Willis, a business unit of WTW, has named Trevor Madden (pictured) as head of captive and insurance management solutions, Asia-Pacific, effective November 1, 2026. Madden will be based in Singapore, leading the firm’s regional captive and insurance management practice. He succeeds Joyce Chua, who is departing for personal reasons. The appointment is a resource reallocation with a specific rationale. Madden relocates from Willis’ captive management operation in Dublin, Ireland, where he has held senior leadership positions since 2003, most recently as managing director. He brings more than 35 years of experience across captive management, underwriting, regulatory governance, risk management, and business development and has led teams overseeing captive insurers and reinsurers across multiple jurisdictions – including structures that retain and manage risk across complex, multi-country programmes.

What a Dublin background specifically brings to Asia

Ireland is an established European captive domicile. According to WTW’s analysis of the European captive landscape published in January 2025, Ireland had 65 captives at the end of 2023 and applies Solvency II regulations proportionately through the Central Bank of Ireland’s Probability Risk and Impact System (PRISM). In April 2025, the Central Bank amended its requirements to remove captive insurance and captive reinsurance undertakings from the scope of its external-audit requirement, with the change applying to financial years ending on or after April 30, 2025, according to KPMG Ireland’s May 2025 Insurance Insights bulletin.

For professional readers, that experience provides relevant context for Madden’s move into the Asia-Pacific role. Willis says Madden has more than 35 years of international insurance and reinsurance experience, including captive management, regulatory governance, and risk management and has overseen captive insurers and reinsurers operating across multiple jurisdictions. Those capabilities could be relevant as Asian corporate groups assess captive structures across markets including Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Japan, each with its own regulatory and supervisory requirements. The appointment therefore comes as regional companies and insurers place greater focus on captive and alternative risk-financing structures.

Peter Carter, global head of captive and insurance management solutions at Willis, described the market context: “Captives and alternative risk financing solutions are playing an increasingly strategic role in how organisations manage risk, deploy capital, and strengthen resilience. Across the region, we continue to see growing interest from businesses seeking more sophisticated approaches to risk financing as they navigate an increasingly dynamic and interconnected risk environment.”

Christopher Lindsey, managing director of Risk & Analytics, Asia, outlined the firm’s proposition: “By combining our market-leading Risk and Analytics capabilities with deep captive expertise, Willis is well positioned to help clients in Asia design captive solutions that deliver greater clarity, resilience, and cost efficiency.” Carter also acknowledged Chua’s contribution, noting that under her leadership Willis had “strengthened our market presence and deepened our relationships with clients” in the region.

The market Madden is walking into

The regional conditions underpinning the appointment are measurable. At the Asia Pacific Captive Forum 2026 on July 2, Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) executive director Lim Cheng Khai stated that only 5% to 6% of global captives are owned by Asian parents – despite the region’s scale of uninsured exposure. MAS cited approximately US$65 billion in economic losses from natural disasters across Asia in 2025, of which more than 90% were uninsured, attributing the figures to the Swiss Re Institute.

Singapore’s regulator is acting on that gap. On July 7, 2026, MAS opened a public consultation on a proposed Protected Cell Company (PCC) framework to support alternative risk-transfer solutions in insurance. The proposed structure would allow assets and liabilities to be segregated into individual cells within a single legal entity, potentially making captive and other alternative risk-transfer structures more accessible and cost-effective. The consultation closed August 7, 2026.

Malaysia’s Labuan IBFC is recording continued growth in captive insurance. Captive insurance premiums rose 7.2% to US$726 million in 2025, accounting for 36% of total premiums underwritten by Labuan’s insurance industry, according to the Labuan Financial Services Authority’s (LFSA) Market Report 2025. By class of business, engineering and contractors’ all risks accounted for 33.8% of the captive book, followed by liability at 26.8%, marine at 6%, and cyber liability at 3.6%. The figures highlight the range of risks being retained through captive structures, including classes that are also significant areas of conventional commercial insurance placement.

The Labuan data also carries a note of caution relevant to brokers advising clients on captive feasibility: net claims incurred in the captive business climbed 52.6% to US$251.5 million in 2025, while the underwriting margin declined 25.1% to US$160.1 million from US$213.8 million in 2024, according to the Labuan FSA’s Market Report 2025. The regulator described the captive business as delivering mixed financial performance, with higher claims offsetting the growth in earned premiums. For brokers, the figures underscore that captive structures do not eliminate risk; they change how and where it is retained, requiring appropriate capital, governance, and ongoing management.

A pattern brokers should read carefully

Willis’ announcement follows Zurich Insurance’s September 2, 2026, appointment of Dylan Bryant to a newly created role as head of Zurich Multinational & Captives, Asia-Pacific – the first time the insurer has consolidated regional oversight of multinational programmes and captive solutions under a single leader. Two major market participants restructuring around captive capability within days of each other reflects a shared read on where corporate risk financing demand is heading.

For brokers, the practical question is upstream: captive decisions are made at the CFO and treasury level before conventional placement is considered. Brokers who can engage credibly on captive feasibility – which lines to retain, how to structure fronting arrangements, and how to integrate a captive with a conventional programme – are positioned differently from those who engage only at the placement stage.