Cross-Border Consultant -GBP Contract Requirements, Additional Insured Endorsement

A sole operator software developer and consultant based in northern Sydney had revenue split across Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. A major international data analytics client sent through their standard supplier agreement, which contained specific insurance requirements the consultant needed to meet.

The contract requirements were specific:

• Professional Indemnity insurance with a minimum limit of £1 million GBP per occurrence
• Public Liability insurance with a minimum limit of £1 million GBP per event
• The UK client to be named as an additional insured on the policy
• The policy to contain an indemnity to principals clause

He needed AUD-denominated coverage that exceeded the GBP minimums on a current exchange rate basis, with the correct endorsements confirmed before the contract could proceed. Finding a broker who understood what the contract actually required and could structure cover accordingly was the priority.

We started by mapping the contract requirements against what was available in the market. The additional insured endorsement and indemnity to principals clause aren't standard features on every PI policy, so we needed to identify underwriters whose wordings supported these requirements before pricing became relevant.

We approached six markets. The results varied considerably:

• Two specialist underwriters couldn't quote at all: Software development wasn't listed as an accepted occupation in their systems. Knowing which doors won't open is part of the job.
• Three underwriters quoted: AIG, Woodina, and Dual all came back with terms for $2M PI and varying PL limits
• Vero quoted the cheapest: At around $700 gross premium for $2M PI and $5M PL, Vero was the most competitive and met all the contract requirements including the endorsement and indemnity to principals clause

We placed with Vero.

On the cross-border revenue question, we also clarified the GST position. His foreign invoices to NZ and UK clients were GST-free under ATO rules, which affected how revenue was declared for underwriting purposes.

The contract requirements were the central challenge. A standard online PI policy typically won't support an additional insured endorsement or an indemnity to principals clause - these require specific policy wordings and in most cases need to be confirmed directly with the underwriter before binding. Getting this wrong could have meant a policy that technically existed but didn't satisfy the contract.

The underwriters who couldn't quote at all were an early signal. Two specialist agencies don't list software development as a recognised occupation in their systems. For a broker unfamiliar with these market-specific occupational classifications, those approaches could have wasted days. Knowing which underwriters to bypass is as important as knowing which ones to approach.

At renewal, the pricing dynamic was instructive. The insurers that had quoted at inception all appeared again through a major online aggregator - at higher prices than our direct channel. AIG via the aggregator came in at around $1,000. Our direct placement with the same insurer came in at around $700 gross - cheaper from an identical insurer with identical cover.

We placed $2M PI and $5M PL with Vero at inception, with the additional insured endorsement and indemnity to principals clause confirmed before binding.

This engagement illustrates a category of risk that online platforms handle poorly. Cross-border invoicing, contract-specified endorsements, GBP minimum thresholds, and indemnity to principals clauses are not questions on a standard online PI form. A consultant relying on an aggregator for this placement would almost certainly have obtained a policy that didn't satisfy the contract, or wouldn't have known to check.