Increasing PI to $10M. The Spread Was 2.6x.

A structural and civil engineer based in New South Wales operated a small two-person firm, with revenue of just under $200,000. The scope of work covered small residential projects, temporary works for demolition, council work including stormwater, footpath extensions, and kerb design. Flooding assessments and geotechnical work were explicitly outside scope, referred to specialists where needed.

His existing PI policy was $2 million, arranged through an online platform. He wanted to increase his limit to $10 million to be able to take on larger project work - the kind of work that requires higher cover as a condition of engagement.

We took the $10M PI to the market.

We approached the market through both specialist underwriting channels and platform-based access, reaching a broad spread of underwriters including ProRisk and Progress.

Each submission included the full scope of work - the structural and civil split, the council work, temporary works for demolition, and the explicit exclusions around flooding and geotechnical. The $10M limit was stated upfront in every submission.

We also ran a $2M parallel quote to give the engineer a comparison point for his existing coverage level.

ProRisk was willing to quote at $2M but declined when the limit was raised to $10M. Their appetite had a ceiling. Several other underwriters referred or couldn't accommodate the dual occupation - the 50% structural and 50% civil split required manual assessment rather than a straightforward platform quote, and some couldn't price it at the $10M level at all.

That left two workable quotes from specialist underwriters - one at around $14,600, one at around $5,700. Same occupation, same limit. A 2.6x difference in premium.

This isn't unusual. Different underwriters apply different rate tables and rating algorithms to the same occupation combination. Structural and civil work at $10M PI sits differently in each insurer's pricing model. Without running both, the engineer could easily have paid $14,600 for cover that was available elsewhere at $5,700.