Vehicles without the human touch could pose a future risk to the insurance industry, a legal expert in the field has warned.

Richard Geddes said that pilotless drones, driverless cars and risks from cyber attacks on the technology that runs automated systems could become more common.

Mr Geddes, a lawyer with Sedgwick Chicago, said: “It’s very tough to quantify just now because it’s all just developing.”

But he said: “I do believe that the driverless vehicle is the most severe risk in terms of exposure for the liability insurer.”

And Mr Geddes, speaking at Bermuda law firm Sedgwick Chudleigh’s annual hot topics conference, added that the transition period — during which most vehicles are still controlled by humans — would be the period of highest risk.

He said: “Introducing them while the bulk of drivers are still human, that could be a recipe for disaster.”

But he added that, as driverless vehicles were designed to operate in a predictable and safe way, overall safety was likely to improve as drivers became redundant.

Mr Geddes said that insurers would be aware of the manufacturers of driverless vehicles — but might not be as well-informed about companies that provided the software that allowed them to run.

He added: “I wouldn’t go to ‘worry’ — I would say ‘be aware’. It might be that they have exposures they don’t even know about.

“They might not know who is making the software for these driverless vehicles — if I was an underwriter, I would want to know that.”

Earlier, Mr Geddes told delegates to the conference, held at the Bermuda Underwater Exploration Institute: “Drones have increasingly moved from what they were a few years ago, really no more than amusing toys, to valuable tools.”

He added they were used for visual surveillance in a variety of areas, including law enforcement and rescue services, and for building inspections.

Mr Geddes said that US federal law had introduced new laws governing the use of drones, including registration with the Federal Aviation Administration and a ban on their use around high-risk areas like airports.

He added: “The most catastrophic event, as you can imagine, is interference with aircraft.”

And he said there was also scope for legal action over injury or damage caused by negligent operation or supervision and even invasion of privacy.

Mr Geddes added that online retail giant Amazon was “pushing ahead” with its plans to introduce commercial drone delivery to customers — which would make it more likely other companies would follow suit.

He said that software in vehicles, including Jeep and Tesla, had been proved to be vulnerable to take over in cyber attacks, while medical equipment like insulin pumps and heart pacemakers had also been shown to be at risk.

Recent other attacks included one on a German nuclear plant and another which shut down French TV channel TV5.

Mr Geddes added: “These are continuing risks, any one of which could result in bodily injury or property damage.”

And he said: “An insulin pump, if it was hacked by a malicious person, it could give a fatal dose of insulin to a patient. With pacemakers, there is no indication that injuries have resulted from these, but the potential is clear.”

Mr Geddes added that, like failure to secure a workplace against physical attack could lead to claims, a lack of security in the cyber world could also attract expensive liability.

He told delegates: “The question of whether you intend or wish to provide coverage for cyber liabilities and to what extent have to be covered by specially tailored clauses.”