The modern entertainment landscape is undergoing a profound shift where risk management and creative vision are increasingly intertwined. As production budgets climb to unprecedented heights and global audiences gravitate toward familiar worlds, the role of the insurer has evolved from a silent backer to a critical architect of a project’s viability. Simon Glairy, a distinguished expert in entertainment insurance and risk management, joins us to discuss how the industry navigates the high stakes of “tentpole” cinema, the hidden data behind franchise renewals, and why the safety of a film set is now just as important as its star power.
The conversation explores the transition of Hollywood toward a “renewal business” model, where sequels and established intellectual property provide a much-needed buffer against market volatility. We delve into the complexities of structuring multi-carrier insurance towers for $200 million productions, the shifting economics of different film genres, and the rigorous vetting of production crews that now dictates whether a project receives the green light.
How does relying on familiar intellectual property change the underwriting process compared to original scripts, and what specific data points from previous installments do you prioritize when evaluating a project’s safety?
Relying on established intellectual property allows us to treat a production almost like a renewal in a standard insurance line, which is a rare luxury in the creative arts. When a team approaches us for season six of a series or the third installment of a film franchise, we aren’t just looking at a script; we are looking at a proven operational history. We prioritize data points such as the historical loss ratio of that specific production team and whether they have maintained a “clean” record over the previous five seasons. If a production has operated for years without a major claim, it signals a culture of safety and professionalism that makes the approval process significantly smoother. Conversely, if a previous installment was plagued by accidents or budget overruns, we are far less likely to extend favorable terms or even offer coverage for the sequel.
With production budgets now frequently exceeding $200 million, how do you structure multi-carrier insurance towers to cover the massive daily costs of a potential shutdown?
When budgets cross the $200 million threshold, the daily “burn rate” during a shutdown can skyrocket to $600,000 or more, creating a concentration of risk that no single carrier is willing to shoulder alone. We manage this by assembling “towers” of insurance where multiple carriers layer their coverage, typically capping individual exposure at $150 million to protect against a catastrophic loss. To protect these massive investments, particularly regarding cast insurance, we implement rigorous medical protocols for the lead actors who anchor the project. This involves comprehensive physical exams and strict lifestyle clauses to ensure that the individuals upon whom the entire $200 million investment rests remain healthy and available. While we haven’t seen a single cast claim exceed $100 million historically, the sheer scale of modern budgets means we must prepare for that eventual possibility through these diversified towers.
Low-budget horror films often see high returns while capital-intensive sci-fi presents a narrower margin for error. How do these differing genre economics influence your appetite for risk, and what safety protocols are mandatory for high-budget productions that rely heavily on complex visual effects?
The economics of a genre heavily dictate our underwriting appetite; for instance, a $3 million horror film like Iron Lung can gross $21 million in a weekend, making it a very attractive, low-risk proposition for us. In contrast, massive science fiction projects are capital-intensive and effects-heavy, leaving very little room for error before the project becomes a financial loss. For these high-budget “tentpoles,” we mandate specific safety protocols that focus on the technical execution of visual effects and the physical safety of the set. We require detailed risk assessments for every complex stunt and digital integration because a single mishap in a VFX-heavy sequence can delay a production for weeks. Our goal is to balance the high-reward potential of sci-fi with the steady, reliable performance of genres like horror and romance that consistently recoup their costs.
Since a famous name no longer guarantees a box office hit, how has the industry’s evaluation shifted toward the track records of stunt coordinators and production crews?
The era where a marquee name like Tom Cruise or Will Smith could guarantee a $100 million opening has shifted, leading us to focus more on the “below-the-line” talent who actually manage the day-to-day risks. We now scrutinize the track records of stunt coordinators and production crews with the same intensity we once reserved for the lead actors. A major “red flag” for us is a team or coordinator with a history of frequent, avoidable losses or a reputation for cutting corners on safety protocols. If a production team has a legacy of claims related to set accidents or poor logistical planning, we will decline coverage regardless of how famous the actors are. We are looking for consistency and discipline, as a professional crew is the best defense against the unpredictable nature of a film set.
Creative teams often pivot mid-production, introducing new risks or script changes overnight. How do you balance the need for artistic flexibility with strict risk controls, and what challenges arise when managing cross-border logistics or unpredictable weather patterns for global franchise shoots?
Balancing artistic vision with risk control is a constant tug-of-war, as “creatives” may wake up with a new idea that completely changes the safety profile of a scene. Our job is to act as the “adult in the room,” ensuring that while the director has their dream, it is executed within a framework that doesn’t jeopardize the entire $150 million investment. This becomes even more complex with global franchises that shoot across multiple borders, where we must account for local labor laws, varying safety standards, and volatile weather patterns. We stay very close to the production, requiring instant notifications of script changes so we can assess the new risks in real-time. Whether it’s a sudden storm in a remote filming location or a last-minute change to a high-speed chase, our role is to rein in the volatility and maintain a controlled environment.
What is your forecast for Hollywood’s franchise-driven risk strategy?
I believe we will see a continued reliance on “tried and tested” IP as the primary engine of the industry, as the financial stakes are simply too high for studios to gamble on unproven concepts. However, we are entering a period where ballooning budgets and environmental volatility will force a new level of collaboration between insurers and filmmakers. The industry will likely move toward even more sophisticated data-driven risk modeling to manage the complexities of global shoots and aging star casts. Ultimately, while the “sequel mania” provides a layer of safety, the real winners will be the productions that can marry creative ambition with disciplined, professional risk management. Safety will no longer be an afterthought of the creative process but a foundational element of a film’s financial success.
