Navigating Errors and Omissions Policies: Practical Considerations for Professionals
To protect against this exposure, attorneys and other professionals purchase errors and omissions (E&O) coverage.
May 02, 2018 at 10:39 AM
4 minute read
Since the recession the number and severity of professional liability claims are well-above historical records. The uptick is partly due to rising defense costs; a typical claim costs in excess of $50,000. To protect against this exposure, attorneys and other professionals purchase errors and omissions (E&O) coverage. Generally, these policies provide liability coverage against third party claims alleging acts, errors or omissions in the rendering of—or failure to render—professional services. This article stresses the importance of recognizing when a “claim” has been made in order to preserve coverage.
Absent an act or omission that constitutes a “claim,” neither exclusions nor exceptions to exclusions matter. The term is almost always defined in the policy. Claims are not simply lawsuits. Claims can include a written notice from a governmental authority notifying the policyholder of its intent to commence an investigation; a request to toll or waive a statute of limitation relating to a potential claim; or an administrative or “other” proceeding. It is imperative that policyholders understand the breadth of the definition, because E&O policies are almost always “claims made” policies. To preserve coverage, claims made policies require not only that the claim be made during the policy period, but that the policyholder timely reports the claim. While it may seem draconian, an insured's failure to timely report a claim is often a complete bar to coverage.
Not all policies are created equal. The reporting requirements can be very restrictive (requiring that a claim be reported during the policy period) or you may purchase a policy with an extended reporting period (requiring notice within a certain number of days after termination of the policy). If you are purchasing new coverage, pay attention to these notice provisions. You may also consider purchasing “tail coverage” if you are retiring, or you are contracting with a new insurer whose policy does not include a retroactive date that encompasses a period of known exposure. This is an optional form of coverage that extends the window for when a claim must be made for a period after the expiration of the policy.
Tail coverage is not the only way a policyholder may be insured against claims made after the policy period. Typically, E&O policies contain an interrelated wrongful acts provision. In the example below, the provision is embedded within the definition of “claim:”
All CLAIMS arising out of the same ACT, or series of related ACTS, shall constitute a single CLAIM, and shall be deemed to have been made during the POLICY PERIOD in which such CLAIM arising from the ACT or series of related ACTS is first made against such ASSUREDS
This provision collapses all claims that arise out of the same wrongful act or series of related wrongful acts made after the termination of a policy period into a single policy period in which the first claim was made.
While maximizing coverage in some instances, this provision may also have the opposite effect. For example, if there are still available limits of insurance under the prior policy (policy #1)—or greater limits than the later policy policy #2—then it is to the insured's advantage to have all claims made during policy #2 relate back to policy #1. If, however, there are no limits left under policy #1 (for example, the carrier settled a lawsuit on the insured's behalf for policy limits) it may operate to exclude coverage entirely. Of the reported cases that have analyzed the issue, almost all have found in favor of relatedness. The decisions are for the most part result-driven; finding interrelatedness where doing so would yield the greatest coverage.
While policy language varies greatly, at its core, a “claim” is a demand for relief against in insured for wrongful conduct. It is crucial for the policyholder to be aware of how broadly the term is defined. Under a claims made policy, a failure to timely report a claim will most likely forfeit coverage.
Camilla Cohen is an associate with Ver Ploeg & Lumpkin in Miami. Contact her at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInitial Steps to Set Up a Fla. Appeal: Your Future Self (or Appellate Attorney) Will Thank You
6 minute readDivorce Timing Is Everything: Waiting for the New Year May Have Its Advantages
4 minute readMotions for Summary Judgment and Discovery: The 2021 Rule Changes Continue to Emerge
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250