UK professionals almost always call it professional indemnity insurance, or PI. US-based clients, US-based insurers and much of the technology sector prefer errors and omissions, usually written E&O. When a UK firm sees a contract asking for an E&O policy while it holds a UK PI policy, a reasonable question follows: are these the same product wearing different names, or is the client asking for something the firm does not have? The short answer is that they are broadly the same product, but the wording, the scope and the jurisdictional assumptions can differ.
Both PI and E&O cover the civil liability a professional or business owes to a third party as a result of a mistake, omission or negligent act in the course of professional services. Both are typically written on a claims-made basis, meaning the policy that responds is the one in force when a claim is first made against the insured. Both usually carry an aggregate limit, a per-claim limit, a retention or excess, and provision for defence costs — sometimes within the limit, sometimes in addition to it. From a product-architecture point of view, a UK PI policy and a US E&O policy sit in the same family.
In the UK the phrase professional indemnity is entrenched by the chartered and regulated professions. The SRA Minimum Terms and Conditions, RIBA guidance for architects, RICS rules for surveyors, ICAEW guidance for accountants and the FCA rules on adviser cover all use PI or professional indemnity as the operative term. Broker terminology under ICOBS 2 follows market convention: general insurance intermediaries and their clients describe the cover as PI. UK PI wordings tend to be drafted around the specific liability profile of the profession — for a solicitor, SRA MTC-compliant minimums; for an architect, run-off and design liability; for a surveyor, valuation and negligent survey work. UK PI is often broader in scope than a base-level US E&O policy because it is being written to satisfy a regulatory requirement rather than a contractual minimum.
Errors and omissions is the standard label in the US insurance industry, US real estate, the technology industry on both sides of the Atlantic, and increasingly in media and consultancy. US E&O wordings are typically drafted to a market form rather than a chartered-body minimum, so scope and defence-cost treatment can vary more between carriers. In the technology sector, E&O has evolved to sit alongside — and often overlap with — cyber liability cover, so a modern tech E&O policy may include coverage for network-security failures, data breach costs and privacy liability. A UK PI policy written for an IT consultancy may or may not include those cyber-adjacent extensions, and this is one area where careful comparison is needed.
A UK PI policy will usually specify a territorial limit (where the work can be done) and a jurisdiction limit (where a claim can be brought). Many standard UK PI wordings exclude claims brought in the courts of the United States or Canada unless the extensions are specifically purchased. US E&O policies written for US-domiciled insureds default to worldwide territory but often exclude jurisdictions the carrier is not comfortable with. When a UK firm takes on US work, the jurisdictional extension is the single most important variable to check — a policy that responds to UK-jurisdiction claims will not respond to a US suit unless the wording says so.
A UK IT consultancy is signing a services contract with a US client. The contract requires the consultancy to maintain '$5m errors and omissions insurance' throughout the engagement. The consultancy holds a £2m UK PI policy and asks Apex to check whether the current policy meets the contract. Apex reviews the UK PI wording and confirms it provides professional services liability substantively equivalent to a US E&O policy, covering negligent acts, errors and omissions in the delivery of IT consultancy services. The £2m limit converts to approximately $2.6m at prevailing FX and falls short of the contract requirement. The territorial and jurisdictional clauses exclude USA claims. Apex recommends increasing the limit to a $5m equivalent (approximately £3.8m at the FX rate on the day) and adding a USA territorial and jurisdictional extension. The revised cover is placed, an insurer letter confirming compliance with the contract wording is issued, and the consultancy signs.
Read the contract requirement carefully — it will usually specify a limit, sometimes a retention, and occasionally a named additional insured or waiver-of-subrogation clause. Check whether your UK PI wording covers the scope of services described. Check the territorial and jurisdictional wording. Check whether defence costs are inside or outside the limit, because a US client may assume defence costs are outside the limit. Where possible, obtain a broker or insurer letter confirming the UK PI wording meets the E&O requirement — this saves argument later.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.