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

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.

Martin Byers, Maree Martin, Miriam Smyth, Menelik Miller

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.

Alan Bercow, Daniel Coelho

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.

Harriet Ter-Berg, William Spence

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.

Alan Bercow, Zuhair Farouki

28 Jul 2026

Drelle Overturned in Latest UK Supreme Court Decision

The United Kingdom Supreme Court in its recent decision in Drelle v Servis-Terminal LLC [2026] UKSC 29 (Drelle SC) has overturned the controversial decision of the English Court of Appeal in Servis-Terminal LLC v Drelle [2025] EWCA Civ 62 (Drelle CA), and in doing so has provided welcome clarity on the effect of unrecognised foreign judgments in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency contexts. This is likely to have a wide-reaching impact – not only in the UK but also offshore – and particularly in the British Virgin Islands following the recent decision in JJW Hotels & Resorts Holding Inc v Rhodes (BVIHCM2025/0296) (JJW Hotels) (which relied heavily on Drelle CA), and in the Cayman Islands where previous authorities had recognised the ability, in the corporate context, for petitioners to present winding up petitions on the basis of an unrecognised foreign judgment.

Daniel Mitchell, Harriet Ter-Berg, Jae Shin

24 Jul 2026

Thalassa Investments LP: Section 22 and Specific Discovery - Strategic Considerations for Limited Partners Seeking Information and Documents

In Thalassa Investments LP [2026] CIGC (FSD) 32, the Grand Court refused an application by limited partner petitioners for specific discovery from the general partner in just and equitable proceedings to wind up a Cayman Islands ELP. The ruling was against the backdrop of serious lack of probity allegations made against the general partner by the petitioners. Notwithstanding those allegations, the Grand Court declined to make orders requiring discovery of various categories of documents to be used at trial. The ruling brings into focus the multiple routes potentially open to limited partners seeking information and/or documents from an ELP where there are allegations of mismanagement by the general partner. The limited partner may issue substantive proceedings (or, as in this case, present a just and equitable winding up petition) against the general partner and partnership, and then obtain documents through the usual discovery process. Alternatively, the limited partner may pursue its substantive right to true and full information under section 22 of the Exempted Limited Partnership Act first in order to help inform the bringing of a substantive claim, as was the approach in the Neoma (Abraaj) and the Port Fund litigation. Thalassa illustrates that the nature of the information sought, who holds it, and the legal basis on which disclosure is sought are all highly relevant to the outcome. The decision also highlights that section 22 and discovery serve different purposes, are governed by different legal tests and can produce different outcomes. The strategic question is not whether section 22 or the discovery process may be preferable in the abstract, but which legal framework best aligns with the limited partner’s objectives and the nature of the information sought.

Susan Fallan, Daniel Coelho, Hannah Oh

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring-562x340

14 Jul 2026

Directors Cannot Delay Shareholder Votes: Cayman Court Limits Postponement Powers

Eliot Simpson, Ray Leung, Steven Yuen

Appleby-Website-Banking-and-Asset-Finance

13 Jul 2026

Guide to Loans & Secured Financing in the Cayman Islands 2026

This guide provides local insights into the legal and regulatory framework governing bank lending and finance. It covers key topics including bank loans versus debt securities, common forms of bank loan facilities, bridge financing, the roles of agents, trustees and lenders, and governing laws. It also examines the regulatory landscape, including capital, liquidity and disclosure requirements, the use of loan proceeds, cross-border lending, and interest rate and currency restrictions. In addition, the guide explores security interests and guarantees, the impact of fraudulent conveyance and similar doctrines on bank loan financing structures, intercreditor arrangements, loan terms and structures, and recent market developments.

Caroline Barton

Appleby-Website-Insolvency-and-Restructuring

9 Jul 2026

A Warning to Litigants Seeking Funding: English High Court Clarifies the Limits of Litigation Privilege

Important for Cayman litigants, funders and attorneys given the growing use of third-party funding in disputes.

Harriet Ter-Berg, Alan Bercow, Sofia Kranjec

8 Jul 2026

A Cautionary Tale in Interim Injunctive Relief: Lessons from Dixon v Seymour

In a recent judgment of Chief Justice Ramsay-Hale, the Cayman Grand Court provided guidance on the necessary components of an application for interim injunctive relief. The ruling illustrates how an ex parte application may fail to satisfy the American Cyanamid test when unsupported by proper evidence.

Alan Bercow, William Spence

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