Ping An Insurance (Group) Company of China has assisted corporate clients in moving staff out of Middle East conflict zones and expanded its risk communications to customers.

Ping An’s emergency measures and client support

Ping An said it has brought together its property and casualty, life and health, and banking businesses to deal with the latest escalation in the region, focusing on corporate customers with personnel in locations assessed as high risk. Through the Ping An Global Emergency Assistance Service Center, the group has issued early‑warning messages and evacuation recommendations and has been gathering information on the whereabouts and status of customers’ staff, as well as their requirements in affected areas.

According to the company, the center has so far issued 59 risk warnings, produced 23 risk analysis reports, and responded to 52 customer inquiries tied to the conflict. The group said the assistance centre coordinated the evacuation of two employees of corporate clients from high‑risk areas in the Middle East within 24 hours. Ping An continues to follow developments affecting its customers in the region and said it can draw on groupwide and overseas resources to respond to emergency requests from Mainland Chinese citizens in conflict zones.

On Jan. 12, Ping An issued a high‑risk advisory covering the Middle East, after which it began sending regular alerts, conducting risk assessments, and preparing evacuation options for policyholders in the area. The company said it will continue to track conditions and handle assistance requests. Its emergency hotline, 95511 (overseas: +86 755 95511), is open to customers and non‑customers. Ping An’s actions provide one example of how large Asian insurance groups might coordinate assistance, risk engineering, and financial units when geopolitical shocks affect staff and insured assets across multiple jurisdictions.

Energy and marine risk centred on the Strait of Hormuz

While Ping An and other Asian insurers manage immediate client needs, the broader insurance implications of the conflict are increasingly visible in marine, energy, and trade‑credit portfolios. In a report titled “Conflict in the Middle East: Implications for markets and macro,” Allianz Trade characterises the situation as a “non-linear geopolitical shock” focused on the Strait of Hormuz, a route for around 30% of global seaborne oil flows and a significant share of liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipments. The report examines the impact of US‑Israeli strikes on Iran and subsequent Iranian actions against energy infrastructure and shipping.

After the latest attacks, spot oil prices rose to about US$82 per barrel, roughly 13% above the previous close, while shipping data indicated that more than 200 oil and LNG vessels were waiting outside the strait as operators adjusted routing, security procedures, and war‑risk cover. The concentration of traffic and exposure in and around Hormuz increases the potential for physical damage, loss‑of‑hire, and delay claims on hull and cargo policies. War‑risk insurers are seeing stronger demand for cover and tighter wording. Energy insurers with offshore platforms, pipelines, and refining assets in the Gulf in their books are watching for any move from short interruptions to sustained infrastructure damage that could lead to larger property and business‑interruption losses.

Inflation, claims costs, and conflict scenarios

Allianz Trade’s central scenario assumes the current shock is contained in duration. Under that baseline, the report projects oil prices averaging about US$85 per barrel in 2026, with temporary moves towards US$90 before easing back into the US$70 to US$75 range if tensions calm. In that case, Allianz estimates that oil at around US$80 to US$90 per barrel would add roughly 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points to headline inflation in the euro area and the US in the short term. On its own, this would not be expected to force a change in central banks’ main policy paths, but it would prolong existing price pressures in sectors such as construction, transport and manufacturing.

That environment points to ongoing claims inflation, especially for motor, commercial property, and business‑interruption covers, where energy, material, and logistics costs directly influence repair bills and loss‑of‑income calculations. Carriers with sizable industrial, infrastructure, and energy accounts in Asia may need to revisit assumptions on reinstatement costs, indexation, and deductibles in underwriting and reserving.

In a less favourable “prolonged conflict” scenario, Allianz sees potential for repeated disruptions to shipping or damage to major production sites. Under that path, Brent crude could move above US$100 per barrel and could test US$120 to US$130 before stabilising. The report suggests this could add about 0.5 percentage points to inflation, which would likely delay interest‑rate cuts by the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank. That combination would pair higher claims costs with more uncertainty around investment income, solvency metrics, and asset‑liability management.

Sectoral impact and portfolio considerations for Asian carriers

The Allianz analysis identifies different sector outcomes that are directly relevant to Asian insurers’ underwriting, credit, and investment decisions. Energy producers outside the Gulf, integrated oil majors with trading arms and some LNG exporters are expected to see revenue and cash‑flow uplift from higher prices. That may support the credit profile of certain large energy clients and, in some instances, reduce default risk within trade‑credit and surety portfolios.

In contrast, energy‑intensive industries – including airlines, petrochemicals, heavy manufacturing, and parts of the logistics sector – face pressure from higher fuel, feedstock, and freight costs. Asian trade‑credit and surety writers with exposure to weaker counterparties in these segments may need to reassess limits, tenors, and collateral, particularly if borrowing conditions tighten. Allianz also notes that higher bunker costs and war‑risk surcharges could increase freight rates by 15% to 25% on some routes. This can raise insured cargo values and heighten the chance of underinsurance if sums insured are not updated. Marine liability underwriters may also need to reflect changes in navigational risk as vessels reroute to avoid high‑risk waters, with implications for collision, grounding, and pollution exposures.

On the asset side, the report expects markets to lean towards a “rapid stabilisation” baseline but with episodes of volatility. Allianz projects 10‑year US Treasury yields in the 4.5% to 5.0% range over time, with German Bunds in the 3.0% to 3.5% range, as central banks keep policy rates unchanged for longer before easing. This supports reinvestment yields but can weigh on unrealized bond values and, depending on the capital regime, regulatory capital ratios.

The research presents infrastructure as relatively resilient across both high‑growth/high‑inflation and low‑growth/high‑inflation settings. Under its baseline, Allianz assumes around a 10% positive return from infrastructure in 2026 under ongoing geopolitical stress, compared with mid‑single‑digit returns for equities and lower yields for investment‑grade bonds. In a severe downside scenario, however, private‑debt spreads could widen from about 500 basis points to as much as 650 basis points as investors reassess risk in more leveraged sectors.

Ping An’s operational response and Allianz’s macro‑insurance assessment point to a conflict that could be absorbed if contained but still demands close oversight. Key issues include marine and energy accumulations around the Strait of Hormuz, claims inflation in energy‑sensitive lines, and the interaction between higher yields, spread risk and private‑market allocations in insurers’ portfolios. The ultimate impact will depend on how long the disruption persists, whether it spreads beyond energy and shipping, and how policymakers react to both geopolitical and inflation pressures.