Let’s be honest. We’ve become very good at explaining why certain risks cannot be covered. Perhaps too good. Because in a world where travellers increasingly face geopolitical instability, civil unrest, and conflict-related disruption, the travel insurance industry’s default response too often remains the same: excluded. War? Excluded. Political violence?  Excluded. Civil unrest? Excluded. Government intervention? Excluded.

Our industry has a long history of saying certain things cannot be insured… until they are

At some point we must ask – when do exclusions remove some of the very risks travellers worry about the most, and what, therefore, are we asking customers to trust?

Rising to the challenge

This is not a criticism of underwriting discipline. It is a challenge to traditional underwriting thinking. I believe much of the market is not facing a capacity problem. It is facing an imagination problem.

Recent events in the Middle East made it clear. Travellers stranded. Airspace disrupted. People were left looking for guidance, reassurance, and practical support. Yet in many cases insurers responded with silence – not because customers did not have policies, but because the event had fallen into one of the industry’s untouchable boxes.

That should concern us. Because while the market may see prudent exclusions, customers often see abandoned promises.

At some point we must ask – when do exclusions remove some of the very risks travellers worry about the most, and what, therefore, are we asking customers to trust?

The traditional underwriting response is familiar: war risks aggregate, losses are unpredictable, exposures can become systemic. All true. But is anyone seriously suggesting the answer is to keep pretending there is no middle ground between unlimited war cover and zero response? Too often this feels less like underwriting prudence and more like a failure of imagination.

Our industry has a long history of saying certain things cannot be insured… until they are. Terrorism once sat in that category. Pandemic risk challenged assumptions.

Parametric models have transformed thinking around disruption.

Innovation often starts where conventional underwriting says “no”. I would challenge underwriters to stop asking how to avoid these risks – and start asking how to structure them. Defined triggers. Low limits. Event caps. Assistance-led benefits. Common carrier restrictions. Second-payer structures. Controlled crisis response propositions. These are solvable design challenges. There are numerous ways to provide meaningful protection without opening the balance sheet to unlimited war exposure.

The travel insurance industry has often innovated faster in distribution than product. We have modernised how we sell faster than we have modernised what we sell.

Geopolitical instability is no longer a fringe exposure. It is part of mainstream travel risk.

At WIS, we have taken the view that waiting is not an option. That is why we have launched TravelSecure – not by pretending broad war indemnity is the answer, but by reframing the problem around crisis assistance and targeted conflict-related protection. This is not presented as the absolute answer, but as evidence the market can begin moving beyond blanket exclusion toward responsible innovation.

Protection drives confidence. Confidence drives purchase

Some underwriters may instinctively say this is dangerous territory. I would argue refusing to engage is the bigger danger.

Protection drives confidence. Confidence drives purchase. Products that feel relevant sell better than products that feel theoretical.

This is a call for underwriters to lead. Some of the best innovations in our industry have come when underwriting moved from gatekeeper to problem-solver.

Perhaps what the market needs now is a little less “no”… and a little more underwriting courage.

Because the question is no longer whether geopolitical instability belongs within the travel risk conversation. It already does worldwide. The question is whether our industry intends to lead in addressing it – or continue explaining why it cannot.