SEO meta - Title: D&O Run-Off After Dissolution — Directors’ Personal Exposure Explained | Apex - Meta description: Directors’ & officers’ liability run-off after company dissolution — IA 1986 wrongful trading and misfeasance, CA 2006 restoration, CDDA 1986 disqualification, the 6-year tail standard, and pricing. - Slug:
/commercial-run-off-cover/directors-and-officers/- Primary keyword: D&O run-off cover - Secondary keywords: directors and officers run-off, D&O tail cover, wrongful trading insurance, dissolution director liability, CDDA defence cover, director run-off after closure, IA 1986 director claims - Schema:Article+FAQPage+HowTo
The single most consequential personal financial decision most directors of UK companies will ever make is whether to bind D&O run-off cover at the time their company ceases trading. The decision is consequential because the personal exposure that follows a director after the company has dissolved is substantial, the limitation periods for the principal causes of action extend 6 years or more, the regulatory environment for director enforcement has tightened materially in the post-pandemic period, and the cost of run-off relative to the protection it provides is one of the most asymmetric trades in the insurance market.
This guide is for directors of any limited company contemplating cessation, voluntary liquidation, administration, dissolution by strike-off, or sale where their D&O obligations will fall away. It is the deepest specific treatment of the D&O run-off question in the Apex commercial estate.
General guidance only — your specific circumstances require specialist advice. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952.
A director who ceases to be a director (whether by company dissolution, resignation, removal or retirement) does not cease to be exposed to claims arising from their directorial conduct during their tenure. The principal exposures:
Wrongful trading (Insolvency Act 1986 section 214). A director who allowed an insolvent company to continue trading when they knew or ought to have known there was no reasonable prospect of avoiding insolvent liquidation faces personal liability for the increase in deficiency between the date they ought to have stopped and the date of insolvent liquidation. The provision is brought by the liquidator. The statutory defence — having taken every step to minimise the potential loss to creditors — is fact-specific.
Misfeasance (Insolvency Act 1986 section 212). The liquidator’s general statutory remedy against directors and officers for breach of duty, misapplication of company property, or other misfeasance. Used widely; less constrained than section 214.
Fraudulent trading (Insolvency Act 1986 section 213). Criminal and civil liability for trading with intent to defraud creditors. High evidential bar but consequential where established.
Director disqualification (Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986). Disqualification proceedings can be brought by the Secretary of State or the Insolvency Service against directors of failed companies. Defence costs are substantial; disqualification has severe personal and reputational consequences (2–15 years typical).
Shareholder action. Derivative claims under CA 2006 sections 260–264 on behalf of the company against directors. Direct claims by shareholders against directors are more constrained (the corporate veil) but possible in defined circumstances.
Regulatory action. Financial Conduct Authority enforcement against directors of regulated firms; HSE enforcement under Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 section 37; environment agency action under EPA 1990; HMRC personal tax investigations; sector-specific regulator enforcement.
Director breach of duty (CA 2006 sections 170–177). The codified directors’ duties: duty to act within powers, to promote the success of the company, to exercise independent judgment, to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence, to avoid conflicts of interest, not to accept benefits from third parties, and to declare interests in transactions. Breach can be pursued by the company (or the liquidator) for damages or restitution.
The combined exposure: a director leaving a company faces a 6+ year window of potential claim activity in most cases, longer where regulatory action is foreseeable or where the cause of action is concealed.
A standard UK D&O policy provides three sides of cover:
Side A. Indemnity to directors and officers for loss they incur for which the company has not indemnified them (typically because the company is insolvent or because indemnity is prohibited).
Side B. Reimbursement to the company for loss it incurs in indemnifying directors and officers.
Side C. Cover for the company itself in respect of securities claims (in some forms).
The covered loss includes defence costs, settlements and judgments, and (where insurable) regulatory fines and penalties.
The typical exclusions: conduct exclusions (no cover for proven fraud or deliberate breach); insured-versus-insured (limits intra-company claims); fines and penalties (criminal and certain regulatory); prior known matters.
At cessation, the D&O policy structure changes in three ways.
The named insured. During trading, the named insured includes the trading company and its current directors. After cessation, the named insured remains the historic legal entity (until dissolution) plus the historic directors during their tenure. New directors after cessation are not covered.
The trigger. The run-off policy is bound for a defined period (typically 6 years) starting from cessation. Claims first made during the run-off period are covered. Claims arising from acts during the original trading period but first made after the run-off period expires are not covered.
The premium. Paid as a single premium at binding (not annual premiums) covering the full run-off period. Cannot generally be cancelled mid-period.
The standard 6-year run-off matches the principal Limitation Act 1980 sections 5 (simple contract) and 9 (action on a statute) periods. Longer run-off (10, 12 or 15 years) is available where specific exposures require — e.g. ongoing regulatory investigation, known major claims, sector-specific long-tail.
A director of a dissolved company facing a personal claim must navigate two distinct procedural steps.
Step 1: company restoration. If the company has been struck off, the claimant must restore the company under CA 2006 section 1029 to pursue any direct claim against it. Restoration takes 4–8 weeks typically and costs £1k–£5k in fees. The restored company is liable as before.
Step 2: insurance recovery. Once the company is restored (or if it remains in liquidation), the D&O policy in force at the relevant time can be triggered. For run-off, the run-off policy bound at cessation is the relevant policy. The notification machinery requires prompt notification of the claim to the insurer.
The Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 gives the claimant a direct right of action against the insurer where the company is insolvent. This bypasses the need to recover from the insolvent company first.
Six years is the standard run-off period because:
Some causes of action extend further: - Fraud (Limitation Act section 32) is indefinite until discovery. - Personal injury (section 11) is 3 years from accrual or date of knowledge. - Latent damage (section 14A) is 3 years from knowledge subject to 15-year long-stop. - Deed-executed obligations (section 8) are 12 years.
For directors with foreseeable extended-tail exposure (e.g. financial services regulatory, criminal investigations, deeds), longer run-off should be considered.
Indicative pricing for D&O run-off in 2026:
Standard 6-year tail. - Clean record, mid-market UK private company: 2.5x–3.5x last annual premium. - Standard record, public/AIM company: 3.5x–5.0x. - Open notifications, regulatory exposure: 4.5x–8.0x. - Distressed/insolvent context: 5.0x–12.0x, with substantial co-insurance required.
Longer tails (10 or 12 years). Typically 1.5x–2.0x the 6-year price.
Sector loading. Financial services, listed entities, regulated entities all see substantial premium loading.
Limit selection. £2m–£5m typical for small private companies; £10m+ for mid-market; £25m+ for listed; sector-specific.
Excess. Typically £5k–£25k for mid-market; lower for owner-managed.
Single premium operations. Run-off premium is paid up-front; no instalments. The policy cannot generally be cancelled mid-period for refund. Cost should be planned at cessation budgeting.
Where cessation is via insolvency (administration, CVA, CVL, compulsory liquidation), the D&O position becomes more constrained.
The insurer’s appetite. D&O insurers price the insolvency tail more conservatively. Pricing 5x–12x annual premium is typical; some markets decline.
The runs-off-of-existing-policy alternative. Some D&O policies include an automatic extended discovery period (ADP or ERP) of 30 to 180 days. This is not a substitute for proper run-off; it merely catches claims notified shortly after cessation. Always inadequate as the sole protection for directors.
The director vs company indemnity tension. The company’s articles of association typically indemnify directors (subject to CA 2006 section 232–238 restrictions). In insolvency, the company has no assets to fund the indemnity. The director is left dependent on the D&O policy.
The pre-pack and the carve-out. In a pre-pack administration where the directors take pre-existing knowledge into the successor business, the carve-out from the historic D&O cover for the directors’ personal liability for pre-cessation conduct is the focus.
The IP’s relationship with the policy. The insolvency practitioner generally cannot affect the D&O policy without director cooperation. The policy is on the directors’ side; the IP may be the claimant in misfeasance proceedings.
Funding the run-off. Cessation budgeting for an insolvent company rarely funds D&O run-off comfortably. Directors frequently fund personally (cost typically £20k–£100k for a meaningful 6-year tail). This personal cost is one of the most-resented aspects of insolvent closure but is also the most-protective use of director money in the cessation phase.
A SaaS technology business, 35 employees, £8m turnover, 18-month-old Series A investment of £4m. The product has not achieved sustainable revenue growth; the board concludes that continued trading cannot reach a successful funding round. The decision is voluntary liquidation under section 89 IA 1986 (members’ voluntary if solvent; creditors’ voluntary if insolvent).
Solvency analysis. The board concludes the company is just insolvent on a cashflow basis (cannot pay liabilities as they fall due within 12 months) although balance-sheet positive. The decision is creditors’ voluntary liquidation.
Director exposure. - Wrongful trading (s.214 IA 1986): the cessation timing is critical. If the directors stopped trading promptly on identifying insolvency, the wrongful trading exposure is minimal. If they continued trading beyond the point of no return, exposure is substantial. - Misfeasance (s.212 IA 1986): liquidator may pursue based on specific transactions. - Disqualification (CDDA 1986): Insolvency Service review is automatic for insolvency cases; disqualification proceedings depend on facts. - Shareholder action: derivative claim by the Series A investor in respect of specific transactions. - HMRC: any unpaid PAYE, VAT, corporation tax with director personal liability under penalty regimes.
D&O position. The existing D&O policy carries £2m limit, £6k excess, £4k annual premium. Insurer is a standard UK D&O specialist.
Run-off quotation. 6-year tail, £2m limit, single premium £14k–£22k depending on insurer appetite. Director-personal funding because the insolvent estate cannot fund.
Decision. Two of three directors fund the run-off personally; the third declines and accepts the residual exposure. The two-director funded run-off is bound; the third director is uncovered.
Subsequent claims. Two years after liquidation, the liquidator brings misfeasance proceedings against all three directors for an allegedly improper transaction. The two covered directors are funded by D&O run-off. The uncovered director defends personally and ultimately settles at substantial personal cost.
The lesson: D&O run-off is a binary protection. The trivial cost of running-off (£5k–£10k per director for the 6-year period in this scenario) is dramatically asymmetric versus the protection.
Where the corporate entity dissolves entirely (final dissolution after liquidation), Side A run-off — director-only cover — can be bound separately. This protects the individual directors against claims where there is no surviving corporate indemnity.
Use case. Final wind-up; director personal continuing employment in similar field where reputational protection matters.
Cost. Modest relative to full Side A/B run-off. Typical £3k–£8k per director per year for £2m limit.
Availability. Limited to specialist Side A markets.
D&O policies typically exclude cover for “fraud, dishonest, criminal or malicious act or omission” by the insured director. The exclusion bites only on a final adjudication of the alleged conduct — defence costs are typically advanced until the adverse finding.
The CDDA implications. A disqualification finding does not automatically establish fraud; the conduct exclusion typically does not bite on disqualification alone.
The criminal context. Where the director faces criminal prosecution (e.g. Health and Safety, fraud, breach of trust), defence costs are typically advanced. If conviction follows, the insurer may seek reimbursement from the director under the fraud exclusion. The mechanism is provided in the policy.
The insolvency context. Wrongful trading and misfeasance are not “fraud” per se. Cover typically responds to defence and indemnity. Fraudulent trading (s.213) involves intent to defraud and would typically engage the conduct exclusion.
For directors of any UK limited company approaching cessation:
Treat D&O run-off as a personal decision distinct from the company-level cessation plan. The company’s interest is to minimise spend; your interest is to maximise personal protection.
Bind 6 years as standard minimum. Extend to 10 or 12 years where regulatory tail, deed-executed obligations or known major claims warrant.
Fund the run-off personally if necessary. The asymmetry of cost (£3k–£15k per director for the 6-year tail) versus exposure (uncapped personal liability) is dramatic.
If multiple directors with potentially-divergent interests, consider individual Side A cover for the directors most exposed.
Maintain the company-level documentation that will be needed to defend any future claim: board minutes (especially around insolvency decisions), financial records, accountants’ reports, advisor correspondence (legal, financial, IP), regulatory communications. The documentation infrastructure is the second pillar of director protection after the insurance.
Engage the insurer early. Submission of run-off application benefits from time and from a clean presentation of trading history.
For insolvent context, engage the liquidator/administrator on the run-off question explicitly. The IP cannot bind cover but may have legitimate interest in director cover funding to support claim handling.
For owner-managed entities, the run-off is not optional. The personal exposure to wrongful trading, misfeasance and personal guarantees is the most significant financial decision in the closure period.
Q1. Do I need D&O run-off if the company is being sold? Yes for the historic period during your directorship. The buyer’s D&O covers their own directors during their tenure; it does not cover you for your historic period.
Q2. What if I resign before company closure? The D&O policy in force during your tenure responds. At company closure, the run-off binder should specifically include former directors. Confirm with broker.
Q3. Does the run-off cover criminal proceedings? Defence costs typically advance for criminal proceedings; final conviction may trigger the conduct exclusion and reimbursement. The defence costs advance is often the most valuable practical benefit.
Q4. What about HMRC investigations? Generally yes for defence costs. Penalties and unpaid tax are usually uninsurable.
Q5. Can I extend run-off mid-period? Difficult. The premium is single-payment up-front. Some markets will negotiate an extension during the final 12 months of the tail.
Q6. What if my insurer goes out of business during the run-off? FSCS protection applies to authorised UK insurers. Foreign and unauthorised entities are more complex.
Q7. What’s the typical cost of a D&O run-off claim? Defence costs for a serious misfeasance claim: £150k–£500k. Settlement or judgment: highly variable. The run-off premium of £15k–£50k is dramatically asymmetric.
Q8. Are my non-executive directors covered? NEDs are typically included as “insured persons” under D&O. Run-off cover includes them for the historic period.
Q9. What about new directors appointed after cessation? Not covered by the run-off. New directors of a restored or continued entity need their own cover.
Q10. Can the company’s articles’ indemnity replace D&O? No — the indemnity is only worth the company’s residual assets. In insolvency it is worthless. D&O is the protection.
Q11. What about deed of indemnity from the major shareholder? A deed of indemnity from a solvent shareholder is valuable but only worth the shareholder’s covenant. D&O is independent and additional.
Q12. Does the parent company D&O cover my subsidiary directorship? Often yes if the subsidiary is included as a named insured entity. Confirm specifically. Subsidiary closure may require separate run-off binding for the subsidiary.
Insolvency Act 1986, sections 212, 213, 214. Companies Act 2006, sections 170–177, 232–238, 260–264, 1029. Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. Limitation Act 1980, sections 5, 8, 9, 14A, 32. Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974, section 37. Insurance Act 2015. FCA / PRA enforcement guidance. Re Continental Assurance Co of London plc [2001] BPIR 733 (wrongful trading). Brooks v Armstrong [2015] BCC 661 (wrongful trading damages assessment). BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA [2022] UKSC 25 (directors’ duties to creditors). Insolvency Service guidance on director disqualification. FSCS rules for compulsory and general insurance.
Index: Commercial Run-Off Deep-Dives Deep-Dive 1: Commercial run-off architectural overview Deep-Dive 6: Cyber run-off Deep-Dive 7: Pension trustee run-off
Disclaimer: General guidance only. Specific director-level cessation decisions require specialist advice. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952.
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote