Late Notification
The insurer alleges that a claim or circumstance should have been notified earlier or during a previous policy period.
Professional Indemnity Insurance
Professional indemnity insurance is intended to protect a professional practice when liability claims arise. But sometimes the underlying negligence claim is only half the problem.
The insurer may question notification, the relevant policy year, a previous circumstance, the retroactive position, an exclusion or some other term of cover. Insurance Dispute Service can examine the professional liability claim and the PI coverage position alongside one another so that one dispute is not allowed to obscure the other.
Where Problems Arise
PI disputes are often highly dependent upon wording and timing. A professional may have maintained insurance for years yet still face an argument about which policy should respond or whether a particular term restricts indemnity.
The insurer alleges that a claim or circumstance should have been notified earlier or during a previous policy period.
The insurer argues that the professional already knew of facts which could give rise to a claim before the current cover incepted.
Questions arise about whether work performed before a stated retroactive date falls within the policy.
The insurer relies upon an activity, work-type, project, territorial, regulatory or other exclusion to restrict cover.
Several allegations or claims may trigger arguments about whether they constitute one claim or multiple claims for the purposes of limits and excesses.
The insurer may investigate or fund the defence while reserving its coverage position, or may ultimately refuse indemnity.
Claims-Made Cover
Professional indemnity insurance commonly operates on a claims-made basis. Professional bodies including ICAEW, RICS and ARB expressly describe their relevant PII arrangements in those terms.
This means that the policy in force when a claim is first made, or when a qualifying circumstance is properly notified, can be critical even though the professional work itself may have been carried out years earlier.
Notification Matters
Notification disputes are rarely resolved by the statement “we told the insurer.” The actual wording and chronology need to be reconstructed.
The wording may distinguish between an actual claim and a circumstance which may or is likely to give rise to a future claim. The relevant threshold must be identified from the policy itself.
Emails, complaints, internal discussions, project correspondence, error reports and client communications may establish when the professional first became aware of the potential issue.
The existence of a problem does not automatically answer the policy test. The facts known at the relevant time need to be compared with the precise notification wording.
The recipient, content, timing and method of notification may all matter. Renewal disclosure and formal notification should not automatically be treated as interchangeable.
Where a circumstance was notified previously, the relationship between that notification and the later claim may itself become an important coverage question.
Find the Responding Policy
Where insurance has been renewed over several years, the professional may need to reconstruct the insurance programme across more than one policy period.
That is particularly important where a claim develops gradually, the professional changed insurer, an earlier circumstance was notified or the current insurer alleges prior knowledge.
What Is the Insurer Relying On?
“Cover is uncertain” is not an analysis. The insurer's position should identify the relevant facts, wording and consequences.
Partnership changes, corporate restructures, former principals, subsidiaries or predecessor practices can make the identity of the insured important.
The business description, definitions, endorsements and exclusions should be compared with the professional service which generated the claim.
The chronology should be tested against the notification provisions rather than judged simply from the eventual date of the formal Letter of Claim.
The insurer may rely on prior circumstances or information provided at proposal or renewal. The precise facts known at that point need to be established.
The wording, factual allegations and true nature of the claim should be compared carefully before accepting that an exclusion removes cover.
Limits, aggregation, excesses and treatment of defence costs may materially alter the practical insurance available to deal with a substantial claim.
Reservation of Rights
A reservation of rights can allow the insurer to continue investigating, corresponding or funding aspects of the defence while preserving arguments about whether indemnity is ultimately available.
The important question is: what rights is the insurer reserving and what factual or policy issue is said to justify that position?
Insurer Reserving Its Rights →How Much Protection Is Really Available?
A substantial professional claim can consume significant resources before liability is finally determined. The policy therefore needs to be examined not only for whether cover exists, but for how the available indemnity operates.
Insurer-Appointed Solicitors
An insurer may appoint solicitors to defend the professional claim while separately reserving its position under the policy. The professional therefore needs to understand both the liability defence and the continuing insurance position.
Already Have Insurer-Appointed Solicitors? →Across Professional Sectors
Professional-indemnity disputes can arise across very different professions, each with its own regulatory requirements, professional standards and risk profile.
Claims concerning tax advice, accounts, transactions, reporting and other professional services.
Valuation, surveying, property advice and related professional indemnity issues.
Architect, engineer, quantity surveyor and construction consultant claims.
Suitability, pension, investment and other financial-advice claims.
Claims involving placement, underinsurance, disclosure and alleged gaps in insurance cover.
Professional-negligence claims where the liability and PI coverage positions need to be considered together.
How We Can Help
A PI coverage dispute cannot always be understood by reading the insurer's reservation or rejection letter in isolation. The underlying professional claim, insurance chronology and policy wording may all need to be brought together.
Identify the insuring clause, definitions, notification terms, retroactive provisions, exclusions, limits and endorsements relevant to the insurer's position.
Map the professional work, emergence of the problem, notifications, renewals, insurer changes and eventual claim.
Compare the insurer's reasoning with the policy wording, contemporaneous evidence and the actual allegations made against the professional.
Structure the matter for insurer correspondence, negotiation, specialist legal advice or litigation support where the coverage dispute cannot be resolved.
Common Questions
Broadly, claims-made cover looks to the policy in force when a claim is first made or, depending on the wording, when a qualifying circumstance is notified. The exact operation depends upon the individual policy.
It can matter, but it does not necessarily identify the responding policy. The current or relevant historical policy, retroactive provisions, notification history and previous circumstances may all need to be considered.
Many PI policies permit or require notification when facts or circumstances arise which meet the policy's stated threshold for potentially giving rise to a future claim. The precise wording and notification requirements should be checked.
Not necessarily. Information supplied during renewal and formal notification under the policy are not automatically the same thing. The particular policy requirements and communications should be examined.
It generally means the insurer is preserving one or more coverage arguments while the claim is investigated or handled. It does not necessarily amount to a final refusal of indemnity. The particular reservation should be analysed carefully.
Potentially, depending on the wording and circumstances. The professional should understand whether indemnity has actually been confirmed, what rights are reserved and who is addressing the separate coverage issue.
Aggregation concerns whether multiple claims or losses are treated together for insurance purposes. Its effect can be important for policy limits and excesses and depends heavily on the wording and facts.
The refusal should be tested against the policy wording, chronology, notification history and factual basis relied upon. A refusal by the insurer is its coverage position; it does not by itself establish that the policy properly excludes the claim.
Professional indemnity policies vary significantly between professions, insurers and policy years. Regulatory or professional-body minimum wording may also apply to some insureds.
References on this page to claims-made cover, notification, retroactive dates, aggregation, exclusions, defence costs and other policy features are general. The individual policy and insurance history must be examined.
Insurance Dispute Service provides claims analysis, insurance dispute support, case preparation and litigation support. The appropriate professional and regulatory structure depends on the work required.
Public Access enables suitably registered barristers to accept direct instructions. Conduct of litigation is a separate reserved legal activity and appropriate authorisation is required where that work is undertaken on a client's behalf.
This page provides general information and is not legal advice. No particular outcome is guaranteed. Policy notification deadlines, limitation periods and procedural deadlines should be checked for the individual matter.
PI Insurer Questioning Cover?
If your professional indemnity insurer has reserved its rights, questioned notification or indicated that it may refuse indemnity, we can examine the policy, insurance chronology and underlying professional claim together.