War exclusions in insurance policies can significantly limit coverage during geopolitical conflicts, but their application “will depend on how it is drafted,” including its “stated scope and application.” In a Westlaw Today Q&A, Sherilyn Pastor explain that these exclusions may bar coverage for losses caused by “war, civil unrest, and/or hostile actions,” and may apply to both declared and undeclared conflicts. Definitions vary widely across policies, with some exclusions extending to “civil war, revolution, insurrection, rebellion, civil strife,” and even “hostile acts” or damage from weapons such as bombs or mines. Due to this variability, insurers assess whether a loss resulted directly from conduct that falls within the exclusion, and disputes often arise due to ambiguity in how terms like “war” and “hostile” are defined.
Even when a war exclusion applies, it does not eliminate all coverage, and insurers may still be liable for “nonwar-related risks covered by their policies,” such as fire damage occurring during wartime. Courts also tend to interpret these exclusions narrowly when language is unclear, as illustrated by a case where a war exclusion did not apply because it required “hostile or warlike action” involving military activity rather than merely conduct motivated by “ill will.” The scope of war exclusions is especially important in cyber, travel, and marine insurance, where broader wording or additional clauses, such as those covering terrorism or allowing “cancel for any reason,” can materially affect whether a loss is ultimately covered.