26 March 2026
In the life science sector, organisations often assume their insurance will respond when something goes wrong. But in reality, claims may go unpaid - not because the incident wasn’t legitimate, but because the policy wording didn’t match the actual risk.
Here are some of the most common scenarios we see:
Clinical trial claims rejected because protocol changes weren’t disclosed to insurers.
Product liability claims denied due to broad exclusions (opioids, controlled substances, or specific compound classes).
Cyber claims declined when required security controls weren’t maintained.
Manufacturing contamination losses unpaid because the insurer classifies the issue as “gradual deterioration” rather than a sudden event.
Product recall claims refused when the trigger was regulatory action rather than proven harm.
Professional indemnity claims rejected due to contractual liability or lapsed cover.
None of these situations are rare. They’re the potential result of misaligned cover, misunderstood exclusions, or risks might have never properly presented to underwriters.
For a sector built on innovation, precision, and regulatory scrutiny, the insurance needs are anything but standard. And yet, too many organisations are relying on policies that don’t reflect the realities of their work.
If you’re unsure whether your policy would actually respond in a crisis, it’s worth reviewing it before you need it. The gap between what you think is covered and what’s actually covered can be significant.
If you’d like a specialist perspective on whether your insurance truly matches your risk profile, I’m always happy to talk.
