Martyn’s Law is beginning to reshape not just how terrorism risk is managed, but how responsibility for that risk is understood across organisations and their advisers.
The Home Office’s statutory guidance, published ahead of the legislation’s expected introduction in spring 2027, provides greater clarity on how the new duty will operate in practice. More significantly, it reinforces a broader shift already emerging across the market: terrorism risk is no longer viewed solely through the lens of insurance coverage, but increasingly as a matter of governance, accountability and preparedness.
As firms begin to interpret what compliance will require in practice, attention is turning to how those obligations may influence insurance arrangements and advisory risk.
Alistair Kinley, head of policy development at Clyde & Co, said the guidance underlines that advance planning is becoming central to how terrorism risk is approached.
“The Home Office’s statutory guidance under Martyn’s Law provides long-awaited clarity on how the new duty will work in practice,” he said.
“For insurers and insureds alike, the guidance reinforces that advance planning to mitigate potential harm caused by terrorism risk is no longer just a coverage / risk transfer question but a governance issue, with clear expectations around responsibility, proportionality, and preparedness.”
As the enforcement and sanctioning powers of the new regulator, expected to be the Security Industry Authority, come into focus, that emphasis is expected to feed more directly into underwriting and risk evaluation.
“As the enforcement and sanctioning powers of the new regulator - the Security Industry Authority - come into focus, insurers will increasingly scrutinise how organisations assess risk, identify their ‘responsible person’, and embed proportionate protective measures - making compliance with Martyn’s Law directly relevant to underwriting, coverage terms and reputational risk,” Kinley said.
That growing focus on governance is also beginning to shape how liability is considered across the insurance chain.
For Martin Swann, managing director of specialty and London markets at Jensten Group, the implications extend beyond insured entities to the brokers advising them.
“Martyn’s Law turns terrorism risk into a boardroom issue, changing the exposure not just for directors, but for the brokers advising them,” he said.
By placing explicit counter-terrorism duties on those responsible for public venues, the legislation increases personal exposure for directors through heightened regulatory scrutiny and the potential for investigation costs, even in the absence of an incident. That shift introduces additional professional indemnity considerations for brokers.
“Where D&O and liability programmes do not adequately protect directors against regulatory action, or where brokers fail to identify, advise on and clearly document the implications of the law, brokers may find their advice, rather than the underlying event, at the centre of a claim.”
While the full market impact will depend on how the legislation is implemented in practice, early indications point to a shift in emphasis away from the consequences of an event and towards the steps taken in anticipation of one.
