PFAS and (re)insurance in Europe: The Next Systemic Risk?

PFAS have been used for some time. Why should the (re)insurance market be paying attention now?

Wolfram Schultz:

Although PFAS have been used since the 1940s, in consumer goods, from non-stick cookware to firefighting foams, we are now only starting to fully appreciate the scale of their potential risk. Their chemical stability makes them persistent in the environment and the human body, raising long-term health and environmental concerns. Their risks cut across industries, liability classes, and geographies, with uncertain clean-up costs and unpredictable legal liabilities.

Kalle Pohls:

We are also seeing increasing public awareness, regulatory activity, and better testing methods. These developments mean that PFAS-related issues are being identified more frequently. Unlike a single-event loss, PFAS contamination accumulates silently over time. However, for the market, it’s less about alarm and more about preparing for potential liabilities in a structured way.

What are the key litigation and regulatory trends you cover in the whitepaper?

• Litigation volumes are accelerating: PFAS-related lawsuits in the US have risen for ten consecutive years. Europe is also seeing a steady rise in claims as awareness and monitoring expand.  
• Settlements are escalating: Landmark agreements involving major manufacturers have reached multi-billion-dollar levels, underscoring the potential scale of liabilities.
• Regional differences are narrowing: While US courts cases are driven more by class actions and punitive damages, European courts are increasingly assertive. Recent rulings in Italy and Sweden have explicitly linked PFAS exposure to bodily injury, signalling a shift towards broader accountability.

What is the biggest challenge you’re seeing for (re)insurers? 

Wolfram Schultz:

I would say it would be uncertainty around exposure and remediation which is pushing carriers towards exclusions, higher deductibles, and sub-limit. While PFAS exclusions are already standard in the US, Europe shows mixed approaches depending on client risk profiles.

Kalle Pohls:

There is also uncertainty around the potential financial impact in Europe. In Europe alone, the projected cost of cleaning up PFAS contamination is up to €95 billion for health-related issues and another €170 billion for environmental remediation over two decades. These are costs that will inevitably translate into claims; the question is how much of that will be borne by insurers.

What does this ultimately mean for (re)insurers and policyholders? 

Wolfram Schultz:

It really means we must act now. Many carriers are already tightening terms, adding PFAS exclusions, and raising retentions. But this is not just about excluding the risk, it’s about understanding it. At Howden Re, we partner with clients to align reinsurance structures with regulatory demands and evolving science. Tailored solutions, rather than broad exclusions, will be essential to ensuring adequate protection while addressing emerging liabilities.

Kalle Pohls:

We are encouraging data sharing and dialogue. The more information available, the more we can support clients with tailored reinsurance solutions that genuinely protect them rather than unintentionally leaving gaps.

PFAS highlight the need for informed, transparent collaboration between clients, brokers, and carriers. With the right balance of science, legal insight, and data-led strategy, (re)insurance can adapt to this evolving challenge.