Insurance
Pixabay

A fraudulent payment request can turn an ordinary working day into a financial crisis. The FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center recorded approximately $3 billion in reported losses from business email compromise in 2025. That figure gives business leaders a reason to examine how payment decisions are made, alongside the insurance they carry.

The FBI advises verifying requests to change account information through a secondary channel. A phone call to confirm a supplier's instructions is a practical example of prevention built into everyday work. It also raises a leadership question about who has responsibility for checking a request before money moves.

That connection between daily decisions and wider business exposure is reflected in guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Its report on cybersecurity and enterprise risk management places digital threats within broader business objectives. Information about risk needs to reach the people making decisions across the organization.

Insurance remains part of that discussion, although its scope requires attention. The Washington State Office of the Insurance Commissioner explains that business interruption coverage applies when a covered loss forces a business to close. Understanding the circumstances a policy covers is therefore part of understanding how a company might recover.

For Joseph Kuchinka, president and CEO of Proverus, an insurance and risk management consulting firm, the starting point is whether leaders understand the risks involved in their operation and behind their coverage. He sees a potential false sense of security when buying a policy becomes the end of that inquiry. "Business leaders need to understand what their policy covers and where they may still be exposed," he says. "That starts with examining the risks within the business and how their coverage addresses them."

His concern extends to risks that become unseen through familiarity. In his experience, machinery positioned awkwardly, trip hazards, or unsafe storage can become accepted features of a workplace. He believes walking through a facility with someone prepared to question those routines can help leaders notice exposures that paperwork alone may leave unexplored.

Kuchinka organizes that review around six connected areas, covering cyber vulnerability, leadership continuity and culture, insurance and risk mitigation, financial stability, facilities, and safety. He uses the shorthand CLIFS. For him, the value lies in examining how those areas interact. For example, a disruption to computer systems could affect operations, cash flow, and the people responsible for responding.

Property valuation offers another example. Kuchinka points to manufacturing equipment that remains essential after its accounting value has fallen. In his assessment, reviewing assets only through financial records may leave leaders with an incomplete picture of what replacement would require. He favors examining the equipment, materials, and work in progress with people who understand the operation.

He also draws attention to coinsurance provisions. The Florida Department of Financial Services explains that these clauses require property to be insured for a specified percentage of its value to avoid a penalty in claim payments. Kuchinka sees this as a reason to examine valuations and policy terms together before a loss exposes a misunderstanding.

For him, that review needs to continue as the business changes. "I have seen businesses change their legal structure without updating their insurance policies. Each new entity, purchase, contract, or investment should prompt a review of what has changed and whether the existing coverage remains appropriate," he says. An earlier assessment, in his view, cannot be assumed to describe the business indefinitely.

Leadership involvement gives those questions practical weight. Kuchinka believes executives should decide which risks they are willing to retain, which they want to reduce or transfer, and which activities they might stop. "We can strategically determine how we want to handle this," he says. His emphasis is on making those choices consciously, with a clearer understanding of their consequences.

He sees regular review as especially relevant during growth, when attention may be concentrated on immediate opportunities. In his view, allowing assumptions to accumulate can leave leaders holding risks they never deliberately accepted. Bringing risk into decisions about expansion, equipment, or new ventures may give them more room to address problems while plans can still change.

For Kuchinka, a practical starting point is to review what has changed in the business operation and whether existing risk management strategies still reflect its management intentions. He believes leadership teams should make those reviews part of ongoing decisions. "Leaders need to understand the risks they are accepting and decide how to manage them," he says. "That conversation should happen while they still have time to act, before a disruption forces the decision."