Captive Insurance Companies in the Cayman Islands

Published: 29 Aug 2024
Type: Insight

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.

 


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 CategoryMCRPCR
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.

Share
More publications
Appleby-Website-Funds-and-Investment-Services
28 Oct 2026

Side Letters: Preferential Terms, Practical Challenges

Side letters are a common feature of Cayman Islands investment funds. This article outlines the legal framework governing side letters, the key considerations for fund operators when negotiating and granting preferential terms, and the implications of side letters for subscription financing arrangements.

Appleby-Website-Arbitration-and-Dispute-Resolution
22 Oct 2026

Grand Court Sees Through "Specific Performance" Label And Stays Redemption Claim In Favour Of HKIAC Arbitration

We are pleased to report on our recent win in the Cayman Grand Court: a stay of Cayman proceedings concerning a US$87m+ redemption claim in favour of HKIAC arbitration. Doyle J found that the claim for "specific performance" was "entirely artificial and a mere device" intended to escape the arbitration clause. The Appleby team comprised John McCarroll SC, Damon Booth and Ray Leung (Hong Kong), and Andrew Jackson and Zuhair Farouki (Cayman). Andrew Ayres KC appeared as leading counsel.

Appleby-Website-Cayman1
21 Oct 2026

The Cayman Islands LLC at ten: what fund finance has learned

Ten years on, the Cayman Islands LLC is an established part of fund finance practice. A useful question is how an LLC’s contractual flexibility affects lender diligence, security and enforcement, and when an exempted company remains the more efficient financing vehicle.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
1 Sep 2026

The Executor's Year in the Law of the Cayman Islands

Of Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the suit which stands at the centre of Bleak House and which concerned an estate drawn into the administration of the Court of Chancery, Dickens wrote that 'this scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means'. The complaint was not the novelist's invention. It was directed at a state of affairs in which the beneficiary dissatisfied with the conduct of an administration had in substance one remedy, a decree for general administration, which took the whole estate into the hands of the court and kept it there, upon occasion until there was little left to distribute.

Appleby-Website-Corporate-Practice
26 Aug 2026

Comparative Analysis of Cayman and BVI Companies as Listing Vehicles

This article provides an in-depth company-law comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of Cayman Islands and BVI companies as listing vehicles, with a view to assisting businesses in selecting the appropriate jurisdiction of incorporation for their listing vehicle.

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring
13 Aug 2026

Restructurings Frustrating Creditors And The Enforcement Of Arbitral Awards: The English High Court's Decision In State Oil Company Of Azerbaijan v Mansimov

The English High Court has issued a significant judgment on the enforcement of arbitral awards, the reach of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 and the limits of the Marex tort, with potential relevance to the Cayman Islands' Fraudulent Dispositions Act.

Appleby-Website-Regulatory-Practice
7 Aug 2026

New CIMA Rules on AML/CFT/CPF Compliance and Financial Sanctions Issued in the Cayman Islands

On 20 July 2026, further to an industry consultation, the Cayman Islands Monetary Authority (CIMA) published the following two new Rules set to introduce binding risk management, governance, sanctions screening and other compliance requirements for regulated financial service providers in the Cayman Islands: (i) Rule on Effective Compliance Programmes for the Prevention and Detection of Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Proliferation Financing for Financial Services Providers (AML Rule); and (ii) Rule on Compliance with Financial Sanctions and Targeted Financial Sanctions (Sanctions Rule and, together with the AML Rule, the Rules). All CIMA-regulated financial services providers, including investment funds, insurers and reinsurers that are conducting ‘relevant financial business’ as defined under the Proceeds of Crime Act (Revised) (POCA) (FSP), are encouraged to review and update their documented framework of AML/CFT/CPF and sanctions compliance policies, procedures, controls, oversight and reporting mechanisms (Compliance Programmes) to ensure compliance with the Rules by the time they come into force on 18 September 2026.

JPLs, Directors and Arbitration: Grand Court Clarifies the Scope of Provisional Liquidators' Powers
5 Aug 2026

Good faith in action, not just belief: the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa and its significance in the Cayman Islands

May a company director depart from a strategy his board has agreed, in the sincere belief that he knows a better route to the company’s success? In Saxon Woods Investments Limited v Costa [2026] UKSC 21, the Supreme Court held that, whatever the answer, a director cannot pursue his own strategy by concealing it from, and misleading, his fellow directors. The Court confirmed that the good faith duty is not confined to a director’s sincerely held view of the company’s best interests; it also governs the means by which the director acts. The decision is an authoritative statement of the content of the fiduciary duty of loyalty, and is likely to be influential in the Cayman Islands. The decision will interest directors, those who advise or appoint them, and stakeholders affected by directors’ conduct.

Website-Code-Cayman-2
30 Jul 2026

Contingent Creditors, Standing And The Winding Up Jurisdiction: Analysing Re Petrosaudi International

The Cayman Islands Court of Appeal has delivered a highly significant judgment in Re PetroSaudi International.[1] The Court clarified the circumstances in which an alleged contingent creditor will have standing to petition to wind up a company under section 94(1)(b) of the Companies Act, and confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make a winding up order on an ex parte without notice basis.[2] Our article analyses the Court of Appeal’s decision, and considers its implications for insolvency practitioners.

Website-Code-Cayman-1
30 Jul 2026

Final Means Final: Wei v Wang and the Common Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in the Cayman Islands

English Court Reaffirms Pro-Enforcement Approach to Foreign Judgments In Wei v Wang [2026] EWHC 1892 (Comm), the Court confirmed that exceptional avenues of review do not undermine the finality of a judgment and reiterated the limited scope of the natural justice defence.