A mid-sized London consultancy is engaged by a UK retail group on a two-year programme to consolidate twelve back-office systems onto a single cloud ERP. The consultancy writes the target operating model, runs the vendor selection, sits on the steering committee throughout build and migration, and signs off the go-live business case. Twenty months in, after two missed go-live dates and roughly £4.2m of additional cost above the original case, the retailer's new CFO commissions an independent review. The review concludes that the vendor short-list should never have included the chosen platform on the requirements as written, and that the staged migration plan understated the data-cleansing effort by a wide margin. A letter before action lands on the consultancy's managing partner six weeks later. The claim — for the cost overrun plus the value of the delayed benefits case — is for £6.8m.
That letter does not, by itself, end a consultancy. What turns it from a difficult letter into an existential event is whether the firm has Professional Indemnity Insurance that responds, on a wording wide enough to capture transformation advice, at a limit that absorbs both the defence costs and a realistic settlement, and with no late-notification, conflict or sub-contractor argument standing in the way of cover. PI for UK management consultants is not regulated in the way it is for accountants or solicitors, but it is shaped almost entirely by the contracts the consultancy signs and the frameworks it bids into — and those documents are getting more demanding, not less.
This guide is written for managing partners, principal consultants, finance directors and COOs at UK management, strategy and business consultancies who want to understand what their PI policy is actually doing, what their clients and frameworks expect, and where the choices that matter at renewal really lie. It runs longer than most online explainers because the detail genuinely matters — a generic "£2m, that should do it" rule of thumb has put many firms in difficulty when a claim arrives.
What Professional Indemnity Insurance covers for management consultants
At its core, Professional Indemnity Insurance — usually written as PI or PII — pays the legal costs of defending a civil claim made against your consultancy by a client or third party who says they have suffered financial loss as a result of professional services you provided, and pays any damages or settlement awarded against you up to the limit of the policy.
For a management consultancy, "professional services" is a broad envelope and the breadth matters. A modern consulting PI wording typically responds to strategy advice, operating-model design, transformation and change programmes, technology selection and implementation advisory, commercial and operational due diligence, post-merger integration, restructuring and turnaround advice, organisational design and HR advisory, procurement and sourcing advice, programme and project management, training and coaching where delivered as part of an engagement, and benchmarking or market-sizing work. Most policies will respond whether the alleged failure was a flawed recommendation, a model with a material error, an omitted risk in a board paper, a missed deadline that triggered downstream loss, or a breach of contractual or fiduciary duty.
Most consulting PI is now written on a "civil liability" basis rather than the older and narrower "negligence" basis. Civil liability cover broadens the response to include innocent misrepresentation, certain contractual liabilities, and breaches of statutory duty — categories that matter when a sophisticated client argues its claim under more than one head. Cover is almost always claims-made, meaning the policy in force when a claim is first notified is the policy that responds, not the policy in force when the work was done. That single point sits behind nearly every coverage dispute in the sector and behind the whole logic of run-off, which we come back to below.
What consulting PI does not cover is worth knowing up front. It does not cover the underlying loss the client would have suffered anyway — only the loss that flows from your alleged negligence, which is a different and often smaller number. It does not cover regulatory fines or penalties against the consultancy. It does not respond to dishonesty, fraud or criminal conduct by the firm or its directors — those are excluded as a matter of policy and as a matter of insurance law. It generally does not respond to disputes about your own fees, though a client refusing to pay and then counter-suing on the underlying work will routinely put PI in play. And it does not, on most wordings, respond to a pure cyber event, a ransomware payment, or a personal-data regulatory enquiry — those sit on a standalone cyber policy, which most consultancies now buy alongside PI.
The regulatory and contractual backdrop
Management consultancy is not, in itself, a statutorily regulated activity in the UK. There is no equivalent of the SRA, ICAEW or ARB sitting above the profession setting minimum PI limits. What shapes a consultancy's PI obligations is a four-layer stack of voluntary standards, client contract terms, framework requirements, and overlay regulators that bite only on certain types of work.
The Management Consultancies Association (MCA) publishes a voluntary Code of Practice and a Consulting Excellence framework that signal a firm is operating to recognised professional standards. The MCA does not mandate a single PI limit across membership, but Consulting Excellence covers ethical behaviour, client service and value, and professional development, and adherence is something insurers will take into account when underwriting. The Institute of Consulting (part of the Chartered Management Institute) maintains a similar professional-standards regime for individual consultants. Neither body sits above the contractual layer, but both are useful at renewal when a broker is trying to explain to an insurer why a particular firm's claims experience should price favourably.
Client-imposed limits in MSAs and SOWs. This is where the heavy lifting is done. Master services agreements with large corporates, FTSE-listed groups and financial-services clients now routinely specify a minimum PI limit — £5m, £10m, sometimes £25m — as a condition of doing business, and require evidence by certificate or letter of confirmation before the first SOW is signed. The same agreements typically set out a liability cap (often a multiple of fees paid under the SOW), carve-outs from that cap (confidentiality, IP infringement, fraud, death or personal injury), and an indemnity clause that may bite further. Indemnity wordings vary, and a consulting PI policy will not necessarily pick up every contractual indemnity the firm has signed up to — which is why the wording review at renewal is more important than the headline limit.
Crown Commercial Service (CCS) frameworks. Public-sector procurement is increasingly run through CCS frameworks rather than standalone tenders, and consultancy work in particular runs through the Management Consultancy Framework, now in its fourth iteration as MCF4. MCF4 splits into lots covering business, strategy, financial, organisational, change, procurement, communications and data work; each lot specifies minimum insurance requirements and PI is almost always among them. Other relevant routes include the Consultancy Framework for project and programme management, G-Cloud where digital advice and software combine, and various department-specific call-off vehicles. A firm bidding on MCF4 needs PI cover that meets the framework minima — often £5m or £10m on each-and-every-claim — and a broker who can issue evidence quickly when a call-off is being agreed.
FCA regulation only where the work touches it. Most management consultancy is outside the FCA's regulatory perimeter. The exception is where the firm is providing what amounts to regulated advice to or on behalf of a regulated entity — for example, advising a financial-services client on regulatory matters in a way that constitutes a regulated activity, or operating a regulated business of its own. Where that is the case, the firm itself becomes authorised and the PI requirements layered on are the FCA's, not the consultancy framework's. A consultancy that thinks it might be on the boundary should take its own advice; the line is not always obvious and crossing it inadvertently is awkward.
ICO and data protection where personal data flows. Almost every transformation, HR, customer-experience and CRM consulting engagement involves access to personal data, even if only employee or contact data, and the consultancy is then a processor (or in some cases a joint controller) under UK GDPR. The Information Commissioner's Office can issue monetary penalties for breaches; those penalties are not insurable as a matter of regulation, but the legal costs of responding to an ICO enquiry and the third-party claims that often follow a notifiable breach are insurable, partly under PI and more squarely under cyber.
Common claim sources
The popular image of a consulting PI claim is an abstract strategy dispute. The reality is more specific. Working from anonymised industry patterns, the recurring categories include the following.
Transformation programme overruns. A consultancy is engaged to design and run a multi-stream transformation — typically digital, finance or operating-model. Delivery is late, costs run materially over the business case the consultancy itself wrote, and the client argues that the planning, governance, vendor-selection or change-management advice was negligent. The mid-six to low-seven figure range is normal for settlement and defence costs combined on contested cases. Programme claims are slow, technical and document-heavy; the steering-committee record matters enormously to the defence.
M&A and commercial due diligence omissions. A boutique advisory or commercial diligence team writes a report relied on by a buyer or a debt provider. A material issue — customer concentration, a contractual change-of-control trigger, an environmental liability, an HR exposure — is later said to have been understated or missed. Post-completion, the buyer or financier alleges that, had the issue been properly flagged, the deal price would have been lower or the financing would not have been advanced. The claim is for the diminution in value or the financing loss, which routinely exceeds the diligence fee by an order of magnitude.
Restructuring, redundancy and organisational design. A consultancy designs an operating model or recommends a re-org that results in redundancies. The client subsequently faces employment tribunal claims, collective consultation challenges, or trade-union disputes, and argues that the consultant's process advice exposed it to those claims. Defence costs are usually modest; settlements vary.
Technology selection and implementation advisory. A consultancy runs a procurement exercise that lands on an ERP, CRM, HR or finance platform. After go-live the client says the chosen system cannot meet the requirements that were specified, or that the implementation approach materially understated effort. The claim turns on the requirements document, the selection scoring, and the SOW for the implementation phase. Settlements of £100,000 to several million are within the realistic range for mid-market deals.
Strategy and market-sizing advice. A board acts on a market-entry recommendation or a pricing-strategy report and the commercial outcome falls well short of the modelled case. These claims are harder for the claimant to win because intervening commercial decisions break the causal chain, but defence costs alone can run into six figures and the reputational cost is significant. The scope-of-engagement question — what exactly did the consultancy advise on, and what did the client decide for itself — is usually the centre of the dispute, and we cover that in detail in our companion guide on strategy consultancy and scope-of-engagement risk.
Conflict of interest and confidentiality allegations. A consultancy advises Client A on a strategic question, then later advises Client B on a related question in the same market. Client A alleges misuse of confidential information or breach of a non-compete promise in the engagement letter. Even where the underlying allegation is ultimately disputed, defence costs into the five and low-six figure range are normal.
Public-sector engagement disputes. A central-government or NHS client raises a concern under the right-to-audit provisions in its call-off contract, or alleges that work delivered under a framework did not meet the specification. Public-sector claims often involve a slower, more procedural escalation through dispute resolution before any litigation, but the documentary burden — and the surrounding political risk — makes them their own category. Our public-sector consultancy PI guide covers the assignment, novation and audit-clause issues that make this work distinct.
How much cover do you actually need?
The contractual minimum is not the answer. It is the answer to a different question — the question your largest client is asking — and it is usually set without much reference to what an individual claim against your firm might realistically cost. The figure that is right for your consultancy depends on three things: the size of the engagements you take on, the indemnity wordings you sign up to, and the corporate structures of the clients you advise.
A rough proxy: think about your three largest live engagements. What is the realistic worst-case financial exposure on each — the cost of the programme overrun the consultancy could be blamed for, or the diminution in deal value if the diligence report turned out to be wrong, or the cost of remediating a system selection that did not work? Your PI limit should comfortably exceed that worst-case number on the most exposed engagement, with headroom for defence costs, which themselves frequently run into six figures on a contested claim and can reach seven on a multi-track High Court matter.
As a working guide for UK management consultancies, the bands look like this.
£1m of cover is a sensible floor for a sole-practitioner or very small consultancy whose engagements are advisory in nature, where the fees on any one piece of work are modest, and where the client base is SME-focused with no large-corporate or public-sector contracts requiring more. Many small consultants sit at this level for years without difficulty.
£2m is the level often required by mid-market clients and is a common renewal limit for smaller partnerships and limited-company consultancies up to perhaps a dozen people, doing operating-model, HR, procurement or marketing-strategy work for owner-managed and mid-market businesses. It is also the level around which the cost-per-£m starts to flatten on most insurers' rate cards, making the step up to £2m relatively economic from £1m for many firms.
£5m is frequently specified by larger corporate MSAs, by many CCS framework lots including parts of MCF4, and by professional-services clients (other consultancies, law firms, accountancy practices) when they sub-contract to a smaller specialist. Mid-market firms doing transformation, technology advisory or M&A work routinely buy at this level.
£10m and above is typical for FTSE-100 work, financial-services advisory where the consultancy work touches regulated activity, large public-sector transformation programmes, and any engagement where the contractual liability cap is itself set above £5m. Firms at this band usually buy a primary policy of £5m or £10m and an excess layer above it from a separate insurer, which improves both pricing and catastrophe cover.
The shape of the limit matters as much as the number. Consulting PI is normally written as a per-claim limit with an aggregate cap across the policy year. A £5m "any one claim" policy with an unlimited aggregate covers very differently from a £5m "any one claim, £10m aggregate" policy, which in turn covers very differently from a £5m "in the aggregate" policy where one heavy claim exhausts cover for the year. Each-and-every-claim cover is generally preferable where the firm runs multiple high-value engagements concurrently, though availability and pricing differ. Excess levels should be sustainable — there is no benefit in setting an excess so low it merely raises the premium, nor in setting one so high that the firm cannot fund it when a claim lands.
Run-off and retroactive cover
If you wind down your consultancy, retire, or sell, your liability for advice already given does not vanish. Claims-made PI responds only if the policy in force when the claim is notified covers the alleged work. Once the firm stops trading and stops paying premiums, the last policy is the last policy that will ever respond — unless run-off cover is in place.
There is no statutory minimum run-off period for management consultants in the way ICAEW or the SRA prescribes for accountants and solicitors. The practical standard is six years, aligned to the ordinary contractual limitation period under English law (twelve years for deeds, which is unusual in consulting but appears occasionally in long-form public-sector contracts). Six years is also the period most large-corporate MSAs require the consultancy to maintain cover for after delivery. Some clients in regulated sectors push for longer — eight, ten or even twelve years — and a firm that has signed those clauses needs to be honest with itself about how the run-off will be funded if it ever ceases trading.
Run-off is typically priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of the last working-policy premium, often building to 200% to 300% of the last annual premium spread across the run-off period in aggregate. That number can come as a surprise to a retiring sole practitioner who has only ever paid one year's premium at a time. It can also be the single biggest line in the closing balance sheet of a small consultancy. Selling rather than winding down does not automatically transfer the run-off obligation to the acquirer; the sale documentation has to deal with it explicitly, and the price paid for the practice may need to reflect that.
Retroactive cover is the mirror image. When a consultancy moves insurer, the new policy will only respond to claims arising from work done after a "retroactive date" specified in the schedule. If the retroactive date is set to the inception of the new policy, all prior work is uncovered. The whole point of a renewal handled properly is that the retroactive date stays at the original date the firm first held continuous cover, so that the new policy responds to claims arising from any work since that first day. Losing the retroactive date in a broker transfer is, with late notification, the most common way a consultancy ends up with a claim that no policy will respond to.
What underwriters look at
Underwriters look at six things before they price a consulting renewal. Understanding what they look at lets you prepare a renewal submission that gets a sensible quote rather than a reluctant one.
First, fee income split. What proportion of fees comes from strategy advice, from transformation and change, from technology advisory, from M&A and diligence, from interim management, from training and coaching, from public-sector framework work, from financial-services clients, from work performed outside the UK? Transformation, technology advisory and M&A carry higher loss costs in the underwriters' models; a firm that is 70% executive coaching and 30% small-cap strategy review is a different risk from a firm that is 60% major-programme transformation and 30% technology selection.
Second, claims and circumstances history. Five years of claims, formal notifications and notifiable circumstances is the standard underwriter ask. A clean history prices through cleanly. A notified circumstance that has not crystallised into a claim still hangs over the renewal until it closes out; the renewal submission should explain what the circumstance was, what was done about it, and why it should not crystallise.
Third, client and sector mix. Acting for financial-services clients, listed companies, central government, NHS trusts, regulated utilities, or businesses in sectors with heavy transaction activity carries different loss expectations. The same engagement scope at a £50m owner-managed business and at a FTSE-100 group is genuinely a different risk, and the underwriter will price it as such.
Fourth, contract management discipline. Does the firm have a standard engagement letter and SOW template? Does it negotiate caps and indemnities, or accept whatever the client puts forward? Does it run a contract-review process before sign-off? Underwriters know that consulting firms that sign whatever lands in front of them are buying a different long-tail of exposure from firms that negotiate sensibly.
Fifth, sub-contractor and associate arrangements. Many UK consultancies run heavily on associate models — independent contractors brought in on a project basis. The PI wording's treatment of associates and sub-contractors is one of the most variable parts of the market. Underwriters want to see how the firm vets associates, what it requires them to carry by way of their own cover, and how it manages the contractual chain between the client, the firm and the associate.
Sixth, internal quality controls. Programme assurance, peer review, methodology, the deliverables review process, the use of independent challenge on major engagements, training and CPD discipline, and increasingly the firm's policy on the use of generative AI in client deliverables. These are not headline numbers but they shift an underwriter's perception of risk discipline.
The work done before the renewal proposal is submitted shapes the quote. In our experience it is the highest-leverage hour a managing partner spends each year.
How Apex helps
Apex is an independent FCA-authorised insurance broker based in Bristol. We are not tied to any one insurer, we are not a network, and we do not run our own policy or our own underwriting decision. We act as your broker, which under FCA Conduct of Business rules means we represent your interests in the negotiation with the insurance market.
In practice that means we take your renewal information, present it to insurers we think will price your particular profile sensibly — including specialist Lloyd's syndicates active in the consulting market — negotiate terms, explain the differences in wording between the quotes that come back, and document the decision so that it stands up to your own internal compliance review and to your clients' due-diligence questions on insurance. We do not promise a particular price or a particular insurer; those are underwriting decisions that depend on your individual profile, and we do not hold quotas with any insurer that would skew our recommendation.
We spend time on the parts of the policy most consultancies do not look at — the breadth of the "professional services" definition, the treatment of contractual liability and client indemnities, the sub-contractor and associate wording, jurisdictional cover where you work overseas, and the retroactive date. We provide certificates of insurance and letters of confirmation in the form clients and frameworks request, and we support firms through the notification, defence and resolution of any claim or circumstance.
What we are obliged to do, because it is regulatory, is to act fairly, with integrity, and with reasonable skill and care, and to tell you the basis on which we are remunerated. That information is on our Terms of Business page, and the route to raising any concerns about our service is on our Complaints page.
What to do next
If you are within ninety days of your PI renewal, this is the moment to look at the policy you currently hold and decide whether the limit, the wording, and the broker relationship are doing what your firm and your clients need. If you are bidding on a new framework or signing a new MSA with a larger client than usual, this is the moment to check whether your cover meets the contractual requirement and whether the indemnity clause sits inside what your policy will respond to. If you are mid-policy and something has gone quiet on a client that previously had concerns, that is the moment to think carefully about whether a precautionary notification is the right step — notifying does not commit you to anything but it preserves cover, and late notification is the single most common reason a claim fails to be covered.
To talk through your firm's PI position with an Apex broker, see the management consultants sector page or contact us. The first conversation costs nothing and does not commit you to anything.
Frequently asked questions
Is PI insurance mandatory for UK management consultants?
There is no statutory requirement that obliges a UK management consultancy to hold PI cover in the way the SRA requires it for solicitors or ICAEW for accountants. In practice almost every UK consultancy of any scale holds PI because their clients and frameworks require it. Master services agreements with corporate and financial-services clients routinely specify a minimum PI limit as a condition of doing business; Crown Commercial Service frameworks including MCF4 set out minimum insurance requirements at lot level; and MCA Consulting Excellence-aligned firms tend to carry cover consistent with the work they take on. A firm without PI is, in effect, a firm that has chosen to exclude itself from most large-corporate and public-sector work.
What PI limit do MCA-aligned consultancies typically carry?
The MCA does not set a single minimum limit that applies to every member. In the market, most MCA-aligned firms carry limits proportionate to their client base and the contracts they sign. For mid-market consultancies the £2m to £5m range is common. Firms tendering for FTSE-listed work, financial-services advisory, or central-government framework lots routinely carry £5m or £10m, sometimes more, and may sit on a primary-and-excess structure with two insurers. The limit on your policy schedule is the limit your client sees on the certificate, so it is also a commercial signal as much as an insurance one.
Does my PI cover associates and sub-contractors?
It can, but the wording is variable and the question is worth asking specifically at renewal. Some policies cover sub-contractors and associates as "insureds" for work performed on the firm's behalf under the firm's direct supervision; others require sub-contractors to hold their own PI cover and the firm's policy responds only to the firm's vicarious liability. Where a consultancy runs heavily on an associate model — common in the UK market — the definition of "insured", the sub-contractor conditions, and the contractual chain between the client, the firm and the associate all need to fit together. A broker should be testing this at renewal rather than relying on a generic wording.
What is run-off cover and how long should I buy it?
Run-off cover extends the right to notify claims after the consultancy ceases trading, retires its principals, or sells. Because PI is claims-made, without run-off there is no policy in force to respond to a late-emerging claim. Six years is the practical standard, aligned to the ordinary contractual limitation period under English law and to the post-delivery cover obligation in most large-corporate MSAs. Run-off is normally priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of your last working-policy premium. Selling rather than winding down does not automatically transfer the run-off obligation to the acquirer — the sale documents have to deal with it explicitly.
Will Crown Commercial Service frameworks accept my existing cover?
Each CCS framework specifies its own minimum insurance requirements at lot level, and individual call-offs sometimes vary those requirements upwards. MCF4 in particular sets out PI minima for the lots within it, and the contracting authority will usually ask for evidence in the form of a broker letter or insurer certificate before signing. We can review the call-off documentation against your current policy and identify any gaps before you bid; doing that work after award is more uncomfortable than doing it before.
Do I need separate cyber insurance as well?
Most consulting PI policies include limited data and confidentiality wordings but are not a substitute for a standalone cyber policy. If your firm holds client personal data, runs cloud-hosted models or workspaces, uses generative AI in client deliverables, or processes data on behalf of clients in any meaningful volume, a standalone cyber policy should be considered alongside PI. Cyber responds to the first-party costs of an event — forensics, breach response, system rebuild, business interruption — which PI does not, and it overlaps with PI on third-party claims arising from a breach. The two policies should be placed in a way that avoids gaps and avoids duplication.
How does my contractual liability cap interact with my PI limit?
A liability cap in an MSA or SOW limits what your client can recover from you contractually. It does not, in itself, limit what a third party (for example a buyer who relied on a diligence report addressed to your client) can claim. A cap is helpful but is not a substitute for PI; PI sits behind the contractual position and pays defence costs whether or not the claim ultimately succeeds. Where a contract carves the cap out for certain breaches — confidentiality, IP infringement, fraud, death or personal injury — those carve-outs are usually the most exposed parts of the contract, and the PI wording's response to them is worth checking specifically.
How long do I have to notify a circumstance to my PI insurer?
Claims-made policies require notification of any circumstance that may give rise to a claim as soon as practicable after the consultancy becomes aware of it, and at the latest before the end of the current policy period. Late notification, or non-notification carried into a renewed policy, is the single most common reason a claim fails to be covered. If in doubt, notify — it does not commit you to anything but it preserves cover. Insurers and brokers can usually handle the procedural side quickly once a circumstance is identified.
Related guides
- Strategy consultancy PI — scope-of-engagement risk
- Public-sector consultancy PI — contract assignment and right-to-audit
- Management consultants sector page — speak to a broker
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.
This guide is general information about Professional Indemnity Insurance for UK management consultancies and is not advice tailored to any individual firm's circumstances. For advice on your own renewal please speak to a broker — contact@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk or 0117 325 0027.
FAQPage JSON-LD (hand-rolled — add via Yoast Custom Field or theme injection)
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "FAQPage",
"mainEntity": [
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Is PI insurance mandatory for UK management consultants?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "There is no statutory requirement that obliges a UK management consultancy to hold PI cover in the way the SRA requires it for solicitors or ICAEW for accountants. In practice almost every UK consultancy of any scale holds PI because their clients and frameworks require it. Master services agreements with corporate and financial-services clients routinely specify a minimum PI limit as a condition of doing business; Crown Commercial Service frameworks including MCF4 set out minimum insurance requirements at lot level."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What PI limit do MCA-aligned consultancies typically carry?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "The MCA does not set a single minimum that applies to every member. In the market, most MCA-aligned firms carry limits proportionate to their client base and the contracts they sign. For mid-market consultancies the £2m to £5m range is common. Firms tendering for FTSE-listed work, financial-services advisory, or central-government framework lots routinely carry £5m or £10m, sometimes more, and may sit on a primary-and-excess structure with two insurers."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does my PI cover associates and sub-contractors?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "It can, but the wording is variable and the question is worth asking specifically at renewal. Some policies cover sub-contractors and associates as insureds for work performed on the firm's behalf under the firm's direct supervision; others require sub-contractors to hold their own PI cover and the firm's policy responds only to the firm's vicarious liability. Where a consultancy runs heavily on an associate model, the definition of insured, the sub-contractor conditions, and the contractual chain between client, firm and associate all need to fit together."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is run-off cover and how long should I buy it?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Run-off cover extends the right to notify claims after the consultancy ceases trading, retires its principals, or sells. Because PI is claims-made, without run-off there is no policy in force to respond to a late-emerging claim. Six years is the practical standard, aligned to the ordinary contractual limitation period under English law and to the post-delivery cover obligation in most large-corporate MSAs. Run-off is normally priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of your last working-policy premium."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Will Crown Commercial Service frameworks accept my existing cover?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Each CCS framework specifies its own minimum insurance requirements at lot level, and individual call-offs sometimes vary those requirements upwards. MCF4 in particular sets out PI minima for the lots within it, and the contracting authority will usually ask for evidence in the form of a broker letter or insurer certificate before signing. A broker should review the call-off documentation against your current policy and identify any gaps before you bid."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Do I need separate cyber insurance as well?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Most consulting PI policies include limited data and confidentiality wordings but are not a substitute for a standalone cyber policy. If your firm holds client personal data, runs cloud-hosted models or workspaces, uses generative AI in client deliverables, or processes data on behalf of clients in any meaningful volume, a standalone cyber policy should be considered alongside PI."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "How does my contractual liability cap interact with my PI limit?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "A liability cap in an MSA or SOW limits what your client can recover from you contractually. It does not in itself limit what a third party can claim. A cap is helpful but is not a substitute for PI; PI sits behind the contractual position and pays defence costs whether or not the claim ultimately succeeds. Where a contract carves the cap out for certain breaches such as confidentiality, IP infringement, fraud, or personal injury, those carve-outs are usually the most exposed parts of the contract."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "How long do I have to notify a circumstance to my PI insurer?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Claims-made policies require notification of any circumstance that may give rise to a claim as soon as practicable after the consultancy becomes aware of it, and at the latest before the end of the current policy period. Late notification, or non-notification carried into a renewed policy, is the single most common reason a claim fails to be covered."
}
}
]
}