Skip to main content
znobia

Engagements

Engagements signal class breadth and process discipline — client identifiers withheld.

Most insurance brokerages publish case studies that name clients and quote outcomes. We do not, by default, and we are not in a position to do so pre-coverholder regardless. What we publish below is engagement-type framing: the class of risk, the structural decisions made on placement, the result in terms a counterparty can understand. No client names; no quoted outcomes that we cannot evidence; no fabricated metrics.

Process

What an engagement looks like.

A typical znobia engagement runs through six steps: enquiry, pre-qualification on the six-question Q-pack, submission, quote, instruction-to-bind, and servicing. The two engagement types below illustrate the shape; specific structures are confidential to the named client.

Engagement types

Engagement type 01

Crime / Specie hybrid · discrete cyber tower

Digital-asset custodian — hot-wallet + cold-storage tower

Brief
A digital-asset custodian with mixed hot-warm-cold architecture sought cover for the operational base of its custody activity, with attention to the smart-contract logic exposure created by its bridge between Layer-1 and Layer-2 chains.
Structural decisions
Hot-wallet wording placed against a Listed Wallet Schedule; cold-storage exposures placed on a Specie binder with a named cold-storage facility schedule; smart-contract logic placed on a separate cyber binder with a Listed Contract Schedule. Three binders, one assigned broker, one renewal cycle.
Result
Placement structure documented and ready for instruction-to-bind on znobia's authorisation. We do not represent that a binder has been bound pre-authorisation.

Engagement type 02

D&O · FI professional liability adjacency

Digital-asset hedge fund — D&O programme review

Brief
A digital-asset hedge fund renewing its D&O programme asked znobia to review the incumbent wording against the firm's specific exposure profile: SAFT history, secondary-market activity, governance disputes.
Structural decisions
Wording walked clause-by-clause against the exposure inventory. Three endorsements recommended (token-classification clarification, securities-event sub-limit, side-A DIC layer for non-indemnifiable losses). Recommendations documented in a written review for the client's incumbent broker.
Result
Review delivered; client elected to instruct znobia on placement at the date znobia's authorisation is in place.

Discipline

Why we do not publish more.

  1. 01

    Confidentiality.

    Most institutional clients require their broker's confidentiality on placement structures by default. Publishing names without permission is a relationship cost we are not willing to pay.

  2. 02

    Regulatory.

    Pre-coverholder, we have not bound business. Publishing implied placement claims would breach the FCA fair-clear-not-misleading rule and the Lloyd's brand-asset rules.

  3. 03

    Discipline.

    The category is heavy with case studies that are not what they appear to be. The honest position is to publish the engagement type, the structure of work, and nothing more, until clients give us explicit consent to do otherwise.

Submit RFIRead recent intelligence

znobia acts as an insurance intermediary. We do not underwrite risk. Cover, where available, is placed with authorised carriers and is subject to underwriter approval, policy terms, exclusions and conditions. Nothing on this site is investment, tax, legal or financial advice.