Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.

Comment

We probably wouldn't our PI policies on an occurrence, rather than claims made, basis even if we could. (They do in Germany.)

See Friends Provident Life & Pensions Ltd v Sirius International Insurance Corp [2004] EWHC 1799 (Comm) at paragraph 13 :

"It is now almost invariable for liability underwriters in general, and professional negligence underwriters in particular, to issue policies that provide cover on what is known as a "claims made" basis, that is, which provide the insured with an indemnity against losses arising from claims made against him, as opposed to events occurring, during the policy period. This has an advantage for underwriters in that they are less exposed to unforeseen losses arising long after the period of cover has expired, but it poses a serious problem for any insured who becomes aware during the policy period of circumstances that may give rise to a claim in the future. When seeking insurance for the following year he would be bound to disclose the existence of any circumstances, but might well find it impossible to obtain insurance in respect of that potential loss at a commercially acceptable premium, if indeed at all..."

In addition, we would be exposed to the risk of the limit of indemnity failing to keep pace with changing times and inflation.

It would be almost impossible to change from claims made to occurrence based cover - rather like changing from driving on the left to driving on the right, but introducing it gradually. Every firm would have to buy something akin to run-off cover to manage the changeover.

Your details

Cancel