Triple-I and Munich Re's RiskScan 2026 Surveys 1,700 People and Finds Cyber, Economic Volatility and Catastrophe Concerns Linked, as the $424 Billion Protection Gap Persists

A joint study by the Insurance Information Institute, known as Triple-I, and Munich Re US has set out how people across the insurance chain view risk in 2026, and the central result is that they no longer see threats in isolation. RiskScan 2026, released on June 8, surveyed more than 1,700 participants in the United States and the United Kingdom across five groups: consumers, small business owners, middle-market decision-makers, property and casualty agents and brokers, and P&C carriers. The study is organised into two reports, one on reinsurance exposures and one on specialty insurance. This article draws on a report by Insurance Business, and the survey is a snapshot of opinion, not a measurement of losses.

Risks seen as connected

Respondents flagged cyber incidents, economic volatility, natural catastrophes, artificial intelligence, business interruption and emerging liability exposures as top concerns. The notable point is that they tended to view these as linked, not separate. A cyber incident can cause business interruption; an economic shock can change a firm's ability to invest in resilience; a catastrophe can disrupt systems that then fail in other ways. Triple-I chief economist Michel Léonard said economic conditions are a multiplier of insurance risk, affecting affordability, claims severity and capital allocation.

The study also reports a shift in thinking about catastrophes. Floods, severe storms, winter weather and wildfires, which are not the headline peak perils such as major hurricanes and earthquakes, are now seen as frequent and high-impact. That challenges long-held views about catastrophe exposure and about how diversified an insurer's portfolio is, because a series of mid-sized events can add up.

The protection gap

The study cites Swiss Re's sigma report, published days earlier, which put the global natural catastrophe protection gap at $424 billion. The protection gap is the part of economic losses that is not covered by insurance. In North America, the insurance coverage ratio has stayed between 40% and 42% since 2015, according to the study, which means a majority of catastrophe losses are still borne by uninsured individuals and businesses. The report does not analyse why the ratio has not moved.

The specialty report found that cyber and flood protection gaps are persisting and widening. Newfront's head of cyber, Jennifer Wilson, said inconsistent policy language across insurers complicates coverage decisions. When policy wordings differ in how they treat the same event, a buyer may not know whether a loss would be covered until a claim is made.

Legal costs

Respondents increasingly see legal system abuse as a driver of rising P&C costs. The term refers to litigation practices that raise claim costs, such as inflated claims or tactics that add expense. The report does not provide measurements of the effect so the finding should be read as the perception of the survey groups.

Artificial intelligence

AI ranked as the most impactful emerging technology across all five segments. HSB, which is part of Munich Re, found that 74% of small businesses already use AI tools. HSB's Timothy Zeilman said AI risk resembles early cyber risk, largely hidden in traditional policies until losses forced attention. That comparison suggests that insurers may face a period in which AI-related losses are not clearly assigned to any policy, until wordings are clarified or exclusions are introduced. It is an analogy, not a forecast.

Quotes and calls for collaboration

Marcus Winter of Munich Re US stressed the role of insurance in community recovery and resilience. Triple-I chief executive Sean Kevelighan said recognising risk is only the first step and called for collaboration across the industry, policymakers and communities. The study is therefore also an advocacy document, which is typical of industry research and is worth bearing in mind when interpreting its recommendations.

Reading the results as a map of risk

It helps to treat the survey as a map showing where insurers and their customers agree and disagree. They agree that cyber, catastrophe and economic risk are all important. The less comfortable finding is that protection gaps in cyber and flood are widening even though awareness is high. Awareness does not automatically lead to purchases, and the report points to inconsistent policy language as one reason. That suggests that clearer, more standard wordings, or better explanation by brokers, could narrow the gap, although the summary does not test that idea.

The combination of AI and cyber is another theme. Respondents ranked AI as the most impactful emerging technology, while cyber incidents topped concerns, and the study's specialty report links the two by noting that AI can make attacks more sophisticated and underwriting less certain. That link comes from the report's own framing, and the figures here do not measure how much AI has changed cyber losses.

Limits of the survey

The survey covers the United States and the United Kingdom, so its findings may not apply elsewhere. The report does not give the size of each group or the percentage breakdown of the answers in the summary, so the weight of each concern cannot be assessed. The Insurance Business summary also does not give the date range of fieldwork.

What to do with it

For businesses, the study is a prompt to review how cyber, flood and business interruption cover interact and to ask whether policy wordings are consistent. For insurers, it highlights where customers and carriers see gaps. For policymakers, the persistent protection gap supports arguments for risk reduction and resilience investment. This article summarises a trade-press report of an industry study and is general information, not insurance advice.