06/23/2026
If your business creates content, code, or designs with generative AI, here's a question worth asking before your next policy renewal: are you actually covered?
The honest answer in mid-2026 is "it depends" — and the gap is widening fast.
What changed
The "silent AI" era is over. As of January 1, 2026, Verisk released new general liability endorsements (CG 40 47 and CG 40 48) that allow carriers to exclude claims tied to generative AI. With standard policy forms underpinning roughly 82% of U.S. property & casualty policies, rapid adoption is expected — often quietly attached at renewal.
Translation: coverage that previously existed by default may now disappear by design.
Two different "AI IP" problems
It's worth separating two issues people conflate:
Infringement liability — your AI output allegedly copies someone else's protected work. This is where claims are concentrated. IP and copyright claims represent over 23% of generative AI litigation.
Ownership/protectability — whether AI-generated work qualifies for copyright at all. Copyright law generally protects works created by human authors, and it remains unclear whether AI-generated content is eligible for protection under current law. Insurance largely does not solve this; it's a legal question, not a risk-transfer one.
What's actually available now
Standalone AI products are emerging. Armilla (backed by Chaucer and Axis Capital) launched in 2025; Testudo launched in January 2026 with a claims-made product targeting enterprises, focused on copyright infringement and bodily injury defense.
Specialty carriers offer affirmative IP cover. Relm's NOVAAI and PONTAAI products affirmatively cover IP infringement (copyright and trademark) and discrimination.
IP/media liability endorsements. Because standard CGL policies have a likely coverage gap for AI-output infringement, specialists recommend procuring dedicated IP or media liability coverage, typically added to an E&O policy.
Pros
Purpose-built coverage closes gaps that CGL, cyber, and tech E&O leave open.
Defense costs are typically covered regardless of whether the underlying allegations prove true — and defense alone can be ruinous.
Buying it signals mature AI governance to partners and clients.
Cons
These policies require detailed governance documentation and are often placed through surplus lines markets — more underwriting friction.
The products are new, uptake is limited, and many vendors haven't obtained them yet.
Insurers worry about accumulation risk: a flaw in one widely used foundation model could trigger claims across thousands of policyholders at once.
It doesn't fix the underlying ownership uncertainty.
The Takeaway
Don't assume your existing policy bundle responds in your favor. Read your renewal terms for AI exclusions, demand IP indemnification from AI vendors, and treat AI-specific coverage as a live procurement question — not a problem for "later."
The technology moved first. Insurance is catching up. Make sure your coverage isn't the last to know.
www.hlinwood-insurance.com