At both the state and federal levels, the financing of recovery from catastrophic events has received considerable public attention, engendered heated debate, and at times resulted in the legislated adoption of peril-specific approaches. Yet most such public programs and much of the debate have failed to address recovery for damage to critical infrastructures. The insurance and reinsurance sectors have played a vital part in financing recovery from catastrophic events, but much of that financial support has been directed to losses related to damages to property owned by individuals (e.g., homes, autos) and to small commercial businesses. Critical infrastructures, however, have been treated differently from other assets, resources, or businesses. Most critical infrastructure assets have not been insured or found sufficient coverage in the private insurance market. The potential cost of losses to these assets from catastrophic events is either self-insured by government or business, or it goes uninsured or underinsured.

If critical infrastructure is defined to be public facilities (e.g., roads, bridges, public buildings), transportation facilities, energy resources and facilities, and networks (e.g., computer, financial), a public–private partnership will be needed to address recovery needs. Existing state and federal catastrophe financing programs and the recent debates surrounding them shed considerable light on potential options for a public–private partnership and present major considerations applicable to the exposure of critical infrastructure to catastrophic damage. At the end of the day, at least part of the solution will be found in the reinsurance industry.