Author: Taro Ramberg, Director, Moody’s
Recent verdicts involving Meta and Google have focused attention on addictive software design and its broader legal implications. For casualty insurers, the immediate question is not just whether those verdicts matter, but what they tell us about how liability risk now emerges and develops.
In reaction to this and the broader casualty risk landscape, I am grateful to Colm Lyons, Head of Casualty at Apollo, for taking some time to talk through his perspective.
Indicators rather than inflection points
On the Meta/Google point, Colm stated: “The verdicts matter, it’s just they’re not conclusive in and of themselves.” At this stage, Colm feels that right now the verdicts are far more consequential for the companies involved than for insurers.
Considering these verdicts as indicators rather than inflection points, he highlights that they are part of a broader pattern that informs underwriters on emerging risks early in their life cycle, well before exposures are fully understood, or loss experience has developed.
But he acknowledges that this may change. These and upcoming verdicts could indicate something more structural, where the speed at which technology advances and the slower evolution of legal and regulatory frameworks make it difficult to draw firm insurance conclusions in the space between the two. And that space, Colm suggests, is increasingly where casualty underwriting operates.
Indicators are useful and important; they help flag potential issues that could someday become material, but require judgment to decide if a developing signal warrants closer scrutiny, without allowing any single data point to drive premature conclusions. This judgment is largely guided by experience, and although experience remains essential, Colm cautioned that it can no longer stand on its own.
Forward-looking view of risk
Historical data, in his view, must be complemented by forward‑looking perspectives if insurers are going to understand how risk is forming, not just where it has already been. “We will never know everything we should know,” he said.
For Colm, that reality calls for discipline, as the greater risk is complacency, where familiarity with an industry or exposure automatically translates into understanding as risks evolve.
A forward-looking view is particularly important when casualty underwriting teams look to engage earlier in the risk life cycle, rather than waiting for risks to mature through verdicts, regulation, or fully developed claims patterns.
Liability scenario analysis
Away from experience, assessing exposures when definitions are still forming requires both comfort with uncertainty and a willingness to revisit assumptions as conditions change.
Colm pointed to the expanded use of liability scenario analysis as one practical response, particularly at the portfolio level. Within the Lloyd’s market, he noted, this approach has become more common as insurers seek to understand how exposures may aggregate over time, as individual scenarios, considered in isolation, offer limited direction.
The real value lies in examining how scenarios evolve as portfolios change and as research develops, helping to surface potential concentrations or unintended accumulation earlier than traditional approaches allow.
As Colm explained, that distinction becomes especially important when comparing familiar exposures with emerging ones. Aggregation in areas such as auto liability is broadly understood, but in newer areas, it is not. Scenario analysis provides a way to test assumptions and relative portfolio positioning before exposures become obvious.
A mountain of data
Another theme Colm discussed was data, and the sheer volume of it, as research related to emerging liability risk continues to expand across litigation activity, scientific study, regulatory debate, and broader social developments.
Deciding what merits attention requires achieving sufficient clarity to maintain confidence amid that volume. Clients will always understand their own industries better than insurers do.
Colm adds that this confidence comes from being informed enough to engage with purpose and to bring an external perspective on how liability theories and litigation strategies may be evolving, and to use that perspective to engage clients thoughtfully.
Even raising a question that has not previously been considered can be valuable, he noted. A conversation that helps a client examine potential exposure, mitigation options, or risk‑transfer decisions is preferable to discovering those issues later, when responses are more constrained.
Active dialogue across internal teams
That emphasis on dialogue extends internally as well. Colm described active engagement across underwriting, claims, exposure management, and risk teams at Apollo, with each discipline playing its role in challenging assumptions and refining judgment.
Those internal exchanges, he suggested, are often where the most important questions surface, including questions the business may not initially think to ask, particularly in risk areas lacking long loss histories.
It is in this environment that forward‑looking, litigation‑aware analytics become acutely advantageous. “It’s not about knowing everything,” Colm said, “it’s about having enough awareness to ask the right questions.”
Independent research and analytics help underwriting teams interpret large volumes of emerging‑risk information at scale, identify themes that may warrant attention, and understand how those themes interact with portfolio exposure. Tools such as Moody’s CoMeta™ form part of that broader toolkit, supporting aggregation assessment and more informed portfolio‑ and account‑level discussions.
Closing thoughts
Throughout our discussion, Colm returned to the idea that casualty underwriting resists neat resolution. It combines experience, analysis, and judgment across legal, social, and human dimensions that are difficult to model fully. At one point, he described casualty as something of a ‘dark art,’ not as a criticism, but as a recognition of its complexity.
That complexity is precisely why discipline matters. Casualty portfolios must be resilient enough to absorb surprises without being overly concentrated in poorly understood areas.
Emerging risks such as addictive software design illustrate how modern liability risks can surface, attract attention, and raise questions—long before outcomes are clear. The recent verdicts do not resolve those risks for insurers.
They underscore the importance of paying attention earlier, remaining alert to how exposures may be accumulating across portfolios, and maintaining the confidence to act deliberately rather than reactively as information continues to evolve.
In an environment where certainty often arrives late, the task for casualty leaders is not prediction; it is preparation. Informed judgment, forward-looking intelligence, earlier engagement, and sustained dialogue with clients and colleagues remain the most reliable tools available as liability risk continues to evolve.
Find out more about Apollo here. Explore Moody's casualty insurance solutions here.