The insurance industry has always lived with uncertainty but the nature of that uncertainty is changing – and fast. Emerging risks are no longer fringe issues; they’re becoming the core of clients’ exposure profiles. For generalist brokers that shift is turning into their defining challenge.
Angela O’Neil (pictured), general manager at AR network repX and a veteran broker, sees it up close. “The biggest challenge for generalist insurance brokers are the emerging risks – the things that nobody truly understands except for the specialists,” she said.
Those risks range from the obvious to the invisible. Climate‑driven natural catastrophes are increasing in frequency and severity, reshaping the way carriers model and price property and business interruption. Global supervisors point to “climate-related exposures and cyber risks” as key areas needing enhanced oversight.
At the same time, the risk landscape is filling with intangible and interconnected threats. Underwriting leaders describe insurers as grappling with an unprecedented surge in emerging risks driven by geopolitical unrest, climate extremes, rapid advances in AI, malicious cyber attacks and fast‑moving litigation trends.
On the technology front, the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) has flagged a new wave of exposures, including the impact of “AI, quantum computing and consumer-managed personal data stores as key weaknesses that could threaten Australia’s cyber security future.” Meanwhile, cyber criminals are weaponising tools like deepfakes and advanced social engineering, with global estimates suggesting deepfake fraud alone reached around US$1 trillion in 2024.
For a suburban broker whose book spans cafés, tradies, logistics operators and small manufacturers, this cocktail of climate, cyber, AI and geopolitical risk can be overwhelming. The traditional promise – “we’ll find you cover for whatever you do” – is increasingly hard to honour safely.
O’Neil’s core argument is not that generalists should retreat, but that they must change how they operate. “I come from an authorised representative background and authorised representatives are generalist insurance brokers who do work on almost anything that comes their way,” she said. “I don't want them to stop doing that, but it is impossible to know enough about every risk that a client has.”
Her solution is unapologetically collaborative. She urged – with a passion the went beyond her business incentive – ARs to work together as a network and as a group.
“If we have specialists on cyber, specialists on trade credit, utilise them,” said O’Neil.
In practice, that means an AR network where a broker handling a mid‑market manufacturer can seamlessly bring in a cyber specialist to address ransomware, deepfake‑enabled fraud and operational technology exposures; or tap a trade credit expert when clients are exposed to fragile global supply chains. It also means having access to people who understand how climate scenarios, AI governance or geopolitical sanctions play through policy wordings and aggregator models, not just at a headline level but line by line.
Crucially, O’Neil stressed that modern professionalism is not about hoarding knowledge; it’s about knowing where to find it. “You don't have to learn 100% about 100% of the broking, the insurance risks, but you do need to know who does know it.” That simple distinction is fast becoming the difference between brokers who can genuinely advise on emerging risks and those who are effectively just chasing quotes.
For brokers, the strategic question is no longer whether emerging risks matter – the market has already answered that. Supervisors and thought‑leaders now routinely list “Key risks include climate change, natural disasters” alongside cyber, AI and geopolitical shocks when describing today’s operating environment.
O’Neil’s answer is clear: they can’t, at least not alone. But embedded in her critique is a roadmap. Generalist brokers who plug into strong AR networks, cultivate trusted specialists and are honest with clients about where that extra expertise is needed can turn emerging risks into a point of differentiation rather than a source of liability. Those who insist on going it alone may find that in a world of cascading, intangible threats, “good enough” advice is suddenly anything but.
