Skip to content
Iran Conflict 2026
19APR

Last P&I clubs quit Gulf; Hormuz sealed

4 min read
11:05UTC

Every major Protection & Indemnity club has cancelled war risk cover for the Gulf. After midnight Thursday, no internationally insured vessel can legally transit the Strait of Hormuz.

← Back to Russia yes, Iran no: Treasury signs only one waiverJump to analysis ↓
ConflictDeveloping
Key takeaway

The P&I withdrawal constitutes a de facto international commercial embargo on Gulf energy exports — one imposed by private actuarial decisions rather than any government, and therefore not reversible by government decree alone.

Gard and NorthStandard, the two largest Protection & Indemnity clubs by insured tonnage, issued cancellation notices on Wednesday for the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz, and Iranian waters. They join American Steamship Owners Mutual P&I, London P&I Club, and Skuld, which issued notices earlier in the week . Lloyd's of London separately classified Iran, The Gulf, and parts of the Gulf of Oman as high-risk zones. Every major P&I club in the global maritime insurance system has now withdrawn cover, effective midnight Thursday 5 March.

P&I insurance is the structural backbone of international shipping. It covers third-party liability — collision, pollution, crew injury, cargo loss. Without it, no port authority will grant entry, no bank will finance a voyage, no flag state will permit a vessel to sail. A tanker without P&I cover is not merely expensive to operate; it is legally inoperable under the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage.

During the Iran–Iraq tanker war between 1984 and 1988, when more than 400 commercial vessels were attacked in The Gulf, insurance markets adjusted premiums sharply but never fully withdrew. Lloyd's war risk premiums reached 7.5% of hull value at that conflict's peak. A complete withdrawal of all major P&I clubs from an entire maritime region has no precedent in the modern insurance market.

VLCC daily freight rates had already hit $423,736 — an all-time record exceeding the 1991 Gulf War peak . Hormuz traffic was down 80% from pre-conflict levels . After midnight Thursday, the remaining traffic faces a binary choice: sail uninsured — which no major shipping line or flag state will permit — or stop. President Trump's government-backed insurance through the Development Finance Corporation covers political risk but does not replace P&I liability cover; they are different products addressing different legal requirements. Reinstatement after hostilities cease requires a full syndicated risk reassessment by each club's underwriting committee — a process that historically takes weeks, not days.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Ships need two kinds of insurance to operate commercially: one that covers the ship itself from war damage, and another (P&I) that covers liability if the ship damages something else — a port, another vessel, or the environment. The companies providing both have now all cancelled coverage for the Gulf. Without insurance, banks won't finance the cargo, and ship owners won't risk losing a vessel worth $100-200 million with no cover. The US government promised to back insurance and provide naval escorts — but the Navy itself has confirmed it doesn't currently have enough ships to run an escort programme. The result is that the promise cannot be fulfilled in time to prevent commercial shipping through the Gulf from stopping almost entirely after Thursday midnight.

Deep Analysis
Synthesis

The P&I withdrawal achieves through private market mechanics what deliberate sanctions regimes rarely accomplish: a near-total commercial embargo without a single government imposing it. This mechanism — private actuarial decisions creating collective action that states cannot easily reverse — is novel in its effectiveness and in its immunity to diplomatic resolution. No ceasefire announcement, by itself, restores cover; underwriters will require a demonstrated period of stability before reinstatement, creating a commercial lag even after any political settlement.

Root Causes

The US Navy's convoy capacity gap reflects two structural constraints: (1) post-Cold War fleet reductions have left the US with approximately 290 battle-force ships versus the 600-ship Reagan-era fleet, with carrier strike groups already committed to the theatre leaving minimal surge capacity; (2) convoy escort requires not just surface combatants but organic ASW capability, minesweeping assets, and maritime patrol aircraft — a combined-arms commitment that cannot be rapidly assembled without drawing down other global commitments. The DFC insurance pledge was announced without coordination with the Navy on operational feasibility, creating the credibility gap the Navy's statement has now exposed.

What could happen next?
3 consequence1 meaning1 risk1 precedent
  • Consequence

    Gulf energy exports face near-complete commercial cessation after midnight Thursday absent an operational naval escort programme the US Navy has confirmed does not currently exist.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Consequence

    South Korean and Japanese strategic petroleum reserves — approximately 50 and 90 days respectively at normal consumption — will begin drawdown within days, creating a government-level response imperative within weeks.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Consequence

    Cape of Good Hope rerouting will absorb tanker capacity and raise freight rates globally, affecting non-Gulf shipping lanes.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Meaning

    The trade finance credit freeze — banks will not issue letters of credit without P&I cover — creates a dual-barrier embargo that government insurance pledges alone cannot resolve.

    Immediate · Assessed
  • Risk

    If the US cannot operationalise the escort programme within 72 hours, the credibility of the Trump pledge collapses, potentially affecting Gulf state confidence in US security guarantees more broadly.

    Short term · Assessed
  • Precedent

    A successfully operationalised government war risk insurance framework would establish a new template for state intervention in shipping markets during conflict — potentially reshaping how future maritime crises are managed.

    Long term · Suggested
Sources:CNBC·Lloyd's List·Maritime Executive
Mentions:VLCC →Persian Gulf →US Development Finance Corporation →Oman →Gard →NorthStandard →American Steamship Owners Mutual P&I →London P&I Club →National Security Council (Iran) →Time →Skuld →Iran →Strait of Hormuz →Gulf of Oman →Donald Trump →
First Reported In

Update #18 · First Iranian warship sunk since 1988

CNBC· 4 Mar 2026
Read original →
Causes and effects
Caused by
Three P&I clubs pull Gulf war risk cover
Gard and NorthStandard withdrawals complete the insurance exodus begun by the three P&I clubs that cancelled earlier in the week, achieving total industry withdrawal.
Occurred 3 Mar 2026
Read story →
Hormuz down 80%; four ships in five gone
The 80% collapse in Hormuz traffic drove the remaining P&I clubs to issue cancellation notices, as continued coverage became commercially untenable.
Occurred 3 Mar 2026
Read story →
This Event
Last P&I clubs quit Gulf; Hormuz sealed
P&I insurance is the legal and financial precondition for commercial shipping — without it, vessels cannot enter ports, secure financing, or operate under any major flag state. The complete withdrawal converts a military conflict into a de facto commercial blockade of the world's most important oil chokepoint, with no precedent in the modern maritime insurance market.
Led to
KOSPI down 12%; record single-day fall
P&I insurance cancellations compounded market shock for energy-import-dependent Asian economies
Occurred 4 Mar 2026
Read story →
P&I deadline passes; Strait sealed
P&I club cancellation notices triggered the midnight Thursday deadline; its passage commercially sealed the Strait of Hormuz
Occurred 5 Mar 2026
Read story →
Different Perspectives
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Global South governments (Indonesia, Brazil, South Africa)
Neutrality was possible when the targets were military. 148 dead schoolgirls made it impossible — no government can explain that away to its own citizens.
Trump administration
Trump administration
Oscillating between claiming diplomatic progress and threatening escalation, while deploying additional ground forces to the Gulf.
Israeli security establishment
Israeli security establishment
Fears a rapid, vague US-Iran agreement that freezes military operations before the IDF achieves what it considers full strategic objectives. A senior military official assessed the campaign is 'halfway there' and needs several more weeks.
Iraqi government
Iraqi government
Iraq's force majeure is the position of a non-belligerent whose entire petroleum economy has been paralysed by a war between others — storage full, exports blocked, production being cut with no timeline for resumption.
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Russia — Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia
Moscow calibrated its position between Gulf states and Iran: abstaining on Resolution 2817 rather than vetoing it, signalling it would not block protection for Gulf states, while refusing to endorse a text that ignores the US-Israeli campaign it regards as the conflict's proximate cause. Russia proposed its own ceasefire text — which failed 4-2-9 — allowing Moscow to claim the peacemaker role while providing Iran with satellite targeting intelligence, a duality consistent with its approach in Syria.
France — President Macron
France — President Macron
France absorbed its first combat death in a conflict it has publicly declined to join. The killing of Chief Warrant Officer Frion in Erbil forces Macron to choose between escalating involvement and accepting casualties from the margins.