Chubb vs CNA Hardy PI: A Neutral Comparison

Category: PI comparison · Reviewed by Taylor Watts, Broker · New Business · Last reviewed May 2026

Chubb and CNA Hardy are two international insurers active in UK professional indemnity (PI) for mid-market and larger professional firms. Both write substantial books across UK professional services, both bring international claims-handling capability, and both are commonly considered for placements where capacity, programme structure and international reach matter. Buyers comparing the two are typically looking at firms whose risk profile sits beyond the lower-SME band.

This guide sets out the dimensions that typically matter when Chubb and CNA Hardy quotations are being compared, what wording features each publicly highlights, and what questions to ask before placement. It is intentionally neutral and does not rank one above the other.

What this comparison is (and isn’t)

This article is not a recommendation. It does not state that one insurer is preferable to the other and it does not tell buyers which to choose. Insurer appetite, capacity and wording change over time. The only authoritative position is the policy schedule, the IPID and the current wording at the time of placement.

What this article provides is a structured comparison of two PI markets often considered together for mid-market and larger UK professional firms, so buyers and their brokers can ask the right questions of each quotation.

A note on insurer comparisons in PI

At the mid-market and larger end of UK PI, several factors that are less prominent at SME level become important. Capacity (the size of the limit the insurer can write), programme structure (primary, excess or quota share), international claims-handling capability and sector-specialist underwriting all matter. Two insurers with similar marketing pages can write very different wordings, capacities and excess structures for the same firm.

Three layers drive real differences between PI markets: the wording (trigger, defence costs, exclusions, retroactive position); the underwriter’s appetite for the specific profession and activities; and the claims-handling approach. At the larger end, a fourth layer matters: programme structure, including primary-vs-excess positioning and international cover. None of this is visible from price alone. Policyholders should review their schedule and wording carefully, and applicants should check the IPID and current terms at the time of placement.

Dimensions worth comparing

Civil-liability vs negligence wording

Both Chubb and CNA Hardy publicly market civil-liability style PI in many of their UK wordings. The precise clause varies and is what controls cover. Confirm the trigger in the wording offered.

Aggregate vs each-and-every limits

Each-and-every-claim structures are common in UK PI; aggregate-only structures appear in some sectors and product variants. Confirm which applies.

Defence-costs treatment

Defence costs may sit inside the limit or in addition. This is one of the commercially significant clauses, particularly at higher limit bands where the absolute amount of defence-costs exposure can be substantial.

Retroactive date treatment

Continuity of retroactive date at renewal or switch is critical, especially for firms with long-tail liabilities or extended project lifecycles.

Run-off availability

Run-off cover continues to respond to past-work claims when a firm winds down, merges or restructures. Availability, length and cost vary.

Capacity

At mid-market and larger placements, the absolute capacity an insurer can write on a single risk matters. Both Chubb and CNA Hardy can write meaningful capacity for UK PI, but the specific amount available on a given risk depends on the underwriter, the sector and the wider market environment.

Primary vs excess layer positioning

For larger firms, the programme is often built in layers — a primary insurer takes the first portion of risk, with one or more excess insurers above. Both Chubb and CNA Hardy can act as primary or excess on UK PI programmes depending on the firm’s structure and the broker’s design.

International claims-handling capability

Both insurers are part of international groups with claims-handling capability in multiple jurisdictions. For firms with international project exposure or with offices outside the UK, this can be a practical consideration.

Sector focus

Both insurers write across a range of UK professional sectors. Their visible appetite differs by profession and is best confirmed at quotation.

Chubb: what to expect

Profile (publicly stated focus)

Chubb is a global insurer with a substantial UK commercial and specialty book. PI is one of Chubb’s UK specialty lines, written across a broad range of professional sectors including financial institutions, technology, professional services and others. Chubb distributes UK commercial PI via the broker channel and is FCA-authorised; authorisation details are on the FCA register.

Typical buyer profile they target

Chubb’s UK PI is commonly encountered at mid-market and larger placements, including firms whose risk profile and limit requirements sit beyond the lower SME band. SME placements also occur depending on the sector. Specific buyer profile is set by underwriting at the time of quotation.

Sectors / professions where they are commonly seen

Chubb is publicly visible in UK PI for financial institutions, technology, larger professional services firms and a range of other sectors. Specific profession appetite varies.

Wording features publicly highlighted

Chubb publicly markets civil-liability style PI in many of its UK wordings, with definitions, conditions and exclusions appropriate to specific professional sectors. Some product variants include features tailored to particular sectors (for example for financial institutions or technology). The precise feature set depends on the product.

Things to confirm on a schedule

Confirm the trigger wording, limit basis, defence-costs treatment, retroactive date, run-off availability, whether the placement is primary or excess, any international cover provisions and any sector-specific extensions.

CNA Hardy: what to expect

Profile (publicly stated focus)

CNA Hardy is the UK and European arm of CNA, a global insurer, operating in the Lloyd’s market and the company market. CNA Hardy writes UK PI across a range of professional sectors and is publicly visible across mid-market and larger placements. CNA Hardy distributes UK commercial PI via the broker channel and is FCA-authorised; authorisation details are on the FCA register.

Typical buyer profile they target

CNA Hardy’s UK PI is commonly encountered at mid-market and larger placements, including larger architects, surveyors, consultants, financial institutions and other professional sectors. SME placements also occur depending on the sector. Specific buyer profile is set by underwriting at the time of quotation.

Sectors / professions where they are commonly seen

CNA Hardy is publicly visible in UK PI for larger professional services firms including architects, surveyors, consultants, financial institutions and a range of other sectors.

Wording features publicly highlighted

CNA Hardy publicly markets civil-liability style PI in many of its UK wordings, with definitions, conditions and exclusions appropriate to specific professional sectors. The precise feature set depends on the product variant and any scheme arrangement.

Things to confirm on a schedule

Confirm the trigger wording, limit basis, defence-costs treatment, retroactive date, run-off availability, whether the placement is primary or excess, any international cover provisions and any sector-specific extensions.

Comparison table — typical dimensions to evaluate

Dimension Chubb typical position CNA Hardy typical position What to ask
Distribution channel Broker-distributed for UK commercial PI Broker-distributed for UK commercial PI Which broker channel is the quotation coming through?
Trigger wording Civil-liability commonly marketed Civil-liability commonly marketed Confirm the exact trigger in the wording offered
Aggregation basis Varies by product Varies by product Aggregate or each-and-every for this quotation?
Defence costs Varies by product Varies by product Inside or in addition to the limit?
Retroactive date Negotiable subject to underwriting Negotiable subject to underwriting Will prior retro be honoured?
Capacity Mid-to-large limits available Mid-to-large limits available What is the maximum capacity for this risk?
Primary vs excess Both available depending on programme Both available depending on programme Is this position primary, excess or quota share?
Sector focus FIs, tech, larger professional services Larger architects, surveyors, consultants, FIs Is the specific profession in current appetite?
International claims-handling Global group capability Global group capability Is international exposure relevant to this firm?

“Varies by product” and “varies by programme” are common honest answers because both insurers write multiple variants and can sit in different programme positions.

Where the two are most often considered together

Chubb and CNA Hardy are most often considered side by side at the mid-market and larger end of UK PI. Brokers building programmes for larger architects, surveyors, consultants and financial institutions will commonly approach both markets, both for primary positioning and for excess layer construction. Firms with international project exposure or with overseas offices often consider both because of the global group context each brings.

In smaller placements where the limit and complexity are within the appetite of specialist SME markets, the comparison set will often be different — that is a separate question outside the scope of this guide.

Where they tend to differ in practice

Sector focus is one practical area where differences appear. Both insurers write across multiple professions, but their publicly visible focus areas differ. Chubb is widely seen in UK PI for financial institutions, technology and larger professional services; CNA Hardy is widely seen for larger architects, surveyors, consultants, financial institutions and other professional sectors. Live appetite for specific niches varies and is best confirmed by a broker in current dialogue with both underwriting teams.

Programme positioning is a second area. Both can act as primary or excess on a UK PI programme, but specific willingness on a given risk depends on the underwriter, the firm’s profile and the wider market. Brokers building layered programmes will often place one as primary and the other on an excess layer, or use both within a quota share.

International claims-handling capability is a third area worth comparing where the firm has overseas exposure. Both insurers are part of international groups with multi-jurisdictional capability, but the practical experience of using each varies.

What to ask before choosing between them

  1. What is the trigger wording — civil liability or negligence — and how is it defined?
  2. Is the limit aggregate or each-and-every claim?
  3. Are defence costs inside or in addition to the limit?
  4. What retroactive date is being offered, and will the prior retro be honoured?
  5. What exclusions sit in the wording, including any specific to the declared activities?
  6. Is the placement primary, excess or quota share within the wider programme?
  7. What is the maximum capacity available on a single risk, and is co-insurance or quota share required to build the limit?
  8. What sector-specific extensions are available (for example for FIs, technology, architects, surveyors)?
  9. What international claims-handling capability is available if claims arise outside the UK?
  10. What is the claims notification mechanism and the trigger for notification?

When each option may suit which buyer

If you are a larger professional services firm, a financial institution or a technology firm where Chubb’s publicly visible sector focus is relevant, Chubb’s structure may align with your needs because those sectors form part of its publicly marketed UK PI book. If you are a larger architect, surveyor, consultant or financial institution where CNA Hardy’s publicly visible sector focus is relevant, CNA Hardy’s structure may align with your needs because those sectors form part of its publicly marketed book. The framing here is alignment between the buyer’s circumstances and what the insurer publicly offers — not a quality judgement.

In practice, mid-market and larger firms often place both insurers on different layers of the same programme, rather than choosing one over the other. A broker designing the programme will recommend a structure based on capacity, wording fit and pricing across the layers.

How a broker helps in this comparison

A PI broker in current dialogue with both underwriting teams can confirm appetite for the specific profession, request comparable terms from each market and design a programme that uses one or both in primary or excess positions. The broker can also coordinate the international claims-handling considerations where relevant. Apex Insurance Brokers has access to multiple PI markets, including both Chubb and CNA Hardy, and presents differences neutrally so that buyers can make their own decision. We do not take a position on broker vs direct as a category — that decision depends on the buyer’s circumstances.

FAQ

Are Chubb and CNA Hardy both regulated to write PI in the UK? Both are FCA-authorised insurers operating in the UK PI market. Current authorisation status can be checked on the FCA register before placement.

Is one of them cheaper than the other? Price depends on profession, fee income, activities, claims history, limit, excess, programme position and wording. Comparing premiums alone misses wording differences that affect cover. A like-for-like comparison should be on equivalent terms.

Can both write large PI limits? Both can write meaningful capacity for UK PI, including at larger limit bands. Specific capacity on a given risk depends on the underwriter and the wider market. Larger programmes are often built using multiple insurers across primary and excess layers.

Can both sit on excess layers? Both can act as primary or excess on UK PI programmes depending on the firm’s structure, the layer being filled and the underwriter’s appetite at the time.

Do both offer run-off cover? Both publicly offer run-off subject to underwriting. Length and cost vary and should be confirmed at the time of placement or at the trigger event.

Are they suitable for firms with international exposure? Both insurers are part of international groups with multi-jurisdictional claims-handling capability. Specific international cover provisions should be confirmed in the wording for any firm with overseas exposure.

Does my professional body require either insurer? Most UK professional bodies do not specify a particular insurer. They set minimum cover requirements such as limit, wording features and run-off. Confirm body-specific requirements against the policy schedule.

Are they only for large firms? Both insurers are commonly encountered at mid-market and larger placements, but SME placements also occur depending on the sector. The right insurer for a given firm depends on profile, capacity needs and wording fit, not on size alone.

FAQ schema (JSON-LD)

{
  "@context": "https://schema.org",
  "@type": "FAQPage",
  "mainEntity": [
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Are Chubb and CNA Hardy both regulated to write PI in the UK?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Both are FCA-authorised insurers operating in the UK PI market. Current authorisation status can be checked on the FCA register before placement."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Is one of them cheaper than the other?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Price depends on profession, fee income, activities, claims history, limit, excess, programme position and wording. Comparing premiums alone misses wording differences that affect cover. A like-for-like comparison should be on equivalent terms."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Can both write large PI limits?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Both can write meaningful capacity for UK PI, including at larger limit bands. Specific capacity on a given risk depends on the underwriter and the wider market. Larger programmes are often built using multiple insurers across primary and excess layers."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Can both sit on excess layers?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Both can act as primary or excess on UK PI programmes depending on the firm's structure, the layer being filled and the underwriter's appetite at the time."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Do both offer run-off cover?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Both publicly offer run-off subject to underwriting. Length and cost vary and should be confirmed at the time of placement or at the trigger event."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Are they suitable for firms with international exposure?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Both insurers are part of international groups with multi-jurisdictional claims-handling capability. Specific international cover provisions should be confirmed in the wording for any firm with overseas exposure."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Does my professional body require either insurer?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Most UK professional bodies do not specify a particular insurer. They set minimum cover requirements such as limit, wording features and run-off. Confirm body-specific requirements against the policy schedule."
      }
    },
    {
      "@type": "Question",
      "name": "Are they only for large firms?",
      "acceptedAnswer": {
        "@type": "Answer",
        "text": "Both insurers are commonly encountered at mid-market and larger placements, but SME placements also occur depending on the sector. The right insurer for a given firm depends on profile, capacity needs and wording fit, not on size alone."
      }
    }
  ]
}

Related guides


About Apex Insurance Brokers — Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA firm reference 724952. Registered in England and Wales, Companies House 07014570. Last reviewed: May 2026.

Note on accuracy: insurer policy wordings, appetite, capacity and distribution arrangements change over time. The descriptions in this guide reflect publicly available materials and broker-market context as understood at the time of writing in May 2026. Always confirm current policy terms with the policy schedule, IPID and current wording before relying on them for placement decisions.

Talk to a specialist broker

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
Our service promise. We acknowledge every quote request the same working day. For straightforward risks, indicative terms typically follow within five working days. Complex risks — higher-risk buildings, cladding, mid-term proposals requiring fresh underwriting — may take longer; we’ll send you a progress note by the end of the fifth working day in those cases.
★ 4.0 on Trustpilot (verified)|Listed on the ARB PI broker list|FCA FRN 724952