Cross-Border Consultant - International Project Cover with 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. With international project work on the table - including a major FTSE-listed data analytics client - he wanted PI and PL cover that matched the scope and scale of what he was doing.

The cover he was after needed to include:

• 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 wanted AUD-denominated coverage that exceeded the GBP minimums on a current exchange rate basis, with the correct endorsements confirmed upfront. Finding a broker who understood what was needed for international work at this level was the priority.

We started by mapping what he needed 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 coverage 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 endorsement 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 provide the cover he actually needed.

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, specific 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 ended up with a policy that didn't provide the cover they actually needed, or wouldn't have known to check.