What Hantavirus taught insurers and businesses about systemic risk
The recent global Hantavirus outbreak onboard the MV Hondius, which was prevented from docking at Cape Verde, has brought global attention to not just what was considered at the time to be a major health risk but also the operational risks that infectious disease can pose for ports and logistics networks.
While the hantavirus situation was ultimately contained through coordinated international health protocols, it raises a practical question for ports and logistics operators. What would happen if a suspected infectious case was identified on a vessel already berthed or actively entering a commercial harbour?
In such a scenario, says Juliet Maulin, Head of Aviation and Marine at GIB, what begins as a contained health concern can escalate quickly into a broader operational disruption that extends well beyond the vessel itself.
“An incident like this at port can very quickly shift into a multi-agency operational event affecting berth availability and cargo movement, not to mention flow of trade activity through the port system,” says Maulin. “The impact is rarely isolated to the ship involved.”
From a commercial perspective, trade continuity is the biggest concern at this point. Vessels may be held offshore or delayed at berth, while inspections and clearance procedures introduce bottlenecks into already constrained port systems. In environments where port capacity is limited, even short disruptions can quickly translate into congestion or delayed cargo release, driving up logistics costs and creating knock-on pressure across supply chains.
While the hantavirus-related incident did not result in widespread marine insurance losses, it does reflect a pattern seen in previous systemic disruptions; where initial containment efforts mask broader commercial exposure. “There is rapid coordination between authorities, but from a trade perspective the impact is felt through delays, rerouting and operational interruption rather than direct damage.”
She adds that businesses often underestimate how quickly non-damage events can affect contractual timelines, particularly where time-sensitive goods such as pharmaceuticals, perishables or critical industrial inputs are involved.
“Zombie apocalypse” or not, business continuity planning is crucial
Events of this nature highlight that interruption can be triggered by regulatory or precautionary measures that sit outside traditional insurance assumptions. Maulin points to lessons drawn from previous large-scale disruptions, noting that while each event is different in scale and origin, the underlying vulnerability is consistent.
“Whether it is a pandemic scenario or something as extreme as a so-called ‘zombie apocalypse’ type event used in stress testing models, the lesson is the same,” says Maulin. “What matters is how quickly it disrupts trade flow and operational continuity once systems are under pressure.”
In practice, this creates potential for liability disputes across multiple layers of the supply chain. These may include disagreements between ship owners and charterers over delay exposure, between carriers and cargo owners over delivery obligations or between logistics providers where contractual terms do not clearly allocate risk.
From an insurance standpoint, the limitations become more visible under stress conditions. Jonathan Lindeque, Divisional Executive: Agriculture and Food at GIB, notes that communicable disease exposure is broadly excluded across most commercial insurance structures.
“Most insurance policies strictly exclude cover for communicable diseases,” he says. “From a pure cover point of view, many businesses are exposed in ways they do not always fully appreciate.”
This is particularly relevant in scenarios where cargo is delayed but not physically damaged, meaning traditional marine cargo policies do not respond. Similarly, business interruption cover is often dependent on physical damage triggers unless specifically extended, leaving a gap between operational loss and insured recovery.
Ultimately, the issue extends beyond insurance placement into contractual clarity and risk allocation. Where responsibilities are not clearly defined in shipping agreements, disputes are more likely to emerge when disruption occurs.
Ryan Shepard, Divisional Executive: Bespoke and Reinsurance at GIB, says “Many businesses still assume this type of disruption is insured, when in reality much of that exposure now sits with them. Businesses need to take a more deliberate approach to how systemic disruption risk is managed across contracts, operations and internal continuity planning.”
While infectious disease-related port disruptions remain rare, the broader lesson for global trade is that low-probability events can still generate high-impact operational consequences. Businesses may not be able to predict specific incidents, but it’s crucial that there is a deeper awareness and understanding about where protection exists as a default and where it needs to be provided for and specified.
