Aggregate limit vs each-and-every-claim — the two PI wording structures explained

UK PI policies are typically written on one of two limit structures: aggregate or each-and-every-claim. The difference matters at claim time, at renewal, and at the moment of comparing two apparently identical quotes. This page explains the two, when each applies, and how to read a PI wording for its true limit position.

The two structures in one paragraph each

Aggregate limit. The policy pays up to the aggregate amount for all claims in the policy period combined. Once the aggregate is exhausted, no further cover for the year until renewal.

Each-and-every-claim. Each separate claim has its own limit, up to the policy limit. Multiple claims in one year can each have the full limit available, with no annual cap on total payout.

Which regulator requires which

1. SRA (solicitors) — MTC requires each-and-every-claim structure at the minimum limit. Firms may buy aggregate cover above the MTC layer.
2. ARB (architects) — adequacy standard, either structure permitted; aggregate is the market norm.
3. ICAEW (accountants) — 2.5x formula does not mandate structure; aggregate is the market norm.
4. RICS (surveyors) — turnover-band scale; aggregate is the market norm.
5. FCA (IFAs, mortgage advisers, etc) — MIPRU/ICOBS specify per-claim and aggregate minimums (broadly €1.3m per claim / €1.9m aggregate).
6. Insurance brokers (MIPRU 3) — per-claim and aggregate minimums.

Practical implications

1. Aggregation risk. Under aggregate cover, multiple claims arising from the same failing may aggregate to a single loss — and exhaust the aggregate quickly. Under each-and-every-claim, aggregation still matters but the ceiling is per-claim not annual.
2. Reinstatement. Some aggregate policies offer reinstatement of the limit after a claim — typically for an additional premium.
3. Pricing. Each-and-every-claim is more expensive than aggregate at the same limit — the insurer's worst-case exposure is higher.
4. Excess. Excess applies per claim in most structures; both aggregate and each-and-every policies typically deduct the excess before limit calculation.

Reading the wording — four questions

1. What is the limit and is it per claim, aggregate, or both?
2. Are defence costs inclusive of the limit or in addition to it? (Insurance Act 2015-influenced wordings often include defence costs in the limit; older wordings may exclude.)
3. Is there a reinstatement provision? On what terms?
4. What aggregation clause applies, and to what triggers?

Common pitfalls

1. Buyer compares two quotes at £2m limit without checking whether one is aggregate and one is each-and-every — they are not the same product at the same limit.
2. Buyer assumes defence costs are additional; wording says they are inclusive; realised limit is materially lower.
3. Aggregation clause bundles multiple related claims into one policy loss; aggregate is exhausted faster than expected.
4. Reinstatement not confirmed in writing before binding; assumed available and priced accordingly.

The specialist-broker's test

1. Read the definition of ‘limit’ and ‘aggregate limit’ in the policy wording.
2. Read the definition of ‘claim’ and how multiple related events are treated (the aggregation clause).
3. Read whether defence costs are inclusive or additional.
4. Read the reinstatement provision if any.
5. Cross-reference the regulator's minimum with the policy structure.

Frequently asked

Related reading

• Aggregation clauses by regulator — side-by-side
• PI excess layer programmes — when the primary is not enough
• SRA MTC minimum limit — deep dive
• Fair presentation under the Insurance Act 2015