Inland Marine Loss Ratios Hit 11-Year Low as Underwriting Outperforms
AM Best’s latest report reveals that inland marine insurance achieved an 11-year low in loss and LAE ratios in 2025, outperforming the broader P/C sector by over 20 percentage points. Despite limited premium growth driven by inflation and a slight decline in U.S. construction spending since 2024, the segment maintains strong underwriting results. Market share among top insurers has decreased over the past five years, though recent concentration shifts were largely due to pet insurance reclassification rather than carrier consolidation.

*this image is generated using AI for illustrative purposes only.
The inland marine line of insurance coverage continues to outperform the broader U.S. property/casualty (P/C) sector on underwriting performance, according to a new report by AM Best. The segment’s specialized expertise in covering goods transported across land and inventory stored at temporary off-site locations has fueled consistent profitability, even as premium growth remains limited and largely driven by inflationary factors and ancillary coverages.
Underwriting Performance
Inland marine underwriters have consistently reported lower calendar year loss and loss adjustment expense (LAE) ratios than the broader P/C industry across all lines underwritten. This performance gap has expanded to greater than 20 percentage points annually over the past four years.
Christopher Graham, senior industry analyst at AM Best, noted that the line’s underwriting performance reached an eleven-year low for loss and LAE ratios in 2025. This metric highlights the segment’s ability to maintain tight control over claims costs despite evolving risk landscapes.
Market Dynamics and Exposure
The inland marine coverage line includes on-site materials for construction projects and special high-value items such as fine arts, computers, television, video and sound equipment, and medical diagnostic equipment. Historically, there has been an 80/20 split between commercial inland marine exposures (such as freight or property on the move) and personal inland marine exposures (including high-value niche items like fine arts, jewelry, and collectibles). Pet insurance was included in this coverage line up until 2024.
Construction spending serves as a proxy for the number of exposures or property being insured. U.S. construction spending overall has fallen slightly since its peak in 2024. Less construction spending could mean less demand for inland marine insurance, potentially causing increased competition and pricing cuts for projects that do get moving.
Competitive Landscape
The report notes an increasingly competitive inland marine landscape over the past decade, with top insurers holding less market share now than five years ago. A small increase in concentration among the different groupings within the segment’s top 10 ranking in 2024 was attributed to pet insurance plans becoming their own line rather than any actual market share increase among the top carriers.
What the Numbers Show
The divergence between the segment’s underwriting discipline and broader market pressures is evident in the data. While the top insurers have seen their market share erode over the last five years, the segment’s collective loss ratio gap against the wider P/C industry has widened to more than 20 percentage points annually. This suggests that profitability in inland marine is driven less by market dominance or volume growth and more by specialized risk selection and claims management capabilities that remain effective even in a fragmented competitive environment.
How might the recent decline in U.S. construction spending impact inland marine insurers' ability to maintain their current underwriting discipline and loss ratios?
Will the fragmentation of market share among top carriers lead to aggressive pricing wars that could erode the segment's historical profitability advantage?
What specific technological or data-driven strategies are inland marine underwriters employing to sustain such low loss ratios despite evolving risk landscapes?

































