PI wording · Technical

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

Reviewed by Matthew Bartlett, Director, Apex Insurance Brokers Limited (FCA FRN 724952) · Published 14 July 2026

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

What is the difference between aggregate and each-and-every-claim PI cover?
Aggregate: the policy limit is the maximum for all claims in the policy year combined. Each-and-every-claim: each separate claim has its own limit, no annual cap on total. Each-and-every is more expensive but offers materially better protection against multiple losses in one year.
Do the SRA MTC require each-and-every-claim cover?
Yes for the mandatory minimum layer (£2m for sole practitioners and partnerships, £3m for incorporated). Excess or top-up cover above the MTC layer can be structured differently.
Are ARB, ICAEW and RICS policies typically aggregate?
Yes — the professional-firm PI market for non-solicitors is predominantly aggregate. Firms can request each-and-every-claim structuring but it is not the market default.
What does 'defence costs inclusive' mean?
The policy limit is the total available for both damages paid to the claimant and the firm's defence costs. Legal fees, expert witness fees, and other defence expenses erode the limit. Insurance Act 2015 changes influenced this to become the market norm on newer wordings.
What is 'reinstatement of limit'?
A provision that restores the policy limit after a claim exhausts it. Some aggregate policies include one reinstatement; some offer paid reinstatements. Check the wording; do not assume.
How does aggregation work in an each-and-every-claim structure?
Related claims can still be aggregated under the aggregation clause — multiple losses arising from the same act, error or omission are treated as a single claim for limit purposes. Each-and-every-claim structure does not remove aggregation; it removes the annual total cap.
If a firm exhausts its aggregate, is that a regulatory breach?
Not automatically. The firm must maintain adequate cover for future claims. Exhausting the aggregate typically requires immediate broker engagement to arrange reinstatement or top-up cover before the next claim arises.
Which structure is better for a firm with a claims history?
Depends on the pattern. Multiple smaller claims can exhaust an aggregate quickly — each-and-every-claim protects better. A single large exposure with no expected repeat — aggregate may be adequate. Specialist broker input helps.

Related reading