Cargo insurance in Asia and the risks of port accumulation

By Kirill Patyrykin, Managing Director of Surety Marine.

For cargo insurers in Asia, a port delay can change exposure across an entire portfolio. When several insured consignments remain at the same terminal, the value potentially affected by a single event can increase. Yet policy terms and the information used to calculate premiums may remain unchanged. Port accumulation therefore deserves closer attention in underwriting, particularly when competition puts pressure on rates.

According to the International Union of Marine Insurance, Asia accounted for 36.4% of global cargo insurance premiums in 2025. Its September 2026 analysis also described a soft market in which additional insurance capacity was intensifying competition. Premium growth requires careful interpretation: It may reflect more business, higher cargo values, or currency movements. Assessing price adequacy means understanding how the underlying exposure has changed. Singapore provides a useful example. In May 2024, the Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore, or MPA, reported irregular container vessel arrivals and increased volumes discharged. Some shipping lines were forgoing subsequent voyages to recover their schedules, leaving more containers in Singapore. Most container vessels berthed on arrival. Where arrival schedules could not be adjusted, average waiting times were around two to three days. Decisions intended to restore schedules were redistributing cargo across the network.

MPA subsequently reported that average waiting times for container berths had fallen below one day in July 2024, following capacity expansion and operational adjustments. This recovery matters to the insurance analysis. Terminal capacity and scheduling responses can change exposure alongside vessel arrivals. Underwriters need to follow that movement rather than treating a past congestion episode as a permanent feature of a port.

Consider several clients whose shipments would ordinarily pass through a terminal on different days. A schedule change leaves those shipments there simultaneously. A fire could then affect several policies, increasing the insurer's aggregate exposure without changing the value of any individual consignment. Port throughput alone cannot quantify this accumulation. Insurers need the values and locations of insured goods, together with information on how long they remain at the terminal.

Delay also raises a separate coverage question. Under the standard Institute Cargo Clauses (A) 2009, Clause 4.5 excludes losses and costs resulting from delay, subject to the exception for expenses payable under Clause 2 on general average and salvage. Clause 8.3 allows insurance to continue during delays beyond the assured's control, subject to the termination provisions. A policy can therefore remain in force whilst a particular loss caused by delay remains excluded.

This distinction matters to cargo owners facing storage charges or missed delivery commitments. Cargo insurance does not automatically cover those consequences. Changes to a shipment call for a review of storage, transit termination, and notification provisions. Where the assured changes the destination, the standard clauses require prompt notification so rates and terms can be agreed. The particular policy wording and any agreed extensions determine the coverage available.

Claims assessment must also distinguish when damage was discovered from what caused it. Damage found after a port delay is not necessarily damage caused by that delay. Handover records, condition reports, and storage information help establish the sequence of events. Temperature records may be essential for sensitive cargo. Gathering evidence during transit gives the parties a better opportunity to preserve records and establish the circumstances.

Underwriters need an estimate of the maximum insured value that could be present at a terminal simultaneously. Annual turnover or average transit times can conceal brief periods of significant concentration. Comparing ordinary schedules with a credible delay scenario helps identify overlapping consignments. The assessment should consider storage conditions and whether one event could damage several shipments. Across a portfolio, this requires matching locations between clients, including records that use different names for the same terminal.

These findings should inform limits and pricing. Broader storage or additional expense cover creates obligations that need to be understood and priced. A favourable claims history remains useful, but may not represent the current risk if routes, cargo values, or terminal concentrations have changed. Underwriting assumptions need to reflect those changes even when there have been no recent large claims.

For brokers and cargo owners, timely information is equally important. Additional transhipment, movement to another warehouse, or a changed destination should be communicated as required by the contract. Clear notification responsibilities allow discussions about coverage adjustments before a disputed loss arises. They also help clients understand which commercial costs they must retain.

Asia's cargo insurance market needs a closer connection between shipment information and underwriting decisions. Premium growth becomes meaningful when assessed against the obligations insurers accept.

At ports, that means knowing which insured goods share a location, how long they stay, and how cover responds when transit changes. Those details provide the basis for defensible pricing and limits when scheduled movements no longer describe the actual exposure.

Originally published in Marine & Industrial Report.