A landmark report commissioned by the Diocese of Bolzano-Bressanone in Northern Italy has revealed 67 cases of clerical abuse spanning nearly six decades. The investigation is the first of its kind in Italy and has prompted a wave of public reflection, institutional accountability, and survivor outreach.

The Bolzano case illustrates how historical exposure can resurface unexpectedly, particularly in sectors with deep institutional roots such as education, religious organisations, and care services.

For insurers, this case is more than a moral reckoning – it is a critical study in long-tail liability, institutional risk, and the evolving expectations around social accountability and claims resilience.

Understanding long-tail exposure

Abuse claims often emerge years – or even decades – after the alleged incidents. This latency creates significant challenges for insurers, particularly in the context of legacy liability. Key considerations include:

• Identifying whether coverage is triggered under occurrence-based or claims-made policies, especially when incidents span multiple years or involve serial perpetrators.
• Interpreting historical policy wordings that may lack explicit reference to abuse or contain exclusions that are ambiguous or outdated.
• Accounting for legal reforms that extend or suspend limitation periods, which can significantly alter the liability landscape for legacy claims.
• Managing contribution and apportionment across multiple insurers or reinsurers involved over time, often with limited documentation or inconsistent policy structures.
• Projecting reserve adequacy in light of emerging claims trends, evolving judicial attitudes, and the reputational sensitivity surrounding abuse-related litigation.

These are not merely technical questions, they are central to how insurers assess exposure, allocate reserves, and structure future coverage in sectors vulnerable to safeguarding failures.

Systemic failures and institutional risk

The report goes beyond individual misconduct. It identifies a systemic pattern of abuse, enabled by clericalism, power imbalances, and institutional silence. The diocese demonstrated a “clemency” toward known abusers and engaged in active cover-ups until at least 2010, despite being aware of credible allegations. In some cases, accused clergy were quietly transferred or allowed to continue in ministry without restrictions.

This raises critical underwriting and risk management challenges:

• How should insurers assess the moral hazard and governance failures of institutions with a documented history of non-disclosure or internal suppression?
• What role can insurers play in shaping risk culture, through policy conditions, exclusions, or risk improvement requirements?
• How should coverage be structured for institutions with legacy exposure, including the use of aggregate limits, sub-limits, or abuse-specific endorsements?

Policy design and coverage gaps

Legacy abuse claims test the resilience of policy wording. Many older policies were not designed with abuse risks in mind and may lack clarity on:

• Institutional accountability
• Aggregation of multiple claims
• Retroactive coverage and exclusions
• Trigger events and notification obligations

Modern policy design must address these gaps with precision. This includes clear definitions of abuse, robust safeguarding conditions, and mechanisms for managing serial claims across policy years.

Supporting policyholders through risk management

The Diocese of Bolzano-Bressanone has implemented several reforms since 2010, including the creation of a listening centre for survivors. An interdisciplinary team – including legal, psychological, and pastoral experts – is now reviewing the status of accused clergy and recommending measures such as:

• Restrictions on public ministry
• Psychological support and monitoring
• Safeguarding protocols for parish communities

Insurers can support policyholders by:

• Encouraging adoption of comprehensive safeguarding frameworks
• Offering risk assessments, training, and audits
• Incentivising best practices through premium adjustments or bespoke endorsements

Reputational risk and ethical oversight

Abuse-related claims are no longer confined to legal liability – they are also reputational flashpoints. For insurers, this means evaluating not just the financial exposure of a claim, but also how an organisation manages its ethical responsibilities and internal oversight.

Key considerations include:

• Does the insured have effective safeguarding policies, survivor support mechanisms, and a culture of accountability?
• Are there clear reporting lines, whistleblower protections, and board-level oversight of safeguarding risks?

Reputational risk is no longer a secondary concern – it is a core component of institutional resilience. In sectors where moral leadership and public trust are central to mission and identity, reputational damage can have cascading effects: loss of funding, regulatory scrutiny, stakeholder disengagement, and long-term brand erosion.

For insurers, this reinforces the need to integrate reputational risk into underwriting, pricing, and client engagement strategies – ensuring that coverage is aligned not only with financial risk, but with ethical and operational maturity.

Conclusion

The Bolzano Report is more than a regional scandal – it is a wake-up call for institutions and their insurers. It shows that abuse risk remains a living liability, not a relic of the past. As the Italian Church begins to confront its past, insurers must be prepared to navigate the complex intersection of moral accountability, legal liability, and financial exposure.

The path forward lies in proactive engagement: strengthening policy frameworks, supporting client risk management, and leading with integrity. By doing so, insurers not only protect their clients and their portfolios – they help build a safer, more accountable future.