In a market increasingly defined by disruption, the Canadian specialty insurance sector faces a mix of evolving threats – from cyberattacks and artificial intelligence (AI) to environmental liability and a talent shortage.
David Crozier (pictured), president and managing director of Markel Canada, says that while none of these risks are new, the speed and interconnectedness with which they’re unfolding demands a more agile and anticipatory approach from insurers.
“Many risks aren’t so much emergent as they are still present and need to be considered,” Crozier said.
In a conversation with Insurance Business Canada, Crozier outlined the most pressing threats currently facing Canadian specialty insurers.
Crozier identifies cybersecurity as the most persistent and systemic threat facing the specialty insurance industry today. But the challenge is no longer limited to data breaches or ransomware. As technology continues to evolve, so too does the complexity of risk – particularly with the rapid ascent of artificial intelligence.
“Cybersecurity is a big one,” he said, because global technological systems “don't really think about borders the way we think about borders.”
Artificial intelligence, Crozier said, introduces additional ambiguity. Its integration into business operations brings the promise of innovation and efficiency – but also the spectre of unforeseen harms.
AI, he said, is both an emerging risk and an emerging opportunity.
“Can it generate harms we hadn't thought of before? Can there be errors and omissions? Could there be something that leads to bodily injury? Could there be some kind of financial damage where AI is involved and brings you to a head of damage that you didn't expect?”
Adding to the complexity is the question of accountability, Crozier said, adding that if AI systems cause harm, it’s unclear who bears responsibility.
“Is it the developer of AI? Is it the deployer of AI? Is it the user of AI? Is it [the] vendor? Where does that eventually rest?”
Another area of growing concern for specialty insurers is environmental liability, particularly in the form of toxic torts. Crozier pointed to PFAS – or polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” – as a key example.
These persistent compounds, found in a range of industrial and consumer products, are increasingly at the center of legal and regulatory scrutiny due to their potential health and environmental impacts.
The liability landscape around PFAS is still developing, but it mirrors patterns seen in previous waves of litigation. Crozier noted the similarity to the opioid crisis, where the first wave targeted manufacturers, and a second wave has begun to focus on secondary actors – such as doctors, pharmacies, consultants, and even employers who provided access through health plans.
This shift toward broader accountability is a trend specialty insurers are watching closely. And PFAS aren’t the only concern. Crozier also flagged other chemical exposures – including microplastics, BPA, and ethylene oxide – as potential sources of litigation. As public awareness grows and scientific understanding deepens, these substances could give rise to new classes of claims.
For insurers, the challenge lies in forecasting how these liabilities may evolve and ensuring that coverage appropriately reflects the scope of risk.
While COVID-19 has faded from the headlines, Crozier cautioned against assuming pandemic-related risks are behind us. He pointed out that the virus is still circulating, and society’s gradual normalization of its presence may mask the lingering threat it poses to health systems and business continuity.
“We, as a society, have accepted that COVID is still out there, and things can still rise up,” he said.
Crozier also highlighted the recent resurgence of measles as a reminder that infectious disease outbreaks remain a live risk. These events raise critical questions for businesses and insurers alike: How prepared are we for the next health emergency? Will governments and organizations respond more swiftly than they did during COVID? Or will we face similar disruptions?
The answers to these questions, Crozier said, will shape how companies assess their exposure and how insurers model risk. For the specialty insurance market, the challenge lies not only in underwriting for potential interruptions, but also in evaluating how different response scenarios – fast, slow, or inconsistent – could impact clients’ operations.
Beyond technological and environmental threats, Crozier pointed to a less visible but equally consequential issue looming over the industry: a growing talent gap. He described it as a “pseudo-emerging risk” that has long been anticipated, but is now beginning to take shape in real time.
For years, industry leaders have warned of the coming retirement wave among seasoned insurance professionals – brokers, underwriters, agents, and reinsurers alike. That projection, Crozier said, is now becoming a reality. As veteran cohorts exit the workforce, the industry is beginning to feel the strain of their absence, particularly in the form of lost institutional knowledge and leadership capacity.
And this isn’t limited to one niche of the market. The talent shortfall, Crozier emphasized, spans general insurance, specialty lines, personal and commercial insurance, and touches all key players – from brokers to insurers to reinsurers. As movement increases across the sector, empty seats are becoming harder to fill.
“That's a challenge we all face,” he said.
In an industry that prides itself on offering stability to clients amid volatility, Crozier argued, insurers must hold themselves to the same standard.
“We have to make sure the industry remains knowledgeable and stable,” he said. “Because the one thing about helping clients with any volatility is you don't want to show volatility yourself as an industry.”
