D&O insurance is entering a new phase. Litigation is accelerating, regulation is expanding, and emerging technologies are redrawing risk maps across every sector. Charles Boorman, CEO of Kayzen Specialty, said that while many exposures feel familiar - ESG, cyber, insolvency - the way they now impact boards has changed. And in a market where claims often lag behind emerging risk, many businesses are still adjusting too slowly.
With more than three decades in UK insurance and a team that spans both London and the regions, Boorman offered a sharp view of how exposures are shifting, and why brokers need to stay proactive in reframing the D&O conversation.
The pressure on directors is intensifying. From increased regulatory scrutiny to fast-moving technological disruption, risks that were once hypothetical are now landing in real boardrooms.
“A lot of these exposures aren’t new terms,” Boorman said, “but they’re evolving quickly, and the litigation or regulation that follows is still catching people out.”
ESG is a prime example. While it's been on the corporate agenda for years, Boorman said the legal and regulatory implications for directors are still emerging. “We’ve all been talking about ESG for five years, but it’s still quite new in terms of understanding what the real risk is for directors and officers, because the litigation hasn’t fully made its way through the courts.”
He pointed to three areas of concern: climate change litigation, greenwashing, and shifting regulatory oversight. “The pace of change around ESG regulation is still very current.”
Artificial intelligence presents similar challenges. “AI and ESG risk are actually quite similar in the way they may affect directors and officers,” Boorman said. “Just as you have ESG washing, you’re going to have the same problem with AI.”
He warned that overstating AI capability could quickly lead to reputational or financial damage. “If you look at company websites, they talk a lot about AI and what they’re doing with it. There’s a real danger that people overstate some of their capabilities, which could come back to haunt them.”
Boorman also expected significant consolidation in the AI space. “Over the next three years there will be lots of AI companies being bought by bigger AI entities,” he said. “It’s a bit like the old Betamax versus VHS situation in terms of usability. If AI goes in two different directions, there will probably be a winner and a loser. If there’s a loser, that part of the AI market will struggle and potentially go under.”
While ESG and AI continue to evolve, Boorman said cyber remains the most urgent D&O concern. “Cyber spillover into D&O is a real concern. It’s no longer just individuals with a grudge, hacktivists, or independent cyber-criminal groups. It’s now state-sponsored too, and that’s the really scary piece.”
He noted that although cyber insurance handles technical loss, D&O policies remain critical for leadership liability after an incident, particularly in the face of investigations, litigation, or regulatory fallout.
“Someone from the SEC said a few years ago that it’s not a matter of whether you’re going to get hacked, but when, and I think we all accept that,” he said. “All you need to do is get it wrong once, make one error, or just be slightly behind the curve, and people will take advantage of that.”
Boards, he added, are under pressure to demonstrate digital competence; something he believed is often lacking at the top. “A lot of main board directors are a little older. Not all, but quite a lot. They’re probably less tech-literate than they should be, and I think that in itself is a danger.”
Boorman pointed to a persistent disconnect in the regional market: while many clients care deeply about D&O, the product is often treated as secondary by brokers.
“A lot of regional brokers are generalists,” he said. “Some are specialists in property and casualty, so they don’t spend as much time on D&O and management liability.”
He added that even though premiums are modest, the buyers are often directors themselves—personally invested in the cover. Yet automation tends to undermine its perceived importance.
“It’s easy for there to be client misrepresentation or broker error, particularly if junior brokers are inputting data into a portal,” Boorman said. “And I think the market homogenises D&O risk a bit too much. There are risks and insureds being put into automated portals where I think they should be reviewed by a human underwriter.”
He called on insurers to do more to support brokers. “There’s a certain amount of hand-holding we can provide to regional brokers who don’t always have a huge amount of D&O experience, even though the client actually wants to talk about it.”
Boorman warned that some insurers had lost touch with the regional market, or misunderstood its dynamics entirely.
“It can be a difficult transition for a London market insurer to start accessing and growing in the UK regions,” he said. “You can operate in both, but you have to wear a different hat in each.”
He noted that over the past 20 years, the dominant players in regional D&O had shifted significantly, often because they grew complacent or applied blunt remediation strategies. “The names are very different from today’s leading players,” he said. “In this space, you have to keep proving your value, and really understand the market you’re in.”
