An interview with Kirill Patyrykin, Managing Director of Surety Marine.

1. What is Surety Marine’s core business, and how does it differ from traditional insurers? Could you also explain the company’s rebranding?

First, it is worth explaining that Surety Marine grew out of an underwriting agency.

Until 2026, our team operated as a managing general agent, or MGA. We assessed and accepted risks and issued insurance policies, but did so on behalf of Sun Re, using its balance sheet and acting under delegated authority. This is a well-established model in marine insurance, where underwriting expertise and capital are provided by different parties.

By 2026, we had accumulated sufficient experience, portfolio scale and data to carry risk on our own balance sheet. That was how Surety Marine became an independent, licensed insurer.

There are two principal differences between us and traditional insurance companies, both rooted in how the business is structured.

The first is responsiveness. In a volatile market, clients need a solution tailored to a particular operation, vessel and voyage, rather than a standard product from a catalogue. They also need it quickly.

The second is our cost structure. Our team of 20 operates at a cost of less than 10% of premium income, compared with figures reaching 35% at some of the largest insurers. This is not about spending less on people. The difference comes from allowing systems to handle routine work, so that people can focus on tasks those systems cannot perform.

We have built a technology company that provides insurance, rather than an insurance company that adopts technology.

2. What are the main trends shaping the global marine insurance market today?

Two developments are reshaping the market: the digitisation of supply chains and the redirection of trade routes. The first changes the volume and quality of available information. The second changes the geography of risk: routes considered routine yesterday may require a separate assessment today.

The most significant change, however, has come from clients. Previously, an insurance policy was enough: a document, a limit and a premium. Today, clients want to understand their risk and manage it. In the market, we refer to this as Risk-as-a-Service. An answer along the lines of “We have to decline because of a combination of factors” is no longer considered acceptable.

Traditional insurers are not losing ground because they lack capital. There is plenty of capital in the market. They are losing ground because of speed.

Underwriting processes at large organisations are often structured so that anything not covered by existing guidelines is automatically treated as non-standard. A non-standard risk requires a committee, a committee takes time, and the client’s vessel still has a schedule to meet.

As a result, 5–10% of enquiries effectively go unanswered. They are not declined on their merits; they are simply not considered in time. That is where we see our opportunity.

3. Which technologies and data sources underpin your risk assessment system?

Our system draws on several independent sources, and the real value comes from bringing them together.

These include Skytek’s space technologies, originally developed for NASA and ESA; the Global Maritime database following S&P’s acquisition of Sea-web; LexisNexis Bridger, with several million profiles used for sanctions compliance; and port State control records.

Each source, on its own, provides only part of the picture. A vessel may look impeccable on paper and have a clean detention record, yet behave at sea in a way that changes the assessment. Bringing these sources together is a central part of our work.

We access them both manually and through automated API connections, and we continue to expand the range of information available to us.

The pace of change also matters. Tools that were at the cutting edge ten years ago can be hopelessly outdated today. We have to monitor this market continuously; otherwise, a technological advantage becomes technical debt.

4. How can satellite data help identify risks to vessels and cargo?

Satellite imagery and Automatic Identification System, or AIS, data show how a vessel behaves, rather than how it is described in its documents. Those are fundamentally different things.

Across our insured fleet, we can identify recurring patterns: how a vessel moves, where it spends longer than expected, which ports it enters and whether its operating pattern changes. These observations inform a practical underwriting decision for an individual vessel: whether to accept the risk and on what terms.

Most market participants work with more general information, such as annual statistics, country ratings and vessel class. These are useful for strategy, but of little use when assessing a specific voyage.

The second application is accumulation monitoring. We can quickly identify concentrations of insured vessels in a particular region and approaching threats, whether a typhoon, a cyclone or the closure of a strait. This allows us to anticipate the need for additional financial capacity.

In our industry, the difference between knowing in advance and finding out afterwards is measured in money.

5. Which indicators matter most when analysing risks associated with ports and shipping routes?

Our risk factors are derived from dozens of parameters. The main ones include:

• The vessel’s port State control detention history.

• Weather conditions along the route and at ports of call.

• The geopolitical situation in the region.

• The vessel’s age.

• How frequently the vessel changes ownership.

The last of these is often underestimated. Frequent changes of ownership do not, in themselves, indicate a breach of any rule. But when combined with other signs—a changed route, a new technical manager or gaps in reporting—they can become a signal that changes the entire assessment.

None of these factors works in isolation. What matters is their combination, and assessing all those combinations manually within the client’s timeframe is simply not feasible.

6. Can artificial intelligence detect risks early enough to reduce the number of insurance incidents and the resulting losses?

Yes, under certain conditions.

AI can monitor a portfolio continuously. When a vessel is about to enter a high-risk area or the path of an approaching storm, the system sends an alert. This gives the underwriter an opportunity to intervene before an incident occurs, rather than simply document the loss afterwards.

A person cannot physically monitor an entire portfolio 24/7. AI can.

However, it would be naïve to treat algorithms as a cure-all. A model must be supported by record-keeping and oversight mechanisms that people can understand. This is the principle behind Explainable AI.

Without it, you have an output that cannot be verified. That can be worse than having no output at all, because an unverified assessment creates a false sense of certainty.

Our Chief Underwriter, Pavel Vasilenko, and I explored this subject in greater detail in a separate article.

7. How is the development of the Middle Corridor affecting demand for marine and logistics insurance in the region?

Against a backdrop of global instability, the Middle Corridor is becoming one of the principal routes connecting Asia and Europe. The Northern Sea Route is the only comparable alternative, but market fragmentation and escalating conflicts mean that it is not suitable for everyone.

Transit volumes are growing while infrastructure is operating close to capacity, and this directly increases demand for insurance. When a route is running at its limits, any disruption can quickly turn into a delay.

Multimodal transport carries elevated risks of delay and cargo damage. Every transfer introduces a new point of responsibility and another set of documents. By the time cargo has travelled by sea, rail and road, it has accumulated a substantial operational history. If a loss occurs, that history must be examined.

This is why the region needs transparent, technology-supported solutions, rather than simply a standard insurance policy.

8. Which risks are most relevant to shipping in Azerbaijan’s sector of the Caspian Sea?

The principal physical risk today is the falling level of the Caspian Sea. It is a clear example of environmental change directly reshaping the economics of transport.

The consequences are already visible: shallower port approaches, reduced permissible vessel loads, a greater risk of grounding and higher dredging costs. A vessel that could carry a full cargo yesterday may now have to sail partly loaded, while its fixed voyage costs remain the same.

There are also logistical constraints, including a shortage of vessels on the Caspian and insufficient railway flatcars on the overland sections of the route.

The political context cannot be overlooked either. Each Caspian littoral state faces its own complex foreign policy circumstances. When insuring Caspian transit, this factor carries no less weight than water depth.

9. Is Surety Marine considering expansion into the South Caucasus, Central Asia or the CIS markets?

The transit hubs of the Caucasus and Central Asia fit our business profile closely. These are trade ecosystems in emerging markets, with significant geopolitical exposure, demanding compliance requirements and a need for modern digital guarantees. We have built our tools for precisely this kind of environment.

Our current focus is on the Far East, Southeast Asia, India and the Gulf countries. This reflects the composition of our existing portfolio and the locations where we have already established our correspondent network.

For an insurer, a local presence means more than having an office. It means having a correspondent who can attend the port when an incident occurs.

We continue to follow developments in the region. Our priorities are determined by the balance between profitability and risk, and that balance may change as transit through the Caspian and the Middle Corridor grows.

10. What are Surety Marine’s development plans and objectives for the coming years?

Our Kvilon cloud platform brings operating costs below 10% of premium income, compared with 25–35% at traditional insurers with large IT systems. Our target is to reduce this figure to 2.5%. Our IT team can also deploy the platform for other market participants.

Today, 70% of insurance enquiries are processed automatically. We intend to increase that share so that the team can concentrate on the 5% of cases that are genuinely complex and non-standard, while the system handles routine work.

The purpose of automation is to ensure that people can focus on the decisions where human judgement is truly needed.

By 2030, we aim to obtain an investment-grade rating equivalent to BBB on the S&P or Fitch scales, enter the market for international investment contracts in emerging economies, and reach US$89.5 million in premium income.