A professional indemnity policy issued to a UK-authorised firm rarely covers the world without qualification. Two clauses do most of the work in deciding whether an overseas engagement is inside or outside cover: the territorial limit clause, which fixes where the professional service may be provided, and the jurisdiction clause, which fixes where a claim may be brought against the insured. Understanding the interaction between the two matters for any UK professional whose client list, project list, or panel of experts crosses a border.
Most UK PI wordings split geographical scope into two limbs. The territorial limit describes the geography of the professional activity itself — the countries in which the insured may perform the work that is being insured. The jurisdiction limb describes the courts and tribunals in which a claim may be brought against the insured and the policy will respond. A common combination on wordings for solicitors, accountants, surveyors and IFAs is worldwide territorial limits with jurisdiction restricted to England and Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland; another common combination is UK plus European Union territory with jurisdiction limited to the courts of England and Wales. The precise pairing matters, and no two insurers word the clauses identically.
Under the Insurance Act 2015, a commercial policyholder owes a duty of fair presentation before inception, at renewal, and on any material variation. Territorial exposure — a growing overseas client base, a new office in another jurisdiction, participation in a cross-border project — is a material fact. It should be disclosed to the insurer clearly and accessibly, not left to be inferred from a client list.
The United States and Canada are almost always treated separately in UK-issued PI wordings. Standard cover typically excludes work performed in, or claims made in, those jurisdictions, or offers a materially reduced sub-limit and a separate self-insured retention. The reasoning is the litigation environment: broader discovery, jury trials, punitive damages, contingent-fee plaintiff work, and higher defence costs. If a UK firm has any US or Canadian clients — even a single engagement letter that does not on its face contemplate US litigation — that fact should be disclosed and the wording checked. Silence on the point almost always favours the insurer.
Before the UK left the EU, cross-border provision of professional services benefited from a broadly harmonised passporting and recognition framework. Since 1 January 2021 the position is governed by the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, national law in each Member State, and profession-by-profession recognition arrangements. The insurance consequence is that EU territorial cover is now variable: some insurers continue to include EU/EEA within the standard territorial limit, others treat named EU jurisdictions as extensions requiring specific declaration, and others exclude regulated activity performed within an EU jurisdiction unless the insured also holds local authorisation. FCA ICOBS obligations continue to apply to the placement itself; the underlying insured activity is regulated by the profession's own body and, where relevant, by the host state.
Where the standing policy does not respond to a particular overseas engagement, the broker's route is usually a specific extension: a named-project or named-client endorsement placing the work inside the territorial limit for a defined scope and a defined period, at additional premium. Insurers will often ask for the engagement letter, the governing law, the identity of the local counsel or local co-professional, and confirmation that the local element is being handled by a locally-authorised professional. This is not a standard renewal question — it is a mid-term underwriting exercise, and it takes time. The advice to any firm contemplating an overseas engagement is to raise it with the broker before the engagement letter is signed, not afterwards.
Scenario one. A UK solicitors firm, based in London, advises a Middle East client on an English-law contract. The advice is provided from the firm's UK office, the contract is governed by English law, and any dispute is to be resolved in the courts of England and Wales. Under a typical UK PI wording with EU-wide territorial limits and jurisdiction restricted to England and Wales, the engagement sits inside cover. Any claim brought by the client for defective advice would be brought in the UK courts, and the policy responds.
Scenario two. The same firm is asked by the same client to advise on the UAE-law aspects of a related transaction, working alongside a licensed UAE lawyer. The English-law element remains inside cover; the UAE-law element does not, because the advice on foreign law is being given in respect of work performed for a UAE client under a foreign legal system and may fall outside the territorial limit. A specific extension is the sensible route. Without it, the firm risks arguing the point with its insurer at the moment a claim is made.
For profession-specific guidance see the Apex pillar guides for solicitors, accountants, architects, and independent financial advisers.
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.