Early results from a LinkedIn poll by Insurance Business UK (IBUK) suggest readers are wary of standardising cyber insurers' core wordings, with most voters preferring to leave insurers to compete.

Cast your vote and see the latest results here

Of the first 34 votes, 56% said insurers should be left to compete on wordings, and a further 12% said better comparison tools would do more than common wordings. Just 32% backed standardising core cyber cover across the board, while limiting standardisation to triggers and losses drew no votes.

The poll follows IBUK's interview with Gülsah Dagdelen, head of cyber at Tokio Marine HCC International, who said two cyber policies can share the same core sections and still respond differently to the same incident. The difference often lies in how triggers are defined and how a loss is calculated.

"We see clauses that are being drafted on a named peril version or on an unnamed, unintentional, however-caused basis," Dagdelen said.

She said the triggers for business interruption and third-party loss, and the way losses are calculated, could be standardised without limiting insurers' ability to innovate. In a soft market, though, insurers want to stand apart, and standardised approaches to some coverages are disappearing again.

That push to differentiate is already visible. CFC this month updated its Cyber Proactive Response policy to cover senior executives personally targeted in attacks, add affirmative AI wording and extend the business interruption indemnity period from 12 to 18 months. The product was launched in April 2025 for businesses with revenues of up to $250 million, and CFC had already folded similar affirmative AI language into its financial institutions suite.

Brokers' trade body has already flagged policy language as a barrier. In its 2026 manifesto, the British Insurance Brokers' Association (BIBA) committed to increasing take-up of stand-alone cyber cover by demystifying policy language, alongside broker training. BIBA associate member Broker Insights put stand-alone cyber take-up at just 2.8%, according to BIBA.

The question is also on the broking community's agenda. Sam Cheshire, head of cyber, UK retail, at Gallagher, said it was a hot topic amongst brokers, underwriters, and the BIBA Cyber Committee, of which he is a member. He sees a middle ground in common definitions rather than common wordings.

"I think standardised wordings is one thing. I think standardised definitions is another question, i.e., we allow the insurers to provide flexibility on their cover, but they have to define business interruption in the same way," Cheshire said.

He said dependent business interruption could be defined consistently too.

"I'll be very interested to see what your poll says," he said.

The question matters because cyber incidents are common: 43% of UK businesses reported a breach or attack in the past 12 months, according to the government's Cyber Security Breaches Survey 2025/2026. Research from Hiscox London Market has also found that cyber is the risk most likely to set off others, so a single attack can leave losses falling across several policies with different triggers and wordings.

Early voters sided with competition rather than the middle ground Dagdelen and Cheshire describe. Should the market agree on how core cyber cover responds, or is competition on wordings serving clients better? Readers who have seen two policies respond differently to the same claim can share their experience in the comments on the LinkedIn post.

Read the full story: Cyber policies can look identical until a claim exposes the difference