Reviewed by Matthew Bartlett, Director · Last reviewed 8 July 2026
Your renewal invitation has landed and the numbers do not stack up. The premium has moved without a matching change in the workload, the wording review did not engage with the change in your client base, or the broker never asked about the fixed-fee transformation programme you took on with a regulated client. Management consultancies change broker at renewal for reasons like these and the mechanics are well established. This entry covers what to expect from the outgoing broker, what the incoming broker needs, and the contract-driven exposure points that must not slip in the handover.
Look for observable signals. The premium moved and the underwriting rationale is not on the file. The wording review was a covering paragraph, not a written analysis of the professional-services definition, the consequential loss position, the liability-cap interaction or the “bodily injury and property damage” carve-out. The broker did not ask about the shift into interim executive placements, the move upstream into strategy work with regulated clients, the fixed-price versus time-and-materials mix, the associate model or the geographical footprint. The submission went to a single insurer’s facility rather than an open-market panel. Terms landed late. Any of these on its own may be explicable. A cluster of them is usually a signal that the file has not been actively broked.
Under ICOBS 2 information duties and the wider FCA client-service framework, the current broker is required to provide the information you need to make an informed decision at renewal. That means the current wording in full, the schedule, the claims record, the renewal invitation and any change in terms since inception. Consumer Duty (PRIN 2A) applies where the principal is treated as a consumer of the broking service; the “consumer understanding” outcome is the practical hook. A written request for the file is sufficient. You do not owe an explanation for leaving.
There is no single regulator prescribing PI terms for management consultants. The Management Consultancies Association is a trade body rather than a regulator, and the Chartered Management Consultant designation does not set an insurance floor. That puts the whole weight of the risk picture on the contract portfolio and the wording review. What matters at re-broking is the shape of the work: fixed-fee transformation programmes, interim executive placements, associate delivery, downstream implementation risk, and the regulatory profile of the client base — consultancy to FCA-regulated firms, NHS trusts or local authorities is priced differently. Consequential loss carve-outs, contractual liability caps, and the “insured services” definition need to match the work actually delivered. Under section 3 of the Insurance Act 2015, a material shift in the client base, in the fixed-price mix or in the delivery model during the year is a material fact and needs disclosure at re-broking. Cross-border delivery into the EU or US brings jurisdictional exposure the new wording should be checked against. Where the consultancy also delivers technology or data-adjacent work, PI and cyber sit next to each other and the split needs to be shown in writing.
Take the mechanics in order.
First, do not cancel the current policy until the new one is bound. A claims-made policy needs an unbroken chain. Second, give the incoming broker the current wording, schedule, claims record and a summary of the current engagement portfolio — contract type, client sector and delivery model. Third, the fair-presentation duty under section 3 of the Insurance Act 2015 continues at renewal and at every material variation — disclose the client-base shift, the fixed-fee proportion and the interim placement work honestly. Fourth, any circumstance already notified to the outgoing insurer stays with that insurer; the new policy responds to claims made during its own period. Fifth, confirm the retroactive date on the new policy matches the outgoing inception so historic engagements remain within cover. Sixth, read the consequential loss position, the aggregation clause and the definition of “insured services” on the new wording against the outgoing one.
A broker doing the work properly on a management consulting file looks like this. A named broker reads the wording and writes down the analysis. The submission uses the current engagement portfolio, contract mix, client sector and claims record to build the risk picture, and goes to a specialist consulting-PI panel on an open-market basis. Contract-driven exposure is treated as a live constraint, not a footnote. Material variations mid-year are handled when they happen. When management consultants move to Apex Insurance Brokers from another broker, they tell us the difference is the same broker on the phone and a wording review that engages with the actual work rather than treating the account as a generic professional-services risk. That is the working model, and it is why the retention rate on the consulting book runs at 95%.
Renewal at hand?
Send us your current renewal terms and we’ll take a look. A named broker will read every submission and come back within one working day with a proper comparison.