A mid-market client deploys an AI tool that drafts their contracts, screens their applicants, or answers their customers. It fails in ways nobody in that client's leadership fully understands. Their CFO is worried. Their general counsel is worried. And when they raise it with your producer, the conversation stops.
We train your team so it doesn't.
Why now:
California AB 316 · Civil Code §1714.46 · Effective 1 January 2026
A defendant who "developed, modified, or used" artificial intelligence may not assert that the AI autonomously caused the harm.
The operative word is "used." This is not a rule for AI vendors. It reaches the company that deploys the tool. Your clients now own the outcome in court, and the vendor's liability is contractually capped where theirs is not. Your producers should be able to explain that.
What we teach:
How AI actually fails - Hallucination, agentic action, IP contamination, data leakage, model drift. The specific mechanisms, not the headlines.
The legal landscape - AB 316, the EU AI Act, the emerging state framework. What changed and where it's heading.
The litigation picture - What's actually being filed right now. We track it continuously.
How to spot exposure - Which industries, functions, and deployment patterns carry the most risk.
The discovery questions - What to ask a client to map their AI footprint. Most can't answer, and that's the opening.
How to explain it - Plain language for a CFO or GC. Credible, specific, free of hype.
How It Works
Month one. A leadership session on where AI risk concentrates by industry and business function. Then the first producer workshop: how AI systems work, how they fail, and why this is unlike any technology risk that came before it.
Month two. The legal landscape and the live litigation. What is actually being filed, right now, against companies deploying AI. Your team receives the discovery question set and written reference materials they keep.
Month three. Practice. Role-playing the conversation with a CFO and a general counsel. Objection handling. Capability handover.
All sessions are delivered remotely. A written market briefing is issued monthly for the duration of the engagement.
Why Us?
Reinsurance-grade rigor. Founded by a data scientist from life reinsurance at Munich Re. We approach AI risk quantitatively, the way an actuary would, rather than the way a technology vendor would.
We track the litigation. We maintain a continuously updated database of AI liability cases. Your producers get what is being filed this quarter, not what was written about last year.
We are building in this market. Axiom Specialty is developing AI liability insurance products. We disclose that up front. It is why we study this full time, and it is why the training is current rather than academic.
No product, no agenda. We are not selling your firm anything beyond the training, and we take no compensation from anything you place.
What this is not (put this on the page, prominently):
We do not review, evaluate, or comment on any insurance policy. We do not tell you or your clients what is or is not covered. We do not recommend coverage, carriers, or products. We take no commission and place no business. Questions of coverage are properly directed to your carriers, your wholesalers, or your counsel.
Pricing:
$25,000 - three-month engagement
$10,000 on signing, then $5,000 per month
Three producer workshops · Monthly market briefing
Disclaimer
This service is technology risk training. Under it, Axiom does not review insurance policies, advise on coverage, place business, or act as broker of record, and receives no compensation arising from any insurance.