CASE STUDY - GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER PI

Three Policies. Two Exclusions. One Serious Gap.

An engineering geologist compared PI policies across three insurers. The cheapest option excluded pre-purchase reports and building certificates - two services he performed every week.

4 Insurers Quoted
2 Critical Exclusions Found
NSW Sydney
$5M PI Limit
01

THE SITUATION

A sole-trader engineering geologist based in Sydney approached us for Professional Indemnity and Public Liability cover. The business was primarily residential with annual revenue of around $200,000.

The scope of work was broad for a sole operator: geotechnical reports, slope-stability assessments, site classifications, pre-purchase reports, dilapidation reports, acid sulfate reports, infiltration testing, building certificates, and foundation and excavation inspections. Subcontractors were used for drilling only.

Two activities stood out as potential exclusion triggers: pre-purchase reports and building certificates. Both are core, revenue-generating services. Both, as it turned out, were explicitly excluded by the cheapest insurer on the market.

02

OUR APPROACH

We ran a detailed policy wording comparison across three insurers - Vero, AIG, and BHSI (Berkshire Hathaway Specialty Insurance) - alongside approaching specialist underwriters directly, including Dual. The goal wasn't just to find the cheapest price - it was to identify which policies actually covered the activities this engineer performs.

From the specialist market, one insurer declined the entire enquiry - geotechnical work was outside appetite at this revenue size, and pre-purchase reports were explicitly excluded from their programme regardless. Dual asked qualifying questions around coastal area exposure and high-rise involvement before indicating appetite and quoting around $11,000 at the $5M level.

03

THE CHALLENGE

The wording comparison revealed significant gaps between the three options:

  • Vero - around $3,500 - the cheapest option and the most dangerous. The policy explicitly excluded "pre-purchase building inspections" and building certification. Two of this engineer's core, weekly revenue-generating services were completely uninsured. Recommending this policy would have left the client severely exposed.
  • AIG - around $10,000 - the most expensive option. Still flawed. The wording excluded "building surveying or building certification." The building certificate work was uninsured despite the premium being nearly three times Vero's.
  • BHSI - around $7,000 - the only policy that actually covered pre-purchase reports and building certificates. It also included vicarious liability for drilling subcontractors and an unlimited retroactive date.

From the specialist market, one underwriter declined outright - geotechnical work was outside appetite at this revenue level, and pre-purchase reports were a specific exclusion. Dual was comfortable after confirming no coastal area exposure and no high-rise buildings above five storeys, quoting around $11,000 at $5M.

"Pre-purchase reports" is a specific exclusion trigger that catches engineering geologists who do property-related work. Most clients would never think to check for this in their policy wording.

04

THE OUTCOME

We obtained competitive terms from both BHSI (around $7,000) and the specialist market (around $6,000-$7,000 at the $5M limit level). The full quote range was presented with a clear explanation of the wording differences and what each option actually covered.

The cheapest policy would have left this engineer uninsured for work he performs every week. The most expensive option still had a gap on building certificates. Only one of the three policies actually matched the scope of activities. Price comparison without wording analysis is meaningless in this occupation.

At around $7,000 on $200,000 revenue, the PI premium represents a meaningful proportion of annual income - but it reflects the genuine professional liability exposure of an engineering geologist who signs off on pre-purchase reports and building certificates.

This case is the clearest possible demonstration of why policy wording matters more than price. An engineer buying the cheapest available option - which is exactly what most sole traders do - would have been paying for a policy that excluded the very services they rely on for income.

Call Us Now +61 2 9000 1155