Stephen Rudman, Head of Marine for Asia at global insurance and reinsurance broking group Aon, has said that a two-week ceasefire in the Middle East conflict is insufficient to materially alter risk pricing or an underwriting stance.
On April 8, the United States, Iran and Israel agreed to a two-week ceasefire, mediated by Pakistan, halting attacks between the parties as part of efforts to pause an escalating regional conflict and open talks towards a longer-term deal.
The agreement included provisions for safe transit through the Strait of Hormuz, though shipping has remained heavily restricted and tensions remain high.
In light of this, Aon’s Rudman has commented on the insurance implications of the two-week ceasefire in the Middle East.
“From an insurance perspective a two‑week ceasefire is insufficient in materially changing risk pricing or an underwriting stance,” he said. “Additional War Risk Premiums are driven by forward‑looking threat assessments rather than short‑term political developments. While the announcement may help stabilise sentiment and reduce some near‑term volatility, underwriters are likely to treat this as a temporary pause rather than a resolution of geopolitical risk.”
Rudman emphasised that while the ceasefire, which according to reports in mainstream media is extremely fragile, might help to stabilise and reduce some near-term volatility, underwriters are expected to treat this as a temporary pause and not a resolution of the risk.
“As such, we would expect continued scrutiny on Gulf transits, with elevated war risk pricing broadly remaining in place until there is clearer evidence of a sustained de‑escalation,” said Rudman.
Rudman further explained that any meaningful adjustment in insurer appetite or pricing usually falls behind geopolitical announcements.
“Insurers will be looking for consistency and durability in the security environment — including shipping movements, incident frequency and diplomatic follow‑through — before reviewing Gulf exposures.
“In practical terms, it would likely take several weeks, if not longer, of stability before underwriters reassess base assumptions. Even then, changes are more likely to be incremental rather than a rapid return to pre‑crisis pricing or terms,” he said.
In terms of risks that could prevent a return to normal shipping activity, Rudman stressed that the main risk remains the fragility of the ceasefire itself.
“Any escalation involving proxy actors, isolated incidents in key chokepoints, or renewed sanctions or military activity would quickly reverse any improvement in sentiment.
“In addition, operational risks — such as crew welfare, port disruptions and the availability of war risk capacity — continue to influence both shipping decisions and insurance response.
“Until these risks are demonstrably reduced, a full return to “normal” trading conditions in the region remains unlikely.”
