The membership of the UN-convened Net Zero Insurance Alliance has continued to shrink following the exits of two insurers this week. 

The alliance lost more than half of its members in the past three months and ended last week with the departure of South Korea’s Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance. 

On Monday, two more insurers confirmed their resignations to mallowstreet: the UK’s Beazley and France’s Matmut. They did not provide reasons for their decisions. 

A spokesperson for specialty insurer Beazley said: “We continue to support the UN’s Principles for Sustainable Insurance and Sustainable Development Goals. Beazley remains fully committed to a just and orderly transition to net zero.”

Meanwhile, Matmut told mallowstreet it had resigned from the alliance the week before. The company’s name was taken down from the NZIA’s list this week. 

A spokesperson for the French mutual insurer said the experience with the NZIA allowed the company to mature its thoughts on transition and the path towards a carbon-free economy, adding: “This decision [to leave the NZIA] does not call into question [our] commitment to continue [our] fight against global warming. [Matmut] will continue its proactive approach by fully taking environmental issues into account.”

Munich Re was the first to end its membership with the alliance citing “material antitrust risks” as the reason for its departure. Many other re/insurers left soon after without explanations.

According to experts, antitrust risks usually affect those with significant exposure to the US. 

Last month, 23 US state attorneys general told NZIA members in a letter that the group's targets and requirements appeared to violate both federal and state antitrust laws and invited them to respond to the letter by 15 June.

The letter said: “We, the undersigned attorneys general, have serious concerns about whether these numerous requirements square with federal law, as well as the laws of our states, as they apply to private actors. Under our nation’s antitrust laws and their state equivalents, it is well established that certain arrangements among business competitors are strictly forbidden because they are unfair or unreasonably harmful to competition.”