No. Insurers should not discuss specific underwriting appetite in GRA meetings or rooms.
Underwriting appetite may include what risks an insurer will or will not write, which perils it prefers, which sectors it is entering or exiting, which geographies it favors, which limits it may offer, which exclusions it applies, what attachment points it considers, what premium levels it seeks, or what conditions would make a risk acceptable.
Such information may be commercially sensitive, competition-sensitive, market-conduct-sensitive, and potentially misleading if heard by project proponents, brokers, public authorities, or competitors.
GRA may allow public-safe discussion of general market challenges, protection gaps, data needs, risk engineering standards, resilience measures, and evidence gaps. But it should not become a forum for insurer appetite signalling.
If underwriting appetite is relevant to a specific risk, it belongs in a separate formal insurance process outside GRA.
A safe GRA discussion asks: what information would generally help insurance-market understanding?
An unsafe discussion asks: what will this insurer write?
