ACCOUNTANT PI CASE STUDY
Advisory Firm With Professional Standards Limit
An advisory and accounting firm needed PI terms that aligned with its professional standards obligations. The limit structure mattered as much as the premium, so we took the risk to specialist PI markets and secured terms that matched the compliance need.
THE SITUATION
An advisory and accounting firm approached Tank Insurance needing Professional Indemnity insurance for accountants that aligned with its professional standards obligations.
The firm expected annual revenue of roughly $600,000 to $650,000 and needed a limit structure of at least $2 million costs-in-addition or $2.5 million costs-inclusive. That made the placement more technical than a simple lowest-premium comparison.
OUR APPROACH
We presented the risk to a panel of professional indemnity markets and focused the submission on the firm's actual advisory work, expected revenue and required limit structure.
The key was giving underwriters enough context to understand the exposure and the compliance driver behind the requested limit. For accounting and advisory firms, the difference between costs-inclusive and costs-in-addition cover can matter when a professional body or client contract sets the insurance requirement.
THE CHALLENGE
Not every insurer could support the risk or the requested limit. Some markets declined on occupation or could not offer the required structure. Other terms were constrained by service type or valuation exposure.
This is the type of accountant PI placement where the headline price is not enough. The limit, defence-cost treatment and insurer appetite all need to line up.
THE OUTCOME
We secured AIG terms with a $2.5 million costs-inclusive Professional Indemnity limit. The total quoted amount recorded for the placement was around $4,800.
The result gave the firm a PI structure aligned with its professional standards position, after other markets either declined, referred or could not meet the required limit approach.
This is a useful case for accounting and advisory firms whose insurance requirement is driven by more than a generic PI minimum. Where the obligation is specific, the wording and limit structure need to be checked before the policy is bound.
Put this placement in context
More Case Studies
All case studiesAccounting Practice PI and Cyber Cover
Accounting practice placed $2M PI with Hutch and linked standalone Cyber cover with Coalition
Read case study Professional IndemnityEngineering Consultancy: $10M XS Layer to Reach $20M
An engineering consultancy came to Tank with a 5x5 PI structure already in place. A few months later, a larger project required $20M total cover, so we went to market for a further $10M excess layer above the existing programme.
Read case study Professional IndemnitySoftware Firm, Two Policies Consolidated into One $10M Technology Liability Program
How we consolidated a software firm's two-policy technology and cyber program into one combined technology liability policy with $10 million PI, at around $54,000 a year, saving around $4,500 against the expiring program.
Read case studyNeed accountant PI checked against a specific limit requirement?
We can help review the limit, wording and defence-cost structure before you bind cover, especially where professional body or client contract obligations apply.