Captive Insurance Companies in the Cayman Islands

Published: 29 Aug 2024

In this publication, Appleby Insurance experts provide a breakdown on the benefits of captive insurance companies and discuss why the Cayman Islands is a popular jurisdiction for such entities.

Primary Contact

Jacob MacAdam

Partner
Cayman Islands

T +1 345 814 2016
E [email protected]

Simon Raftopoulos, Menelik Miller, Jacob MacAdam, Vance Power

1. What is a captive insurance company?

A captive insurance company (Captive) is typically a wholly owned subsidiary insurer, which is established to insure the risks of its parent company or related entities. It is a form of self-insurance.

Captives are used by corporate groups in many different industries, including manufacturing, healthcare, energy, technology, food and beverage, aviation, financial services, fintech and retail. Captives are also used by non-profit organisations.

2. What are the advantages of a Captive?

There are a number of reasons why a corporate group may choose to set up its own Captive, including to:

secure insurance coverage for difficult to insure risks
reduce its insurance costs
ensure more efficient claims handling
increase its control over the underwriting process
determine the investment strategy of the Captive

3. Why do Captives choose the Cayman Islands?

The Cayman Islands benefits from a respected and well-established regulator in the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA), who are responsive, approachable and pragmatic.

The Cayman Islands also has an abundance of top tier service providers for Captives (insurance managers, legal advisors, accountants etc.) who are well positioned to service the captive insurance market.

The Cayman Islands is the second largest Captive domicile globally and the most popular domicile in the world for healthcare Captives.

4. What is the tax position for Captives in the Cayman Islands?

The Cayman Islands is tax neutral, with no direct taxation applicable to Captives incorporated in the Cayman Islands (other than stamp duty on documents executed in or brought into the Cayman Islands).

A Cayman Islands Captive can apply for a tax exemption certificate, which is an undertaking from the Financial Secretary of the Cayman Islands, that the Captive will be exempted for a period of up to 30 years from any legislation imposing taxes on profit, capital gains or inheritance if such legislation be introduced in the Cayman Islands.

It is also possible for a Cayman Islands Captive to make a Section 953(d) election for US tax purposes, subject to complying with the applicable US tax provisions.

5. How many Captives are there in the Cayman Islands?

As of 30 June 2024, there were approximately 673 Captives in the Cayman Islands regulated by CIMA, comprising:

(A) 154 segregated portfolio companies (SPC), which is a type of exempted company that may create segregated portfolios (SP), with the assets and liabilities of each SP being legally separate from the assets and liabilities of other SPs and from the general assets and liabilities of the SPC; and

(B) 519 non-SPCs.

6. What is the Insurance Managers Association of Cayman (IMAC)?

IMAC is the insurance industry association in the Cayman Islands which was established in 1994. IMAC represents insurance managers, Captives and service providers in the Captive insurance industry in the Cayman Islands.

IMAC acts as the liaison between CIMA, the Cayman Islands government and the Cayman insurance industry and has been instrumental in promoting the development of the captive insurance industry in the Cayman Islands.

IMAC organises and hosts the annual Cayman Captive Forum, which is the largest captive insurance conference in the world. The next Cayman Captive Forum is, as at the date of writing, scheduled to be held on 3 December 2024 to 5 December 2024 in the Cayman Islands.

7. How is a Captive established in the Cayman Islands?

The process is straightforward and involves:

(A) the formation of a corporate vehicle; and

(B) the licensing of that corporate vehicle with CIMA,

a brief summary of each is set out below.

(A) Formation of a Corporate Vehicle for a Captive

Exempted companies are the most common corporate vehicles used for Captives in the Cayman Islands. SPCs are often used by Captives given that multiple SPs may be formed under a single SPC. It is also possible for an SPC, for and on behalf of a particular SP to form a portfolio insurance company (PIC), which is a subsidiary exempted company that has separate legal personality and its own separate board of directors from the SPC. PICs do not require their own separate insurance license and instead “piggyback” off the SPC insurance license.

Companies in the Cayman Islands can be incorporated within 24 hours when the incorporation filing is made on a business day on an express basis with the Cayman Islands Registrar of Companies (Registrar of Companies).

Any Cayman Islands company which wishes to use in its name the term “insurance” or another term that suggests insurance business is being conducted by such company, is required to obtain a letter of non-objection from CIMA before the company can be incorporated with the Registrar of Companies.

(B) CIMA Licensing Process for a Captive

Under the Cayman Islands Insurance Act 2010 (as revised) (Insurance Act), the Class B insurance license framework applies to Captives. There are three sub-categories of Class B insurance license (Class B(i), Class B(ii) and Class B(iii)).

Below is a table summary for each sub-category of Class B insurance license of the CIMA:

(i) minimum capital requirements (MCR), which are the minimum capital that a Class B licensed Captive is required to maintain in order to operate; and

(ii) prescribed capital requirements (PCR), which are the total risk-based capital that a Class B licensed Captive is required to maintain in order to operate.

Class B License Category	MCR	PCR
Class B(i)	General: US$100,000 Long-term: US$200,000 Composite: US$300,000	General: PCR = MCR Long-term: PCR = MCR Composite: PCR = MCR
Class B(ii)	General: US$150,000 Long-term: US$300,000 Composite: US$450,000	General: 10% of Net Earned Premium (“NEP”) to first US$5,000,000 5% of additional NEP up to US$20,000,000 2.5% of additional NEP in excess of US$20,000,000 Long term: PCR = MCR Composite: amount required to support the general business plus MCR
Class B(iii)	General: US$200,000 Long-term: US$400,000 Composite: US$600,000	General: 15% of NEP to first US$5,000,000 7.5% of additional NEP up to US$20,000,000 5% of additional NEP in excess of US$20,000,000 Long-term: PCR = MCR Composite: amount required to support the general business plus MCR

CIMA has a discretion to mandate regulatory capital requirements in addition to those set out in the table above, depending on the business plan submitted for the relevant Captive

The standard requirements for a Class B insurance license application are prescribed by the Insurance Act and include the following information:

a) Name of applicant

b) A detailed business plan

c) Three years’ financial projections

d) Personal details and references for proposed directors and shareholders

i. A completed personal questionnaire should be provided in respect of all proposed Directors, Officers and Managers.

ii. A “police clearance certificate” is also required, but CIMA will accept a sworn Affidavit an acceptable “other certificate.”

e) Last two years’ audited statements and/or notarised net worth statement of ultimate beneficial owners

f) Confirmation of appointment from a licensed insurance manager and approved auditor

8. How long does the CIMA licensing process take?

Typically around 8 weeks from the date of receipt of CIMA of a fully completed application form.

9. How can Appleby help?

Our insurance team in the Cayman Islands is comprised of market leading experts in the insurance sector. We have substantial experience in advising Captives on structuring, initial formation, the CIMA licensing process, ongoing regulatory requirements and commercial transactions. Please get in touch if you would like to discuss further.

More publications

The Exception To The Rule: Stricter Test Applies Where Granting An Interlocutory Injunction Would Shut Out Trial

28 Apr 2026

The Interplay Between Supervision Applications and Winding Up on the Just and Equitable Ground: Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC

In its recent judgment in Re Atlas Capital Markets LLC [2026] CIGC (FSD) 19, the Grand Court considered itself bound to make a supervision order pursuant to s.131(b) of the Companies Act, notwithstanding that the company was the subject of a pending just and equitable winding up (J&E) petition when its voluntary liquidation was commenced; and rejected an attack on the joint voluntary liquidators’ (JVLs) independence, which was principally based on a misreading of the JVLs’ evidence and lacked any objective foundation. The authors, who successfully represented the JVLs in obtaining the supervision order, discuss this important judgment further below – which is believed to be the first decision on the interplay between supervision applications and J&E proceedings under the Companies Act – and offer their views on the guidance that shareholders petitioning on the just and equitable ground may derive from it in future cases. The challenge to the JVLs’ independence was rejected on the well-established principles which Doyle J discussed in Re Global Fidelity Bank [2021] 2 CILR 361, and is not discussed in further detail below.

Andrew Jackson, Luke Burgess-Shannon, Sofia Kranjec

Appleby-Website-Insurance-and-Reinsurance

23 Apr 2026

ReConnect 2026: Practical takeaways for Reinsurers, Cedants and Investors doing business in the Cayman Islands

The Cayman International Reinsurance Commercial Association (CIRCA) held its annual conference, [Re]Connect, last week at the Ritz-Carlton, Grand Cayman. This year’s [Re]Connect has once again demonstrated Cayman’s growing influence in global reinsurance and the strength of the jurisdiction’s regulatory, professional and commercial ecosystem. The event brought together 675 registered delegates, including reinsurers, cedants, major US law firms, audit firms, tax practices, asset managers, overseas regulators, industry leaders and rating agencies – as well as Appleby Cayman’s [Re]Insurance Team, with Miriam Smyth, Regulatory Counsel, speaking on a panel of experts on structuring, licensing and operating a Cayman insurer.

Miriam Smyth, Jacob MacAdam, Martin Byers, Simon Raftopoulos, Dean Bennett

23 Apr 2026

FamilyMart and Beyond: The Continuing Influence of the Privy Council’s Landmark Decision on Shareholder Litigation

The Privy Council's decision in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp [2023] UKPC 33 is a landmark ruling that distinguishes the arbitrability of underlying shareholder disputes from the court's exclusive jurisdiction over just and equitable winding-up of a Cayman company.

John McCarroll SC, Alvin Sin

Appleby-Website-Private-Client-and-Trusts-Practice

22 Apr 2026

Regulation, Regulation, Regulation

The article discusses updates to global trust guidance and regulation, as well as beneficial ownership and the regulatory burden on trustees that comes with increased transparency.

Richard Grasby

22 Apr 2026

Prospects of Asian Companies in U.S. Listings in 2026

Nasdaq introduced a series of rule changes in 2025 to raise minimum requirements for public float and offering size for certain new listings.

Kitty Chan

20 Apr 2026

Avoiding The Nuclear Option: Buyout Orders In Just And Equitable Winding Up Proceedings

With the Cayman Islands being a preferred jurisdiction for the incorporation of investment vehicles, inevitably cases will arise where non-controlling shareholders complain that they are being unfairly prejudiced by conduct of those in control, and necessarily pursue those complaints by way of proceedings to wind up the subject company on the just and equitable ground. Where such complaints are well-founded, the outcome will often be an order putting the subject company into official liquidation. But the Cayman courts also have the jurisdiction in such cases to make a range of other orders as alternatives to taking that nuclear option, and are indeed obliged to consider whether any of those alternative orders would provide a more appropriate solution to the complaints.[1] The Grand Court was recently required to conduct that analysis in the case of Re Position Mobile Ltd SEZC.[2] The petitioning shareholder in that case had satisfied the Court that it would be just and equitable to wind up the company – since it had justifiably lost confidence in the probity of those in control, due to their serious and sustained misconduct and mismanagement – but positively sought a buyout order[3] as an alternative to a winding up. The Court thus proceeded to consider whether the buyout order, or any other alternative order, would be more appropriate than ordering a winding up, and concluded that a buyout order was the fairest and most appropriate form of relief in the circumstances of that case. The authors will discuss the guidance which the Position Mobile case provides in that regard below, which should be considered together with the guidance provided by Re Madera Technology Fund (CI) Ltd,[4] particularly in respect of the approach that the Cayman courts can be expected to take when setting the appropriate valuation date for a buyout order, with a view to ensuring that the valuation is fair to each side.[5] [1] See Re Virginia Solution SPC Ltd (unrep. 28 July 2023, CICA) at [61]. [2] [2026] CIGC (FSD) 10 [3] Requiring the respondent shareholders to purchase its shares at a fair price. [4] (unrep. 21 Aug. 2024, Richards J). [5] For further detail, see the authors’ article on the Madera Technology case at https://www.applebyglobal.com/publications/no-looking-back-investor-held-to-buyout-at-current-value-of-shares/.

Andrew Jackson

14 Apr 2026

No Rubber-Stamping: Continuation Of Restructuring Officer Appointments In The Cayman Islands

Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin, Luke Burgess-Shannon

7 Apr 2026

No Claim, No Injunction: What Does a Limited Partner Actually Own?

What equitable proprietary interest, if any, does a limited partner hold in the assets of a Cayman Islands exempted limited partnership, and is that interest is sufficient to ground a proprietary injunction? These questions lie at the heart of Parker J’s recent judgment in the matter of Charitable DAF HoldCo, Ltd (in Official Liquidation), in which the Grand Court refused proprietary injunctive relief sought by joint official liquidators against former directors and associated entities. The judgment holds that the Company, as a limited partner in a Cayman ELP, had no equitable proprietary interest in the Fund’s underlying assets of the quality required to found the relief sought. While the court did not exclude the possibility of an LP having proprietary rights in an ELP’s assets, it held that on the particular facts of the case such rights were excluded.

Marcus Staff, Kamarya James

30 Mar 2026

The Regulation of Cayman Islands Tokenised Funds – Clear Rules Now in Place

On 5 March 2026 the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) (Amendment Bill), 2026, the Mutual Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 and the Private Funds (Amendment) Bill, 2026 were passed by the Parliament of the Cayman Islands with unanimous support, providing welcome clarity that Cayman Islands tokenised funds are regulated within Cayman’s existing Mutual Funds Act (MFA) and Private Funds Act (PFA) framework and do not fall within the scope of the Virtual Asset (Service Providers) Act (VASPA).

Martin Byers, Sailaja Alla, Matt Mulry, Peter Colegate, Maree Martin

19 Mar 2026

Key Regulatory Requirements of SIBA Registered Persons in the Cayman Islands

Registered Persons under the Securities Investment Business Act (Revised) (SIBA) attract regulatory requirements including annual reporting requirements with key filing deadlines falling in January and, typically, December each year. The Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA)’s recently issued General Industry Notice to the effect that all SIBA Registered Persons will be additionally required to submit a Prudential Information Survey for the 2025 calendar year (by 31 March 2026) has signaled CIMA's continued focus on enhancing the resilience, transparency and prudential soundness of the securities investment business (SIB) sector in the Cayman Islands. Accordingly, this briefing reviews some of the other key regulatory and reporting obligations that attach to Registered Persons under SIBA, CIMA’s associated Rules and Statements of Guidance (SOG), the applicable Anti-Money Laundering Regulations (Cayman AML Regulations) the Tax Information Authority (International Tax Compliance) (Common Reporting Standard) Regulations (Revised) (Cayman CRS Regulations) and, where applicable, The International Tax Co-operation (Economic Substance) Act (Revised) (ES Act).

Martin Byers, Sailaja Alla, Matt Mulry, Maree Martin, Menelik Miller

Captive Insurance Companies in the Cayman Islands

1. What is a captive insurance company?

2. What are the advantages of a Captive?

3. Why do Captives choose the Cayman Islands?

4. What is the tax position for Captives in the Cayman Islands?

5. How many Captives are there in the Cayman Islands?

6. What is the Insurance Managers Association of Cayman (IMAC)?

7. How is a Captive established in the Cayman Islands?

8. How long does the CIMA licensing process take?

9. How can Appleby help?

locations

services

Sector

types

Share