NEW YORK — There is still no standard language in cyber policies, one reinsurance official says.

“It’s something reinsurers definitely have trouble with,” said Gina Pilla, Red Bank, New Jersey-based managing director and head of professional lines for Arch Reinsurance Co.

Ms. Pilla spoke at a session on cyber from the perspective of brokers and underwriters at the Professional Underwriting Liability Society’s 2019 Cyber Symposium in New York on Wednesday.

Robert Parisi, New York-based managing director and cyber product leader for Marsh LLC, said, “It’s kind of a tale of two markets.” Small and medium-size enterprises “tend to buy off the shelf,” while larger clients “do expect a certain amount of tailoring or bespoke coverages.”

There are several different approaches to doing this, including having numerous endorsements or through a broker proprietary form, he said.

Steve Krusko, Atlanta-based chief underwriting officer for Berkley Cyber Risk Solutions, a unit of W.R. Berkley Corp., said that when he is asked to manuscript a policy, “I generally don’t have an issue with it. We understand that there are unique requests or unique exposures that particular clients have,” and Berkley is generally happy to discuss manuscripting, “as long as they can fairly articulate what they’re trying to get after” with a particular language.

But he said he would not want to manuscript a policy the claims department “doesn’t fully understand. I’d rather we all be on the same page.”

Mr. Krusko said “Some of the challenge with cyber is, it’s constantly changing. Even policies written five years ago may not be clearly addressing one of the issues and sometimes clients want clarity.”

Mr. Parisi said, “You’ve got 21 different legitimate cyber markets, and there are 22 different cyber forms on any given risk. Clients have to understand cyber policies have evolved differently.

In one policy, cyber may be viewed as a property/casualty risk, or it may still be based on an errors and omissions form, creating a situation where clients are comparing “apples to oranges to pears,” he said.

There will be a “certain level of confusion” until “we go to some level of standardization,” he said. Cyber policies must have “at least certain common terminologies and glossaries,” said Mr. Parisi. A policy with 37 endorsements is “confusing,” he said. “I have to read the policy backwards.”

Mr. Krusko said, “Sometimes I feel like the broker is asking for those 37 endorsements” because he does not want to be shut out by the competition because of missed endorsements.

Mr. Parisi said he does not know the solution to the issue. “Cyber is moving so fast,” with coverage changing almost on an annual basis, and once one or two markets introduce a new policy form, other markets’ reaction is, “I have to get on with my new form.”

Mr. Krusko said one of the challenges in writing cyber from the small and medium enterprise side is that clients want an admitted product, but regulators are “slow to understand this product” and do not like to approve new forms or rate filings.

The session was moderated by Jennifer Coughlin, a partner with Mullen Coughlin LLC in Wayne, Pennsylvania.