For brokers, the old renewal playbook is starting to look outdated. Historical loss runs still matter, but they are no longer enough on their own when insurers and reinsurers are trying to price risks shaped by climate change, urban growth in exposed areas and rising catastrophe volatility. Across the market, more large insurers, reinsurers and brokers using climate data are shifting towards a more forward-looking view of risk, rather than relying mainly on retrospective loss histories. For brokers, that changes the submission task: a clean recent claims record may still help, but it may not be enough if the underlying exposure is moving faster than the data in the loss run.
That broader shift is the backdrop to Aon’s 2026 Climate and Catastrophe Insight report. Aon says this is the first edition of its report to integrate forward-looking climate projections from its Climate Risk Monitor tool, marking its own move towards assessing where risk is emerging and intensifying rather than only looking back at historical losses. Other large brokers and insurance advisers have also been building forward-looking climate analytics, engineering work and longer-range physical risk assessment into placement and advisory work. But Aon’s move is another sign that this approach is becoming more mainstream and more relevant to day-to-day broker strategy.
For brokers, it could mean a clean recent claims history may no longer be enough to carry a renewal or win a new placement if the underlying exposure is changing faster than the loss record shows. It also means brokers who can present a more developed risk narrative - grounded in forward-looking analytics, mitigation evidence and engineering detail - may be better placed to differentiate their clients as insurers sharpen their view of catastrophe exposure.
The Aon report said insured catastrophe losses in Australia reached an estimated US$2.9 billion in 2025, with ex-Cyclone Alfred generating about US$1 billion in claims. Globally, insured losses reached US$127 billion in 2025, the ninth consecutive year of above-average insured losses. Against that backdrop, the pricing conversation is not just about what happened last year or over the past five years. It is increasingly about what the next five may look like, and whether a broker can help an underwriter or reinsurer see a risk as better managed than the raw exposure might suggest.
“Across multiple markets, we are seeing that climate change is now a practical, near-term issue for insurers and reinsurers, not just a long-term topic,” said Tom Mortlock (pictured), head of climate analytics for Asia Pacific at Aon.
That captures how climate risk is no longer an abstract strategic issue sitting somewhere on the horizon. For brokers, it has become part of the everyday placement challenge. Mortlock’s point is that insurers are now embedding climate risk more explicitly into internal risk views, pricing frameworks and capital decisions.
“It is lifting the everyday level of risk through higher average annual losses and increasing the likelihood of very large events by raising probable maximum losses,” said Mortlock.
So climate change is not only about the occasional market-shaping catastrophe. It is also about a quieter repricing pressure as average annual losses edge up while tail risk grows more severe. For brokers, that has implications across deductibles, sublimits, aggregates, attachments and panel strategy, even in a market that may still feel relatively soft.
Mortlock said forward-looking climate analytics can help cedants test whether their current view of risk is still appropriate and whether attachments and limits should be revisited, particularly in regions and perils where climate change is pushing up expected losses. That gives brokers a more strategic opening. Rather than waiting for carriers to impose tougher terms, they can come to market with a better informed explanation of the risk and of what the client is doing to manage it.
The shift to forward-looking modelling could have the potential to change the broker’s role in the placement process. A broker armed only with historical losses can end up arguing about the past. A broker who can blend those losses with forward-looking climate analytics, engineering work and mitigation evidence is in a stronger position to argue for the future.
“Increasingly, we are seeing that a blend of climate and catastrophe modelling with targeted risk engineering is helping to provide a clearer, more forward-looking view of risk, including evidence of proactive risk reduction, which can support more positive outcomes with carriers,” said Mortlock.
That points directly to the proof points brokers should now be gathering more carefully: engineering reports, site improvements, drainage works, maintenance regimes, resilience upgrades and modelling outputs that show how mitigation changes the loss outlook. In a market where capital may be available but selective, that evidence can help a risk stand apart. It may also support efforts to secure better terms or multi-year placements where the client can demonstrate credible loss reduction rather than simply point to an absence of claims.
One of the most immediate areas of concern is urban flash flood. Flood risk can intensify quickly in built-up areas where drainage, planning and infrastructure may not keep pace with the hazard and is not only a modelling issue.
“One of the clearest signatures of climate change in Australia is an increase in the magnitude of sub-daily rainfall extremes, which are responsible for flash flooding, particularly in small and urbanised catchments,” said Mortlock.
The broader engineering and resilience conversation in Australia is also shifting, as infrastructure standards and flood design thinking adjust to a changing climate.
For brokers, with flood exposure changing faster than the historic loss record captures, the broker who can explain a site’s specific vulnerability with forward looking data, any mitigation measures and resilience upgrades has a much stronger placement story.
Mandatory climate reporting adds another layer to this escalating challenge. Mortlock said disclosures will not directly change pricing decisions for most major insurers already taking climate into account, but they do help investors and capital providers make clearer decisions about where capital flows. That means the quality of a broker’s climate-risk narrative may matter not only to underwriters, but to the broader chain of capital shaping capacity, affordability and long-term insurability.
As climate risk moves faster than renewal cycles, the most persuasive submission may be the one that shows not just where the client has been, but where the risk is heading and why it is still worth backing.
