanctions do not help and that Beijing would safeguard its own rights and interests. China's Iranian crude imports had already halved for unrelated reasons.
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Iraq's government and Erbil authorities
Erbil authorities said 10 explosive-laden drones were shot down over the city on 1-2 September with no casualties. Iraq's government condemned the attacks without naming Iran as their source, and neither Washington nor Baghdad confirmed the IRGC's claim to have hit US bases there.
Bahrain Defence Force
Bahrain Defence Force
The General Command said air defences intercepted several Iranian missiles and drones on 1-2 September and called the use of such weapons against civilians and private property a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
Kuwait's Fire Force and foreign ministry
KUNA reported a hostile Iranian drone struck a residential complex in Kuwait City on 2 September; Fire Force spokesman Brigadier General Mohammad Al-Gharib said losses were confined to property. Kuwait's foreign ministry called the attack a clear breach of its sovereignty.
Jordan's Armed Forces
Jordan's Armed Forces
Petra carried a statement that air defences intercepted eight missiles violating Jordanian airspace early on 31 August and 10 of 13 fired on 1 September. The statement named no target and did not address the IRGC's claim to have struck Camp Titin and killed US personnel.
CENTCOM
CENTCOM
CENTCOM's 1 September target list named IRGC air defence, radar, maritime and mine-laying sites in Iran but no tanker, after Axios reported anonymous officials describing a Trump-approved "tanker for tanker" drone policy. A CENTCOM spokesman declined to confirm the policy and referred questions to policymakers.