For brokers placing specialist risk, the biggest test of the quality of the cover is not just what is on the slip. It is the test that can come months later, when a crane topples or a logging machine burns out in a remote coupe and the client discovers what their cover is actually worth.
That gap between capacity that looks good at placement and capacity that performs at claim time sits at the centre of ARTes Specialty’s expansion into Australia. The insurer has launched three products in quick succession: Commercial loggers, plant and equipment and most recently crane and rigging, all backed by Lloyd’s capacity. But CEO Chris Thomas (pictured) is blunt about what that capacity is, and isn’t, worth on its own.
“Capacity on its own isn’t enough,” he said.
It is a striking admission from someone whose business is, ultimately, selling capacity. But it cuts straight to a scepticism many brokers carry quietly: That international or Lloyd’s-backed security can look impressive on a slip and then disappoint at the only moment that counts.
The problem is structural. Two markets can offer near-identical security, wordings and price, and a broker comparing them on paper would struggle to separate them. None of that paperwork tells you whether there is anyone in the country who understands a rigging contract, can inspect a damaged crawler crane, or can move a claim along before a contractor’s cash flow collapses.
For equipment-intensive sectors, that distinction is not academic. Australia’s crane rental industry alone is worth around $2.0 billion and spans roughly 1,789 businesses, according to IBISWorld, much of it tied to high-volatility resources and infrastructure work - exactly the kind of operation where a single damaged machine can stall a project. A forestry contractor or crane business sidelined by a disputed or slow-moving claim is not merely inconvenienced; it can be out of operation, in breach of contract, and haemorrhaging money while adjusters in another time zone request more documentation.
Thomas’s argument is that capacity becomes real only when it is wired into local infrastructure. ARTes leans on two local partners to do exactly that: Mobius, which provides distribution and broker relationships on the ground, and ToPAz, which handles specialist claims management and loss adjusting inside Australia. The aim, he said, is to avoid simply exporting a product from another market and hoping it lands.
“Brokers and clients need confidence that there are experienced people on the ground who understand the local market, can respond quickly and will be there when a claim occurs,” Thomas said.
The implication is a shift in how brokers interrogate specialist markets. Security ratings and capacity commitments answer whether an insurer can pay. They say nothing about whether it will respond quickly, competently, and locally when a complex equipment loss arrives.
That suggests a sharper set of questions at placement. Where does claims adjusting actually happen, and who does it? Does anyone assessing the loss understand the equipment and the contractual obligations the client operates under? Can the insurer respond inside the client’s operating timeframe, or will a remote loss sit in a queue? Is the distribution relationship backed by people who know the sector - or is it a product flown in and left to fend for itself?
For a generalist risk, these questions may be marginal. For a crane operator whose entire business rests on a handful of high-value, hard-to-replace machines, they are the difference between a claim that gets paid and a claim that gets argued.
Thomas frames the local model as what turns capacity from something theoretically available into something genuinely usable - international underwriting expertise paired with local service and claims support, rather than one standing in for the other.
The broader lesson is one of due-diligence discipline. As more overseas and Lloyd’s-backed capacity targets Australia’s underserved specialist sectors, the temptation is to treat capacity as a commodity and place on price and security alone. Thomas’s pitch is that the slip is the easy part. The claim is where specialist capacity either proves itself or quietly fails the client who was relying on it.
For brokers, the time to test whether capacity is real is before the loss, not after.
