The Insurance Illusion 2026

This report is based on our work with more than 750 Danish businesses. It reveals recurring gaps in coverage, structural flaws and untapped opportunities across eight industries, and what it costs not to act.

Business insurance has increasingly become a strategic issue rather than an administrative one. As the risk landscape for Danish businesses has grown more complex, so has the gap between standard policies and actual risk exposure.

Of the businesses we review, 90% end up with better coverage. The average saving on an existing portfolio is 25%. Not through luck, but through method.

This report is not only about insurance. It is about risk, and about how businesses can allocate, reduce and manage it to their advantage, whether or not it can be insured.

The report draws on Leaf's work with businesses across a range of industries. It sets out the patterns we identify in our day-to-day advisory work: where standard solutions fail, where businesses are exposed without knowing it, and where there are concrete opportunities to strengthen coverage and reduce costs.

It is written for leaders and decision-makers who want a qualified basis for assessing whether their company's insurance matches the risk landscape they actually operate in.

How to read this report

The report is in four parts:

What Leaf is, and why this report. We introduce Leaf and our AI agent for business insurance.

The challenges the industry, and your broker, do not solve. The structural flaws and patterns we see across Danish business year after year, and who profits from them going unsolved.

Insights by industry. A review of eight industries, each with its typical pitfalls, a case study from practice and some sharp questions for your broker.

The risk landscape to 2027. The developments Danish businesses should be preparing for now.

From the founders

Every day we meet businesses that are run professionally and responsibly, yet still manage risk poorly. It is rarely because nobody has given it any thought. Far more often it is because risk and business insurance form a complex, fast-moving field that demands continuous attention, and most businesses have neither the overview nor the resources to prioritise it day to day.

The insurance market is consolidating. Terms are tightening. Regulatory requirements are getting stricter. And businesses' own activities, supplier relationships and contractual obligations are changing at a pace their policies rarely keep up with.

That is what we built Leaf to address. No person can gather the volume of information it takes to fix this problem. We use an AI agent to review millions of data points, identify a given company's risk, recommend how it is objectively best handled and then execute on your behalf, and not only through insurance. Objectively best does not mean cheapest. It means the right insurers: well established, with solid terms and proper claims handling. The savings follow from that. They are not the promise. They are the consequence.

By working from data, our experts deliver objective professional depth backed by systematic market monitoring. That makes sure our clients' risk coverage reflects not just the reality they operate in today, but the growth and change ahead of them.

This report is our contribution to a better informed conversation about risk and business insurance in Denmark. If it prompts you to ask one question you have not asked before, it has done its job.

Mads Gjerrild, CEO, and Albert Nygaard, COO

What Leaf is, and why this report

AI-driven objectivity

Leaf is not tied to any single insurer. We take no commission from insurers and have no commercial incentive to recommend one product over another. Our advice is built entirely around our clients' interests, and that shapes the way we work.

Our primary advisor is an AI agent that works around the clock. Behind the platform sits an expert team of insurance brokers, claims handlers and commercial lawyers who step in when a situation calls for human judgement.

Data removes unnecessary cost

The traditional broker model is built on manual processes, annual reviews and relationships rather than data. This is not the individual advisor's fault. It is a structural limitation, and it means that even capable brokers work from outdated information with no systematic market monitoring. The result is the same recurring errors and the same inadequate coverage, year after year.

By replacing manual estimates with AI-driven analysis in real time, Leaf builds a factual basis that removes the traditional uncertainty loadings and expensive "safety margins". What follows is a conversation about coverage, terms and premiums that reflects the company's actual risk profile. No more and no less.

AI as primary advisor

Through Leaf's AI agent, you get a continuous overview of your risk, your coverage, your terms and your premium levels across the whole portfolio. Changes in the business, whether new employees, new equipment or new activities, are reflected automatically. Claims are handled in a structured way, with a full audit trail and documentation. Insurance moves from being a passive budget line to an actively managed part of how the business handles risk.

A transparent pricing model

Our pricing model is simple: you pay a fixed, transparent percentage of your premium for access to our AI agents and your expert team. It replaces the opaque commission arrangements and hidden fees that are common in the industry, and that in practice give the traditional broker a financial incentive to keep premiums high rather than bring them down.

The challenges the industry (and your broker) do not solve

In recent years Danish businesses have navigated a risk landscape shaped by geopolitical instability, accelerating regulation and technological change. For their insurance, the consequences have been concrete: premiums have risen, terms have narrowed, and the demands on documentation and compliance have intensified.

Yet year after year we see the same fundamental errors and omissions, across industries and across company sizes. That is not accidental. It is a consequence of an industry structure that, in its traditional form, was never designed for continuous updating, systematic market monitoring or proactive risk management.

It is not that brokers lack competence. It is that the traditional broker model was not built to solve these problems.

Three patterns recur

The policy does not keep pace with the business. Businesses grow, change what they do, enter new partnerships and expand geographically. The insurance is rarely updated to match. The result is a widening gap between the exposure the business actually carries and the coverage the policy actually provides. That gap tends to surface only once a loss has occurred.

Coverage gaps are structural, not accidental. Subcontractor liability, contractual obligations to clients, geographical exposure and industry-specific statutory requirements are systematically left inadequately covered in standard policies. This is not a mistake made by an individual advisor. It follows from standard products not being designed for one specific company's risk profile and growth.

Not every coverage gap can be closed with a policy. Contracts, disclaimers and risk allocation are often a more effective tool than insurance, and that is a central part of the advice Leaf provides.

The market is rarely tested. Businesses evolve: new activities, new markets, new risks. The insurance rarely follows. Brokers and insurers have no structural interest in reopening an arrangement that is already settled. The result is that most businesses pay for a policy suited to the business they used to have rather than the one they have now. At worst, price walking sets in, and the most loyal clients end up paying the highest premiums. Putting the portfolio out to tender systematically tends to produce savings of 15% to 40%, without compromising the scope or quality of coverage. If anything, the opposite.

The patterns described here are not new. They have been around for years, and they will persist for as long as insurance is treated as a static administrative task rather than a live part of how a business manages risk.

What follows is an industry-by-industry look at how this plays out in practice, and what becomes possible when it is addressed systematically.

Restaurants and hospitality

Typical challenges and pitfalls

The restaurant industry combines high operational risk, seasonal revenue and complex lease obligations. That produces a risk profile markedly different from businesses in general, and one that standard policies consistently underestimate.

The business interruption sum insured does not reflect the actual exposure. Turnover and operating costs move constantly, but the business interruption sum is typically set once and rarely revisited. So when trading stops, whether through fire, water damage or burglary, the business is only partly covered and has to absorb a significant share of the loss itself. For a restaurant with high fixed costs, that can be existential.

New businesses overpay in the start-up phase. Insurance premiums are a fixed cost in an industry defined by seasonal swings and tight cash flow. Yet premiums and coverage are rarely aligned with the actual revenue cycle. The result is unnecessary fixed cost in exactly the periods when cash is tightest.

Lease requirements are not built into the policy. Commercial leases typically set specific requirements for the scope of fire and theft cover. Where those requirements are not explicitly reflected in the insurance terms, the business can be left holding a policy that is void in precisely the scenario it was bought for.

Case: restaurant chain, eastern Denmark, 13 locations

A restaurant chain with 13 locations had built an insurance structure that had not kept pace with its growth. Coverage was static while turnover, headcount and the number of locations kept changing. Leaf connected the platform's automatic updating to the company's accounting system and mapped the real risk profile across all locations.

Results

• Automated risk management across all 13 locations. Coverage updates automatically as equipment is bought, staff are hired and new sites open.

• Inadequate business interruption and equipment cover eliminated, where a claim would have caused substantial losses.

• More than DKK 100,000 in annual savings by removing redundant coverage and aligning premiums with actual operations.

Questions for your broker

• "When did you last recalculate our business interruption sum, and on what figures?"

• "Do the fire requirements in our lease match exactly what our policy says?"

• "Have you actively compared our policy against the market in the past year, and can you show me?"

Manufacturing

Typical challenges and pitfalls

Manufacturers operate with complex supply chains, high fixed costs and a regulatory environment that keeps shifting. The risk profile is complex, and the insurance should reflect that.

The business interruption sum insured is systematically too low. In manufacturing, with long rebuild times, specialised plant and high fixed capacity costs, even a short stoppage can have serious financial consequences. Yet we regularly see business interruption sums calculated from outdated turnover figures, or without proper regard for how long a rebuild would actually take.

Supply chain risk is not covered. Disruption in the supply chain, whether from supplier failure, logistics problems or geopolitical events, can generate significant losses that trigger no payout under a standard policy. Supply chain exposure is increasingly a material risk that needs addressing directly.

The policy is not updated as regulation changes. Product liability requirements, environmental legislation and fire safety rules are in constant motion. Insurance terms do not update themselves to match, and a business can operate for years under a policy that no longer meets its regulatory obligations.

Case: manufacturer, central Jutland

A medium-sized manufacturer had never had its insurance portfolio reviewed systematically. The review found overpriced statutory work injury cover and effectively no protection against digital threats, despite growing exposure to online banking fraud and cyber attacks.

Results

• Substantially improved cyber coverage, from no real protection to solid defence against fraud and digital attacks.

• Insurance as an active process. The platform drives continuous optimisation instead of leaving a budget line untouched.

• Meaningful savings on work injury cover by aligning the premium with the actual risk profile.

Questions for your broker

• "Is our supply chain exposure explicitly addressed in the policy, and what exactly are we covered for if a key supplier fails?"

• "Is our business interruption sum based on the actual rebuild time for our plant?"

• "Which regulatory changes from the past year have you proactively reflected in our terms?"

Software

Typical challenges and pitfalls

Software companies have a fundamentally different risk profile from traditional manufacturers or traders, yet they often buy insurance designed for those businesses. The result is systematically inadequate cover on the exposures that actually matter.

Disclaimers in the terms of business are inadequate. Generic or poorly drafted disclaimers offer no real protection in a client dispute. A software company delivering business-critical systems can carry significant legal liability with no matching insurance behind it.

Data and system access create distinct exposure. Handling sensitive client data, accessing core systems and taking part in complex implementation projects generate liabilities that standard commercial liability insurance was never designed to handle. In this context, cyber insurance and professional indemnity are not add-ons. They are necessities.

Industry-specific requirements are systematically overlooked. Regulatory requirements around data processing (GDPR, NIS2), sector compliance and specific contractual obligations to enterprise clients all place demands on the scope of cover that standard policies do not automatically meet.

Case: SaaS company scaling internationally

A Danish software company faced two challenges at once: a flawed insurance arrangement that was blocking new client contracts, and a live strategic negotiation in the US market with stricter compliance requirements. Leaf took over full responsibility for the insurance side and joined the negotiations with the counterparty's lawyers directly.

Results

• Strategic US contract landed by handling every compliance requirement and complex coverage need at speed.

• Scalable international protection. The insurance arrangement adapts continuously to new markets and rising client demands without costs rising proportionally.

• DKK 200,000 saved by replacing a flawed, overpriced arrangement with a precise one.

Questions for your broker

• "Is our liability coverage designed specifically for what we do, including access to client systems and data processing, or is it an off-the-shelf commercial policy?"

• "What do you earn on our insurance, and how does that affect what you recommend to us?"

Wholesale and retail

Typical challenges and pitfalls

Trading businesses, particularly those importing, exporting or selling through digital platforms, operate in a complex liability landscape that standard policies consistently underestimate.

Platform sales and re-export trigger liabilities that are not covered. Selling through Amazon, Zalando and similar platforms, or redistributing products into new markets, activates product liability and statutory requirements in the destination country. Standard policies are rarely set up for that exposure.

Third-party warehousing creates uncertainty. Goods held in someone else's warehouse raise questions about where liability sits that are not always resolved in the insurance structure. If the building contains PIR or PUR insulation, further specific fire requirements apply and need active management.

Transport terms and insurance structure are not aligned. Where the agreed Incoterms and the policy's geographical and time-based scope do not match, goods are left uncovered in transit. That exposure usually becomes visible only after a loss.

Combined activities make the risk profile more complex. Businesses that combine trading with production, installation or services have a composite risk profile that a policy designed for pure trading does not adequately cover.

Case: trading business operating internationally

A trading business with growth ambitions across markets and product categories had an insurance arrangement that was not sized for its actual complexity. New product launches, international expansion and acquisitions kept generating compliance requirements, and the finance team was spending disproportionate effort handling them manually.

Results

• Confidence through growth and acquisition. The right coverage and compliance for international expansion and new entities is handled automatically.

• Complete administrative relief for finance. Complex insurance requirements are handled by Leaf, not by the company's own team.

• DKK 170,000 saved through fast, effective optimisation of the overall arrangement.

Questions for your broker

• "Is our insurance explicitly set up for the liability that arises when we sell through Amazon or other third-party platforms?"

• "Does our transport cover match the Incoterms we use in our contracts, and can you show me where in the policy that appears?"

Consultancy and financial services

Typical challenges and pitfalls

Consultancies and advisory firms depend on trust and professional credibility. A single dispute that has not been properly insured can have far-reaching consequences for finances, reputation and business continuity.

The scope of liability cover does not match the regulatory requirements. Legislation sets sector-specific minimum requirements for liability cover, and they vary by activity and client type. Off-the-shelf solutions do not always meet them, and often cost more than a tailored solution would.

Subcontractor roles create systematic gaps. Consultants engaged as subcontractors on large enterprise projects sit in a liability grey area. Standard policies typically do not cover the liabilities that arise in that relationship, and a claim passed down from the project owner or main supplier can be expensive.

Grey-area activities are systematically excluded. Tax advice, legal advice and compliance-related services are explicitly excluded from cover in many standard policies. Most businesses do not realise this until a claim exposes the gap.

The insurance and pension elements of the employee package are an overlooked competitive lever. In a market where competition for qualified people is intense, many consultancies underestimate the signalling and retention value of a well-considered health insurance and pension package.

Case: trade association for consultants and advisors

A trade association wanted to give its members access to better insurance and pension terms than they could usually get on their own. Leaf mapped the members' combined risk profile and went to market with the depth of documentation insurers require before they will offer their best terms.

Results

• Stronger negotiating position through data. Members gained access to terms and premium levels normally out of reach for businesses of their size.

• Digital value creation. Insurance moved from manual administration to an agile platform that supports members' business development.

• Price and coverage optimised by matching the actual risk profile against the best offers in the market.

Questions for your broker

• "Are activities like compliance advice and tax advice explicitly covered in our policy, or are they excluded?"

• "If we act as a subcontractor on an enterprise project and a claim against the main supplier is passed down to us, are we covered?"

• "When did you last check whether our liability cover meets the regulatory requirements for what we actually do?"

Consulting engineers and architects

Typical challenges and pitfalls

Engineering and architecture firms carry liabilities that extend well beyond the project itself, across complex relationships with project owners, subcontractors and public authorities.

Liability cover does not reflect a moving risk profile. Activities, client base, geographical reach and contractual boundaries all change over a firm's life. The liability cover rarely follows, and the gap between real exposure and real coverage widens quietly over time. Typically, the firm's activities are allocated to the wrong risk categories by the insurer.

Compliance requirements from authorities and trade bodies are not always met. Public tenders and trade associations set specific requirements for the scope and minimum sum of liability cover. A policy that does not explicitly meet them can disqualify the firm from tendering or create contractual problems.

Subcontractor liability and gross negligence are blind spots. Claims arising from a subcontractor's error, or brought on the basis of gross negligence, are frequently excluded from standard policies. They are also two of the most expensive scenarios in practice.

The policy is rarely tested against the market. Many engineering and architecture firms have kept the same insurance relationship for years. It shows in the premium, and in policy wording that has not been brought up to current market terms.

Case: engineering and consultancy firm, 50+ employees

A large engineering firm had liability cover of DKK 10 million, a level that fell short of the requirements in the tenders and partnership agreements it wanted to pursue. At the same time, the overall insurance budget had never been tested against the market systematically. Leaf took on the role of external insurance manager with a full view of the portfolio.

Results

• Cover doubled from DKK 10 million to DKK 20 million on significantly better terms, opening up contracts and tenders that had previously been out of reach.

• External insurance manager. Leaf handles ongoing compliance, optimisation and advice on new contracts and subcontractor relationships.

• DKK 700,000 saved on the overall insurance budget from day one.

Questions for your broker

• "Does our liability cover meet the requirements of the tenders we bid for, and can you show me?"

• "What happens if a claim is brought against us on the basis of gross negligence? Are we covered?"

• "When was our insurance last genuinely put out to tender, rather than renegotiated with the current insurer?"

Construction and skilled trades

Typical challenges and pitfalls

Construction and trade businesses work in physically demanding environments with high claims frequency, complex liability structures and a regulatory landscape that makes specific demands on what the insurance has to contain.

Certain types of work require specific terms. Hot work, excavation, demolition and piling all demand particular precautions, deductible terms and coverage limits. Standard policies are not built to handle these activities, and the exclusions are rarely spelled out clearly.

Subrogation claims and subcontractor liability catch people out. Liability cover does not always extend across the full breadth of the work and the subcontractor relationships involved. Being on the hook for a subrogation claim from a project owner or an insurer is a scenario that surprises many businesses, and it can be financially significant.

Statutory requirements are not built in automatically. The Danish Railways Act, consumer protection legislation and other sector regulation place explicit demands on the scope of cover that are not standard in business insurance.

The internal claims process is not systematised. Claims handled badly by employees, whether through missing documentation, late notification or incorrect information, can compromise the cover. Very few businesses have formal internal guidelines for this.

Case: growing trade business, Jutland

A trade business in active growth, including a live acquisition, had an insurance arrangement that did not match its increased complexity. Field staff had no clear guidance for handling incidents, and the business lacked the guarantees and certificates the acquisition required. The transaction timeline was tight, and insurance was at risk of becoming the blocker.

Leaf mapped the overall risk profile, cut insurance costs substantially and drew up concrete procedures for how field staff should log incidents. The necessary guarantees and certificates were secured within days, so the acquisition went through without delay.

Results

• Operational confidence on site. Practical guidance for field staff and expert support on complex claims ensure correct handling from first contact.

• Critical guarantees in days. The certificates and guarantees the acquisition needed were secured at short notice, so the transaction did not stall.

• More than DKK 100,000 saved on insurance costs from the start of the engagement.

Questions for your broker

• "Does our policy cover subrogation claims from a project owner where the error was made by one of our subcontractors, and on what conditions?"

• "Are hot work, demolition and excavation explicitly covered in our policy, or do they require separate notifications and precautions we don't know about?"

• "Do we have a documented internal procedure for reporting claims, and do our people know what to do in the first 24 hours after an incident?"

Services and cleaning

Typical challenges and pitfalls

Service and cleaning businesses run with a high degree of operational complexity: many sites, varied client segments, and constant turnover in both equipment and staff. That calls for an insurance structure that is dynamic and precisely calibrated.

Incorrect client segmentation can void the cover. If commercial and private clients are not correctly separated in the policy, or if clients in particular industries are excluded, the insurance will not respond to damage at those clients' premises. It is a structural weakness that only comes to light when something happens.

An outdated equipment schedule cuts both ways. Machinery and equipment that are not kept current in the policy are not covered if they break down or are stolen. At the same time, many businesses are paying premium on assets that are no longer in use. Unnecessary cost and inadequate cover at once.

No standard claims process means lost payouts. Without a formal internal process for reporting claims, the risk of errors, delays and missing documentation is high. That can mean a reduced or rejected payout on a claim that would otherwise have been met.

Case: seasonal service business, Funen and Zealand

A service business operating across two regions, with significant seasonal swings in both revenue and staffing, was paying fixed premiums that bore no relation to its actual operating cycle. Coverage was not aligned with the real risk profile, and there was no systematic process for handling claims.

Results

• Precise risk management. Coverage aligned with actual operations and updated continuously through the platform.

• Proactive claims support. When something happens, the business now has data-driven expert help from first contact through to resolution.

• Cash flow and pricing optimised. Premiums and payment profiles adapted to the seasonal pattern.

Questions for your broker

• "Are our commercial and private clients correctly segmented in the policy, and are clients in heavy industry or food production covered?"

• "Are we paying premium on machinery and vehicles that are no longer in use, and when did you last review our equipment schedule?"

Is your business properly covered?

Across all eight industries in this report we find the same fundamental patterns, just in different guises. The policy is out of date. The gaps are structural. And the market has not been tested in years. That is not the exception. It is the rule.

Of the businesses we review, 90% end up with better coverage once the insurance is calibrated to what they actually do.

The average saving on an existing portfolio is 25%. Not because the previous advisors were incompetent, but because the traditional broker model was never built for continuous updating, because nobody had an informed basis to work from, and because there is rarely an incentive to ask the right questions.

The question is not whether there is anything to find. It is when you find it: before the loss, or after.

If you are unsure whether your business is properly covered, get in touch for a review with no obligation. We will ask the questions your current broker should have asked, and give you a clear picture of where you stand.

The risk landscape to 2027

The risk landscape Danish businesses operate in will keep growing more complex over the coming years. Four developments are worth watching in particular.

Geopolitical instability as a business risk. Recent years have shown that risks once considered distant and abstract can materialise at a few weeks' notice. Trade conflicts, sanctions and political instability in key markets feed directly into Danish businesses' supply chains, export options and logistics. Any business importing from or exporting to unstable markets, depending on a single supplier in a vulnerable region, or moving goods through conflict-affected areas should address that exposure explicitly in its insurance structure. Standard policies are not designed for geopolitically driven supply failure or loss.

Regulatory acceleration. The EU's regulatory programme, including NIS2, CSRD and the revised Product Liability Directive, will place stricter demands on compliance and on insurance structure. Businesses that do not adapt their coverage proactively risk being non-compliant, with potentially serious consequences.

Climate-related risk as an insurance parameter. Extreme weather and climate exposure will increasingly be priced into premiums and underwriting terms. Businesses with high climate exposure, whether geographically or through what they do, should address it proactively.

Cyber risk as a primary business exposure. Cyber attacks are no longer a niche risk. For any business with digital infrastructure, client data or system access, cyber insurance is moving from optional extra to fundamental necessity. The cyber market is developing fast, and terms and premiums vary considerably between insurers.

Five questions to ask your broker today

Whoever advises your business on insurance, these five questions are a reliable indicator of whether your insurance is properly addressed.

1. Is the business interruption sum insured based on current operating figures? An outdated business interruption sum is one of the most common and potentially most expensive errors we find. It should be revisited at least annually, and whenever turnover or cost structure changes significantly.

2. Are subcontractors' activities and liabilities explicitly covered in the policy? Liability arising from a subcontractor's error falls outside most standard policies. It is a structural gap that has to be addressed deliberately.

3. Does the liability cover reflect what the business does today, rather than two or three years ago? Businesses evolve. The insurance should too, and you should be able to see the evidence of it.

4. When was the insurance last put out to a systematic market tender? Loyalty to an existing insurer is rarely rewarded. Regular tendering is the most effective way to keep the premium in line with the market and the scope of cover current.

5. Is there a formal process for reporting and handling claims? The claims process is the moment insurance has to prove its worth. Poor preparation and incorrect handling are frequent causes of a reduced or rejected payout.

Get an AI-driven analysis of your insurance

Leaf is an objective insurance and pension broker. We are not tied to any single insurer. Our advice is built around the client's interests, not the insurer's.

We combine experienced professional advisors with a data-driven platform that gives you a continuous overview of coverage, terms and premium levels across every insurance and pension arrangement you hold. The point is to make sure your insurance reflects the risk you actually carry, at any given moment.

Contact us for a review with no obligation.

ekspert@leaf.dk Phone: +45 40 50 30 35

leaf.dk, AI-driven insurance and pension broker