Placing substantial PI risks: how Apex works

Reviewed by Matthew Bartlett, Director, Apex Insurance Brokers Limited · Last reviewed 2026-08-10

Most professional indemnity insurance in the UK is transacted on a volume basis: a proposal form goes into a portal, a handful of scheme markets return terms, and the cheapest compliant quote wins. For a small practice with a clean history, that process is usually adequate. For a firm with fee income in the millions, a layered programme, a live notification or two, or a risk profile that sits outside standard appetite, it is not. The placement itself becomes the product, and the quality of the broking determines both the price and — more importantly — whether the policy responds when tested.

This page sets out what Apex actually does on a substantial placement, in enough detail that you can judge whether it differs from what you receive now.

What does a broker actually add on a risk this size?

Four things, in roughly descending order of long-term value: claims advocacy, wording negotiation, market strategy, and price. Most buyers rank them in the opposite order, which is understandable — premium is visible every year, whereas the quality of a wording or of claims handling only becomes visible at the worst possible moment.

On a substantial risk, insurers are not quoting a rate card; they are underwriting your firm specifically. That means the information they receive, the way concerns are pre-empted, and the credibility of the broker presenting it all move the outcome. A well-run placement typically produces a better result than the same risk pushed through a comparison exercise — not because underwriters are sentimental, but because uncertainty is priced. Every unanswered question in a submission is answered, by the underwriter, in the insurer's favour.

How should a substantial risk be presented to the market?

The proposal form is the starting point, not the submission. On a placement of any size, Apex builds a market presentation around it: a narrative of the firm — work split, client base, fee trends, largest engagements; risk management in practice rather than in policy documents — supervision structures, engagement letter discipline, conflicts procedures, peer review; and a claims commentary that explains each notification, what was learned, and what changed as a result.

The claims commentary matters most. Underwriters see the loss runs either way; the question is whether the numbers arrive with context or without it. A notification that was closed without payment after a precautionary circumstance, and a paid claim arising from a departed fee-earner in a discontinued work type, look identical on a bordereau and entirely different in a properly told narrative. Firms with imperfect histories usually gain the most from this discipline, because they are the ones the raw data misrepresents.

Timing is part of presentation. Substantial placements should start well before renewal — commonly six to eight weeks, longer where a programme needs restructuring — so there is room to answer underwriter queries, negotiate subjectivities away rather than accept them, and approach alternative markets from a position of time rather than desperation. A submission that reaches an underwriter ten days before expiry gets priced accordingly.

Which markets see the risk, and in what order?

Whole-of-market means Apex is not tied to a panel, a scheme, or a single facility. In practice, market strategy on a substantial risk is about sequencing as much as breadth. Approaching every available insurer simultaneously is a common error: markets talk, a risk that has been widely shopped acquires a reputation, and underwriters who suspect they are one of a dozen quotes invest little in the terms they offer.

The better approach is targeted. Identify the markets whose appetite genuinely fits the profession, the work split and the limit; approach the incumbent and a small number of credible alternatives with a full presentation; and hold others in reserve. Where a risk needs London market capacity, Apex works with established wholesale partners to access it — a normal and openly disclosed part of placing larger or harder risks from a regional base, and one we would rather explain than obscure.

What is actually negotiable in the wording?

More than most insureds assume, once the premium is substantial enough for the insurer to care about retaining it. Points that are typically negotiable, depending on the market and the profession, include:

• The basis of the limit — any one claim versus aggregate, and whether defence costs sit inside or in addition to it. The difference is material on a limit that may need to respond more than once in a year; we cover it fully in any one claim vs aggregate PI.
• The excess — level, whether it applies to defence costs, and aggregation of related claims for excess purposes.
• Retroactive dates, continuity of cover across insurer changes, and treatment of prior circumstances.
• Exclusions and conditions specific to your work — contractual liability carve-backs, cover for collateral warranties where relevant, cyber and dishonesty extensions, and the breadth of the insured definition across group entities, consultants and former principals.

Solicitors' primary layers are an exception in one respect: the SRA's minimum terms and conditions fix a broad, one-sided wording that participating insurers must follow, with minimum limits of £2m any one claim (£3m for recognised and licensed bodies) and six years' run-off. Even there, everything above the compulsory layer is freely negotiable — and the top-up market is where wording discipline earns its keep, because excess layers do not automatically mirror the generosity of the minimum terms beneath them.

When does layering make sense, and how is a tower built?

Above a certain limit — the threshold varies by profession and market conditions — a single insurer either will not offer the full amount or will not offer it at a sensible price. The answer is a layered programme: a primary layer, then one or more excess layers sitting above it, each potentially with a different insurer.

Building a tower well involves judgement at several points. Where to break the layers, so that each sits where capacity is cheapest for that band of exposure. Whether excess layers follow form — adopting the primary wording so the programme responds consistently — or introduce their own terms, which is where gaps live. How the layers interact on notification, erosion and exhaustion, so a large claim does not strand between insurers. And which markets are matched to which layers, since an insurer unwilling to lead may be competitive higher up. We set out the mechanics in more depth in our guide to excess layer PI insurance.

Layering is also a negotiating instrument. Introducing a new market on an excess layer, or restructuring where the layers break, can discipline an incumbent's pricing without the disruption of moving the whole programme — often the right first move where the primary relationship is worth preserving.

What happens when a claim comes in?

Claims are where broker quality is finally revealed, and where a call-centre model fails most visibly. On a substantial claim or circumstance, the broker's job is advocacy: making sure notification is made promptly and framed correctly under the policy's terms, since late or mis-framed notification is among the more common sources of coverage friction; pressing the insurer on reserving, panel solicitor appointment and strategy rather than merely relaying messages; and challenging coverage positions where the wording supports a challenge, escalating within the insurer where it does not move.

Because the person handling the claim at Apex is the director who placed the risk, the arguments made at placement — why an extension was added, what a definition was intended to capture — are available at claim time from the person who made them. That continuity has practical value when a coverage discussion turns on what was agreed and why. It is also why we would rather negotiate a wording hard at placement than discover its limits in correspondence with a claims handler.

Who actually handles the account?

At Apex, a substantial placement is handled by a director from first conversation to claim. Not a director who fronts the pitch and hands the file to a service team; the same person prepares the submission, negotiates with underwriters, and takes the call when something goes wrong. You have their direct line.

We are a Bristol firm, and we are candid about what that means. You are not buying a global brand name or an office on every continent. You are buying whole-of-market access, London market reach through wholesale partners where a risk needs it, and a named individual with the authority to make decisions about your account without referring them up a hierarchy. For many firms of substance, that trade is the right one; for some, it will not be, and we would rather you decide that with accurate information.

How does a placement with Apex run in practice?

The sequence is straightforward. An initial conversation with a director, at no obligation, to understand the firm, the programme and what is not working — typically an hour, and worth doing well before renewal pressure builds. A review of current policy documents, because the wording you hold is the baseline any alternative must beat. Preparation of the market presentation with your input, particularly on claims narrative. A targeted approach to selected markets, with terms negotiated rather than merely collected. A written recommendation setting out the options, the trade-offs, and our advice — including, where honest, that the incumbent's renewal terms are the right answer. And after binding, ongoing handling by the same director: mid-term changes, contract reviews where a client demands a higher limit, and claims.

If parts of that sequence are missing from your current arrangements, that is the gap we are offering to close.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This article is general information, not advice on a specific policy.