When Hazeldenes suffered a cyber incident in February, the Victorian chicken producer took weeks to return to full production, faced data theft and a darknet leak, and left pubs and butchers across the state short of supply. The company processes about 900,000 birds a week, according to BGH Capital. The disruption it experienced is a working illustration of the multi-line exposure that Lockton’s head of corporate for Queensland, Andrew Curl, argues many meat and poultry businesses are not adequately insured for.
In an advisory article published this week, Curl identifies cyber, product recall, business interruption and governance as the four areas where insurance programs most commonly fail to match the risks a modern meat processor actually runs.
Hazeldenes’ response followed a path now familiar in Australian cyber incidents. The company said it moved to contain the incident on February 19, engaged external cyber security experts and notified authorities. ABC reported that pubs and butchers in Victoria faced chicken shortages as the company could not package some orders. Hazeldenes confirmed on March 30 that it had returned to regular production. Cyber Daily reported in March that hackers had published stolen data, including personal information, on a darknet leak site. The company said it was working with the Australian National Office of Cyber Security, the National Cyber Security Coordinator and the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
Curl’s analysis points to four areas worth raising with meat and poultry clients.
Product recall is the first. “Product recalls can generate substantial direct and indirect costs, including product withdrawal, customer notification, crisis management, brand damage and lost revenue,” Curl wrote. He advised businesses to review whether existing product liability and recall policies adequately address these exposures, noting the potential for multi-million-dollar losses.
Business interruption is the second, and the Hazeldenes case makes Curl’s point precisely. “Modern business interruption losses increasingly arise from non-property events such as disease outbreaks, supply chain disruption, cyber incidents and utility failures,” he wrote. “Insurance structures should reflect these changing realities.” A BI policy that requires physical damage as a trigger would not respond to a cyber-driven production shutdown.
Biosecurity sits alongside cyber as an emerging operational risk. Victoria required poultry producers to keep birds indoors as H5N1 avian influenza detections continued to rise through mid-2026, according to Anadolu Agency. Insurers are increasingly assessing biosecurity management and incident response planning as part of their risk evaluation, Curl noted.
Governance is the fourth area. “Insurers increasingly assess governance, biosecurity management, cybersecurity controls, incident response planning and executive oversight when evaluating risk,” Curl wrote. “Strong governance can improve resilience and insurance outcomes.”
Lockton listed product recall, cyber liability, environmental liability, directors and officers liability, machinery breakdown and supply chain interruption as the coverages most likely to contain gaps worth reviewing.
Curl’s conclusion is worth noting: “Insurance should be viewed as part of a broader business resilience framework rather than a compliance exercise.”
Lockton noted the article is general information only and is not legal commentary or advice, adding that it arranges the insurance and is not the insurer.
