<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-US">
	<id>https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Definition%3AAct_of_war_exclusion</id>
	<title>Definition:Act of war exclusion - Revision history</title>
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?action=history&amp;feed=atom&amp;title=Definition%3AAct_of_war_exclusion"/>
	<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?title=Definition:Act_of_war_exclusion&amp;action=history"/>
	<updated>2026-06-14T08:29:20Z</updated>
	<subtitle>Revision history for this page on the wiki</subtitle>
	<generator>MediaWiki 1.43.8</generator>
	<entry>
		<id>https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?title=Definition:Act_of_war_exclusion&amp;diff=12508&amp;oldid=prev</id>
		<title>PlumBot: Bot: Creating new article from JSON</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://www.insurerbrain.com/w/index.php?title=Definition:Act_of_war_exclusion&amp;diff=12508&amp;oldid=prev"/>
		<updated>2026-03-13T11:48:57Z</updated>

		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Bot: Creating new article from JSON&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;New page&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;📋 &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Act of war exclusion&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a standard [[Definition:Policy exclusion | policy exclusion]] found in virtually all [[Definition:Property insurance | property]], [[Definition:Casualty insurance | casualty]], and many [[Definition:Specialty insurance | specialty]] [[Definition:Insurance contract | insurance contracts]] that eliminates coverage for losses arising from war, invasion, armed conflict between sovereign nations, insurrection, revolution, military coup, or the use of military force. The exclusion exists because the scale, unpredictability, and potential correlation of war-related losses place them beyond the capacity of private insurance markets to absorb — a principle recognized across every major insurance market from [[Definition:Lloyd&amp;#039;s | Lloyd&amp;#039;s]] to the domestic markets of the United States, continental Europe, and Asia. While the precise wording varies by policy form and jurisdiction, the core intent is consistent: to ring-fence the insurer&amp;#039;s obligations to peacetime perils and risks that can be actuarially modeled and priced.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
⚙️ In practice, the exclusion operates through carefully drafted policy language that defines the triggering events — typically war (declared or undeclared), hostile acts by foreign enemies, civil war, rebellion, and related hostilities. The challenge arises at the boundaries: distinguishing a covered [[Definition:Terrorism risk | terrorist attack]] from an excluded act of war has generated significant litigation and market debate, most notably after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Many jurisdictions responded by developing [[Definition:Terrorism insurance | terrorism insurance]] programs — such as the [[Definition:Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) | Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA)]] in the United States and [[Definition:Pool Re | Pool Re]] in the United Kingdom — that provide a backstop for terrorism losses while leaving the act of war exclusion intact for conventional military conflicts. In [[Definition:Marine insurance | marine]] and [[Definition:Aviation insurance | aviation]] markets, war-related perils are not simply excluded but are carved out and offered as separate [[Definition:War risk insurance | war risk]] covers, often placed in specialized markets with government involvement. The [[Definition:Cyber insurance | cyber insurance]] market faces a modern iteration of this issue, as carriers grapple with how to define and exclude losses from [[Definition:State-sponsored cyberattack | state-sponsored cyberattacks]] that may constitute acts of war — a debate that intensified following the NotPetya attack in 2017 and subsequent litigation.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
💡 The act of war exclusion is more than boilerplate language — it delineates the boundary between privately insurable risk and sovereign or societal risk that requires government intervention. Courts in multiple jurisdictions have interpreted the exclusion&amp;#039;s scope, and the outcomes hinge on precise wording: some forms require a formal declaration of war, while others encompass undeclared hostilities and civil unrest. For [[Definition:Underwriting | underwriters]] and [[Definition:Insurance broker | brokers]], understanding the nuances of this exclusion is essential when structuring coverage for clients with exposures in conflict-prone regions or industries vulnerable to geopolitical disruption. The ongoing evolution of hybrid threats — cyber warfare, gray-zone conflicts, and proxy hostilities — is pushing the insurance industry to re-examine traditional exclusion language and develop new frameworks that clearly allocate risk between private markets, government pools, and policyholders.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Related concepts:&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Policy exclusion]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:War risk insurance]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Terrorism insurance]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA)]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Cyber insurance]]&lt;br /&gt;
* [[Definition:Pool Re]]&lt;br /&gt;
{{Div col end}}&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>PlumBot</name></author>
	</entry>
</feed>