Five Insurers. One Market. The Structural Label Problem.

A Queensland-based facade engineer with 18 years of industry experience approached us for Professional Indemnity and Public Liability insurance. The practice focused specifically on aluminium glazing of windows and doors, providing structural engineering services for glazing and window and door frames only. No other structural work. No certifying. No high-rise commercial.

The business was a small operation with annual revenue under $100,000. Projects were 100% residential, with buildings up to ten storeys. The request was straightforward: $1M PI and $20M Public Liability.

On paper, this is a clearly scoped, specialist operation. In practice, the word "structural" in the occupation description would cause significant problems in the market.

We took the risk to market across a panel of insurers active in professional indemnity for engineering and construction professionals. Some insurers we approach include specialist professional lines underwriters, global specialty carriers, and niche underwriting agencies with appetite for construction professionals.

Each was provided with full details of the scope: structural glazing engineering only, no general structural work, residential projects up to ten floors, 18 years' experience, Queensland-based, revenue under $100,000.

We also discussed the policy wording question that arose during the process - whether the description could be narrowed from "structural engineering" to specifically describe the glazing scope, and what implications that would carry for coverage.

The core challenge was appetite, not risk quality. This is a clearly defined, specialist operation. But the word "structural" triggers automatic restrictions across much of the PI market.

Some insurers have policies that require structural work to represent less than 10% of total scope. For a practice where structural glazing engineering is 100% of the work, that's a hard no - regardless of how narrow the structural scope actually is. Others declined without giving a reason, or flagged the occupation as outside their current appetite.

One insurer flagged a minimum premium of around $20,000 for this occupation type. For a business with revenue under $100,000, that represents a premium-to-revenue ratio that makes cover effectively unaffordable. Minimum premium floors reflect the insurer's book, not the individual risk profile.

Another insurer offered terms but only for a $500,000 PI limit. That falls short of what residential projects up to ten floors typically require. A $500K limit would not be acceptable to many clients or building certifiers in this space.

The revenue-to-premium problem is real here. Even a workable premium represents a meaningful proportion of income for a small specialist practice. But coverage is not optional - clients and Principal Certifying Authorities require it, and it remains the primary protection for professional liability exposure.

A secondary challenge emerged around policy wording. The engineer asked whether the occupation description could be changed from the broad "structural engineering" to something more specific to the glazing scope. One insurer confirmed this was possible - but the narrower description carries a trade-off: it limits the scope of cover to exactly what's described. Broader wording offers more flexibility; narrower wording offers more precision but less room for claims at the margins.