AI Insurance Filings Index

Companion record. Decided cases interpreting these forms are recorded separately in the AI Coverage Litigation Register, opened 18 August 2026 with no decided case recorded. This index records what has been filed and offered; that register records what courts have said about it.

Sweep record — eight states, 19–21 August 2026

Six SERFF Filing Access instances were searched on 19 August 2026: Texas, New York, Colorado, Washington, Illinois and Ohio. Business type property and casualty; type of insurance left unset; no date range except where noted. Every query, including those returning nothing, is recorded here.

How advisory filings are reached. An advisory organisation’s filings are named for the line and the revision cycle, not for their contents: the filing carrying the generative AI exclusions is named GL-2025-OFR25. No product-name fragment reaches it. Advisory material must be searched under the filer’s legal name — Insurance Services Office, Inc. A search on Verisk returns none of it. Carrier filings are the reverse: they were reached only by product-name fragment, under form numbers and product names that could not have been guessed.

A check that must come first. An advisory organisation’s presence in a state’s instance is line-specific. In New York, filings by Insurance Services Office, Inc. appear across commercial auto, commercial property, dwelling, homeowners and commercial interline for 2025 and 2026, and general liability is absent from all of them; no carrier adoption of the 2025 general liability cycle appears either. Until it is established that a filer files a line in a system, a nil under that filer’s name in that system means nothing. New York is therefore recorded as opened and not closed: whether these forms are available there is not established by this method, and the answer lies outside SERFF.

Queries run in each state. Company name containing Insurance Services Office, submissions from 1 January 2025. Product name containing artificial, intelligen, generat, algorithm, machine learn, GenAI, Gen AI, A.I., CG 40 4, Adopting ISO, GL-2025 and exclusion. Company name containing Utica, Hartford, Berkley and AmTrust. A trailing space is stripped by the interface, so AI followed by a space returns several thousand filings on words such as aviation and is unusable; bare AI is unusable for the same reason. The interface supports no boolean operators, no wildcards and no comma-separated terms; a shorter fragment is the only way to reach several terms at once, and a state tracking number cannot be searched at all, though a SERFF tracking number can.

Texas. Product name containing artificial returned two filings, both recorded. Every other fragment returned nothing. Product name containing exclusion returned some eighty filings — among them exclusions for PFAS, Legionella, wildfire, space weather, human trafficking, virtual currency, bed bugs, asbestos, lead and contagious organic pathogens — and one carrier group’s generative AI exclusion, already recorded. Company name containing Utica returned fifty-three filings and no refiling of the withdrawn endorsement. Company name containing Berkley returned one hundred filings and no AI-related filing; form PC 51380 amends directors’ and officers’, employment practices and fiduciary liability, each exempt from form filing in Texas under §2301.0031(a)(9), (10) and (11), so its absence there is what that provision predicts rather than a fact about the filer.

Colorado, Washington, Illinois and Ohio. Each holds the same advisory filing. Company name containing Berkley and AmTrust in Colorado and Washington returned extensive filings in directors’ and officers’, employment practices, professional and umbrella liability — the lines Texas exempts — and no AI-related filing in either state. Those are nils this register can stand behind: the lines are filed in those states, the filers file them there, and the form is not among them. The entries for those two filers accordingly remain recorded from secondary sources with jurisdiction not examined.

Uptake, which is a separate question from approval. Carriers file explicit non-adoptions and delayed adoptions of advisory cycles, and Ohio gives that filing type a name of its own. One carrier group filed a delayed adoption of the 2025 general liability cycle in Colorado and in Washington, and a delayed adoption of the umbrella cycle in both. Another filed a non-adoption of the same general liability cycle in Illinois and in Ohio, and then filed its own generative AI exclusions instead. A third adopted the cycle in Illinois and filed a delayed adoption in Ohio on the same day. Whether these forms are approved somewhere and whether they are used there are different facts, and this register is beginning to hold both. A third distinction sits behind those two and is easily lost: adopting an advisory revision is not the same as attaching a form to a policy. In July 2026 one large carrier told the trade press that it adopts standard-forms revisions broadly in order to keep its filings aligned with the catalogue, and that it has no plans to incorporate the generative AI exclusion endorsements into its standard liability offering; another said it was not specifically seeking to use or implement them at that time. Those are carrier statements in trade press rather than filings, and this register records them here rather than as entries, because an entry requires a filing record. An adoption filing establishes that a carrier may use a form. Nothing in a state filing system establishes that it does.

Connecticut and Pennsylvania, 20 August 2026

Both hold the same advisory filing. Connecticut disposed of it on 13 November 2025 as Recorded Effective as Submitted and set an effective date of 1 March 2026. Pennsylvania disposed of it on 11 July 2025, the day it was submitted, as File and Use, with an effective date of 1 January 2026. Neither issued an objection letter. Company-name searches on Berkley and AmTrust in both states returned extensive filings in directors’ and officers’, employment practices, professional and umbrella liability, and no AI-related filing in either state.

Located and since read. Six further filings carrying generative AI exclusions were returned by these searches. Their form schedules were opened on 21 August 2026 and each is now recorded above. They were: in Connecticut, Utica National’s professional errors and omissions filing (SERFF UTCX-134853033 and 134853034) and The Hartford’s Spectrum filing (HART-135012606 and 135012607); in Pennsylvania, Utica National’s businessowners filing (UTCX-134848835 and 134848836), its general liability filing (UTCX-134848660 and 134848661), its professional errors and omissions filing (UTCX-134853070 and 134853071), and The Hartford’s Spectrum filing (HART-135004492 and 135004493). Each was listed here by tracking number while unread so that the gap was checkable, and reading them changed one fact that could not have been inferred: the Pennsylvania Spectrum filing carries two forms where the Connecticut filing of the same programme carries four. A filing located in a results grid is not an entry in this index; an entry requires the filing record.

The same form, different dates in different states

CG 40 47, CG 40 48 and CG 35 08 carry the edition date 01 26. That is an edition date, and the states that hold the filing have set four different answers to when the forms take effect there: Pennsylvania and Washington 1 January 2026, Illinois 1 February 2026 after the department moved it from 1 January, Connecticut 1 March 2026. Colorado records that the filer sets no effective date and supplies one only because the state requires every filing to carry one. Texas has neither approved nor disapproved the forms and no effective date exists there. Where a secondary source states that these forms took effect on a single national date, that is not what the filings show.

Status vocabulary is not the same in any two states

Each state names its dispositions differently and this index translates all of them into four terms. The raw strings are recorded so the translation can be checked: Texas APDR-Approved by Director and WD-Withdrawn By Company; Washington Approved, with a per-form approval date; Illinois Filed, with forms marked Reviewed; Colorado Closed-Filed, applied uniformly to every filing in the series including material unrelated to policy content; Ohio FILED; Connecticut Recorded Effective as Submitted, which the state distinguishes from Approved Effective as Submitted; Pennsylvania File and Use for form filings and Approved for rule filings, as a matter of filing type. New York additionally carries an explicit Disapproved status, which appears on other filers’ general liability forms. This index records a regulator’s disposition of a filing; where a state has also set an effective date, that date is recorded separately in the entry rather than folded into its status.

A carrier that declined the advisory forms and then adopted them

On 10 August 2026 The Hartford filed five proprietary generative AI exclusions for general liability in Pennsylvania, disposed the same day and effective 10 October 2026. In the explanatory memorandum to that filing the company states that it is adopting ISO form filing GL-2025-OFR25, which it had previously non-adopted in Pennsylvania under a filing it identifies by tracking number, together with subsequent state supplements. The earlier non-adoption and the later adoption are both in the record, and the later filing cites the earlier one. Whether a carrier adopts an advisory form, declines it, delays it, or declines it and then adopts it alongside its own is a fact about uptake rather than about approval, and the two are recorded separately here.

One state asks filers whether AI wrote the filing

From 1 May 2026 every new rate and form filing submitted to Washington must state whether artificial intelligence was used to prepare it. The question sits in the state-specific section of the filing and reads, in the filings this register has opened: whether the filer used AI tools — generative AI, machine learning, or AI embedded in vendor tools — to create or review the filing or the work it relies on, covering rates, factors, rules, underwriting, policy and forms, plan and product design, and network. A yes requires the filer to name the tool and vendor, say what it did, say what it affected, and describe its role and impact.

This is not the same subject as the rest of this index. Every other instrument recorded here governs an insurer’s use of AI in insurance — underwriting, pricing, claims — or excludes AI-related liability from a policy. This governs the use of AI in preparing a document submitted to a regulator. The nearest analogue is not in insurance regulation at all: it is the standing orders of the federal judges who require an attorney to certify whether generative AI was used in preparing a court filing, and to confirm that a human verified it.

What the filings show. Three Washington filings opened by this register carry the question — submitted 29 June, 1 July and 8 July 2026. Three earlier Washington filings, submitted 9 July 2025, 26 January 2026 and 27 February 2026, do not. Nine filings opened in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Texas, submitted between 30 June and 10 August 2026, carry no such question, including filings made by the same company in four states within two days of each other where only the Washington one asks. Two filers have answered, and both answered no. This register has opened no Washington filing submitted between 1 May and 29 June 2026, so the first appearance of the question in practice is unobserved rather than dated.

The requirement is recorded here rather than as an entry in the table above, because it is not a form. It is now a standing check: the answer to this question will be recorded for every Washington filing this register opens, and any filer answering yes will be recorded with what it disclosed.

Requirement reported by the American Association of Insurance Services, 6 April 2026, from a notice issued by the Washington Office of the Insurance Commissioner; question text as it appears in filings read by this register on 26 August 2026. Filings carrying the question: SERFF LWCM-135002758, HART-135004322, LWCM-135012825.

Open thread — closed

The Texas Department of Insurance’s objection letter of 3 March 2026 in the Utica National filing states that the Department was reviewing similar endorsements filed by ISO under its file number S732634 and was raising the same concerns with ISO. That filing was located on 19 August 2026 and is recorded above: SERFF ISOF-134618980, Texas file S732634, submitted 28 August 2025 and still pending. A state tracking number cannot be searched directly — the interface offers a SERFF tracking number field but none for the state’s own number — so the filing was reached by the filer’s legal name instead.

The same package of endorsements in two states

The advisory filing pending in Texas and the carrier filing approved in Washington carry the same set of subjects. Recorded here because both records are public and both are read; no conclusion is drawn about why the outcomes differ.

Insurance Services Office, Inc. filed GL-2025-OFR25 in Texas on 28 August 2025 (SERFF ISOF-134618980, Texas file S732634). Nine forms. Seven objection letters between 2 September 2025 and 7 July 2026. Two forms withdrawn by the company on 13 July 2026. No disposition as of 28 August 2026; state status LVL4-With Director.

Great American Insurance Group filed “25371 - Umbrella Optional Endorsements 01-26” in Washington on 27 October 2025 (SERFF GACX-134710006, Washington state file 492836). Ten forms. No objection letter. Approved 14 November 2025, eighteen days after submission.

Subject by subject, as filed:

• Generative artificial intelligence — Texas: CG 40 47, CG 40 48, no schedule item status. Washington: UMS 20 05, UMU 20 45, approved.
• War — Texas: CG 00 70, CG 00 78, no schedule item status; the department asked on 7 July 2026 that both be retitled to reference cyber. Washington: EXS 20 66, approved.
• Human trafficking — Texas: CG 40 49, no schedule item status. Washington: UMS 21 19, UMU 20 48, approved.
• Punitive or exemplary damages — Texas: CG 40 50, no schedule item status. Washington: UMU 20 41, approved.
• Assault or battery — Texas: CG 40 51, no schedule item status. Washington: UMU 20 44, approved.
• Litigation funding disclosure — Texas: CG 99 11, withdrawn by the company 13 July 2026. Washington: UMS 40 45, UMU 40 26, approved.
• Personal and advertising injury definition — Texas: CG 24 13, withdrawn by the company 13 July 2026. Washington: UMU 40 27, approved.

Only the generative artificial intelligence forms are entries in this index. The others are recorded here as the contents of two filings this register has read, and are not entries.

Sweep record — Texas and Washington, 28 August 2026

Texas, advisory filing re-read. SERFF ISOF-134618980 was read again on 28 August 2026, having last been read on 21 August. SERFF status Pending State Action; Texas state status LVL4-With Director; no disposition date and no disposition status. State status last changed 11 June 2026; filing status last changed 17 July 2026, when the company answered the seventh objection letter. Submitted 28 August 2025. The two entries above are re-confirmed to that date.

Washington, Great American Insurance Group. Company-name search returned ninety filings. Two entries recorded, above. Four filings are located and not read: SERFF GACX-134956798 (umbrella and excess, Active Suspense), GACX-134973132 (umbrella and excess), GACX-134563696 (commercial general liability, closed withdrawn) and GACX-134772245 (a rate/rule filing recording non-adoptions of advisory loss costs). SERFF GACX-134429324, an umbrella follow-form filing approved 18 March 2025, was read and carries no artificial intelligence or generative content.

Texas, carrier filings read and not recorded. SERFF UTCX-135026495, in which the carrier adopted the advisory organisation’s 2026 general liability reference filing, was submitted 22 July 2026 and approved 3 August 2026 without objection; it contains no occurrence of “artificial” or “generative” and is not an entry. SERFF UTCX-134863468 and UTCX-134863467, a space weather exclusion and its rule page, were submitted 10 March 2026 and withdrawn by the company on 30 March and 15 April 2026 after objection letters of 17 and 24 March. That endorsement is not an artificial intelligence form and is not an entry; it is recorded here because it is the same carrier’s third withdrawal of an exclusion in Texas within six weeks, after objection, and a reader weighing the two withdrawn entries above should have that alongside them.

Where this index stands, 28 August 2026

Eight state filing systems have been read: Texas, Colorado, Washington, Illinois, Ohio, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New York. Sixty-two entries. Five filers carry entries recorded from filing records; two carry entries recorded from secondary sources with the states searched named in the entry.

What is outstanding, so that a reader can judge what this index does not cover. Forty-two states have not been read. New York is opened and not closed: the filer’s general liability filings do not appear in that state’s public system, and the answer lies outside it. Two Texas filings are undisposed as of the date above — the advisory filing pending with the Director, which on 28 August 2026 had been pending one year to the day, and a carrier filing in Connecticut pending on an objection concerning a different form — and this index will not know when either moves until the next sweep is conducted and entered here. One nil result was reached on 28 August 2026 and is not recorded, because a single run of a query is not treated here as a nil: a search of Texas by that filer’s company name returned no refiling of the endorsement withdrawn in March, and the query has been run once. Three effective dates recorded in these entries fall after the date above: 12 September 2026, 10 October 2026 and 1 January 2027. Each is the date the state set in the filing, not a prediction, and none has been confirmed as having taken effect.

The date on every entry is the date it was last confirmed. Where that date is old, the entry is old, and this index says so rather than refreshing a stamp it has not re-earned.

Under examination — named in secondary sources, not yet recorded

The following are reported in trade and secondary sources and enter the table only when confirmed against a checkable source: Corgi Insurance (reported AI & Algorithmic Liability Endorsement), Coalition (reported deepfake endorsement to cyber policies, Dec 2025), the Google Cloud Risk Protection Program (reported affirmative AI endorsements with Beazley, Chubb and Munich Re), and reported carrier-specific AI endorsements or exclusions from Hamilton, AIG, Chubb, Beazley, and QBE; reported state approvals of exclusion filings for Berkshire Hathaway, Chubb, and Travelers. Being listed here is a statement about our confirmation queue, not about any organisation’s filings.