1. What is Surety Marine's core business and how does it differ from traditional insurers? Tell us about the rebranding.

Surety Marine grew out of an underwriting agency.

Until 2026, the team operated as a Managing General Agency. We assessed risks, accepted them, and issued policies, but under delegated authority, on behalf of and on the balance sheet of the insurance company Sun Re. In marine insurance, this is a common model where underwriting expertise and capital are separated. By 2026, the agency had accumulated enough experience, portfolio, and data to take risk onto its own balance sheet. Thus, Surety Marine emerged as an independent insurer with its own license.

There are two differences from traditional players, both stemming from how the company is structured.

The first is flexibility. When the market is unstable, the client needs not a standard product from a catalog, but a solution for a specific operation, a specific vessel, and a specific voyage. And they need it quickly.

The second is the cost structure. Twenty people generate less than 10 percent of operating expenses relative to written premium, whereas at the largest insurers this figure reaches 35 percent. This is not savings on people. The difference arises because the system handles routine tasks, while people focus on what the system cannot do. We were built as a technology company that does insurance, not as an insurance company that implements technology.

2. What major trends are shaping the global marine insurance market?

The market is changing under the pressure of two processes: digitalization of supply chains and the shift of trade routes. The first changes the volume and quality of available data. The second changes the geography of risk, meaning routes that were once considered routine now require separate assessment.

But the most significant change has occurred on the client side. Previously, a policy was enough: paper, limit, premium. Today, the client wants to understand and manage their risk - what the market calls Risk-as-a-Service. The answer "we are forced to decline due to a combination of reasons" is no longer acceptable.

Traditional insurers are losing ground not due to a lack of capital - there is enough capital in the market. They are losing due to speed. A large underwriting process is structured so that any element not described in manuals is automatically considered non-standard. A non-standard risk requires convening a committee, a committee requires time, and the client has a vessel that must be presented on time.

As a result, 5-10 percent of requests remain effectively unserved. Not rejected on the merits, but simply not considered in time. This share is our opportunity.

3. What technologies and data sources underpin your risk assessment system?

At the core are several independent sources, and value arises precisely at their intersection. Space technologies from Skytek, originally created for NASA and ESA. The S&P Global Maritime database after their acquisition of the maritime database Seaweb. LexisNexis Bridger: several million profiles for sanctions compliance. State port control registries.

Individually, each source provides a partial picture. A vessel may be impeccable on paper, have a clean detention history, and yet behave on the water in a way that changes the assessment. Combining layers is the work. All sources are connected both manually and automatically via API. We continue to expand the set.

Let me also mention the pace. What was cutting-edge ten years ago is hopelessly outdated today. The market for such tools must be monitored constantly, otherwise a technological advantage turns into technological debt.

4. How are satellite data used to determine risks for vessels and cargo?

Satellite imagery and Automatic Identification System (AIS) data show the vessel's behavior, not its description in documents. These are fundamentally different things.

We see recurring patterns in the insured fleet: how a vessel moves, where it delays, with whom it berths, whether its operating mode changes. From this, a tactical decision is made for a specific ship - whether to take the risk and on what terms. Most market participants operate with higher-level data, i.e., annual statistics, country ratings, vessel class. Such data are good for strategy but useless for a specific voyage.

The second task is aggregation. We quickly see a concentration of insured vessels in one region and an approaching danger: typhoon, cyclone, closure of a strait. This allows us to reserve additional financial capacity in advance, rather than learning about risk accumulation after the event. The difference between "knowing in advance" and "knowing after" in our industry is measured in money.

5. What key indicators are considered when analyzing risks of ports and sea routes?

The adjustment factor is compiled from dozens of parameters. Key ones:

The last parameter is often underestimated. Frequent change of ownership in itself does not violate anything. But in combination with other signs - a changed route, a new technical manager, gaps in data transfer - it is a signal that changes the entire assessment.

None of the parameters works alone. It is their combination that works, and it is precisely this combination that cannot be assessed manually within the time a client has.

6. Can artificial intelligence reduce the number of insurance claims and losses?

Yes, under certain conditions.

The system continuously monitors the portfolio and sends an alert when a vessel is about to enter a high-risk zone or an area of an approaching storm. This gives the underwriter the opportunity to intervene before an insured event occurs, rather than processing a loss afterward. A human cannot physically keep the entire portfolio under observation around the clock. The system can.

But relying on algorithms as a panacea is naive. The model must be equipped with accounting methods and control systems understandable to humans, a direction known as Explainable AI. Without it, you get a conclusion that cannot be verified, which is worse than no conclusion: an unverifiable conclusion creates false confidence.

We discuss this in more detail with our senior underwriter in a separate article.

7. How does the development of the Middle Corridor affect demand for insurance in the region?

Amid global instability, the Middle Corridor is becoming one of the key routes between Asia and Europe. The only competitor might be the Northern Sea Route, but due to market fragmentation and heightened conflicts, it is not suitable for everyone.

The growth of transit is at the limit of infrastructure capacity, and this directly increases demand for insurance. A route operating at its limit is a route where any deviation immediately turns into a delay.

Multimodal transportation carries increased risks of delays and cargo damage. Each transshipment is a new point of responsibility and a new set of documents. Cargo that has gone through sea, rail, and road legs by the end of its journey has a long history that will need to be investigated in the event of a loss. That is why the region demands technological and transparent solutions, not a standard policy.

8. What risks are most relevant for shipping in Azerbaijan's Caspian waters?

The key physical risk today is the falling level of the Caspian Sea. This is a case where environmental change directly rewrites the economics of transportation.

The consequences are already visible: shallowing of approaches to ports, reduced allowable vessel loading, increased risk of grounding, and rising dredging costs. A vessel that yesterday took a full load today takes a partial load with the same fixed costs per voyage.

Added to this are logistical constraints: a shortage of fleet in the Caspian and a shortage of railway platforms on the land legs of the route.

The political background cannot be ignored either. Each of the coastal states is in its own complex foreign policy situation. For insuring Caspian transit, this factor weighs no less than depths.

9. Is Surety Marine considering entering the markets of the South Caucasus, Central Asia, or the CIS?

The transit hubs of the Caucasus and Central Asia definitely fall into the profile we work with: trade ecosystems of developing markets, where there is a high geopolitical component, increased compliance requirements, and demand for modern digital guarantees. This is exactly the environment for which we built our tools.

Today, our company's focus is the Far East, Southeast Asia, India, and the Gulf countries. This is due to the composition of the current portfolio and where we have already built a network of correspondents. An insurer's presence is not an office; it is people on the ground who go to the port when something happens.

At the same time, we continue to monitor developments in the region. The direction of attention is determined by the ratio of profitability to risk, and as transit through the Caspian and the Middle Corridor grows, this ratio may change.

10. What are your plans and growth targets for the coming years?

Our cloud platform Kvilon reduces operating expenses to below 10 percent of written premium, compared to 25-35 percent for traditional players with heavy IT systems. Our goal is to bring this figure down to 2.5 percent. Incidentally, our IT team can deploy this platform for other market participants as well.

Today, 70 percent of applications are processed automatically. We will increase this share so that the team's attention is focused on the 5 percent of truly complex, non-standard tasks, while routine goes to the system. The point of automation is not to remove the human, but to have the human do what truly requires their judgment.

We aim to obtain an investment-grade rating equivalent to BBB on the S&P or Fitch scale by 2030, enter the market for international investment contracts in developing countries, and bring written premium to $89.5 million.

Interview by Kirill Patyrykin for the news portal Milli.az