PI Insurance on Bench

[supersteamer]

Hi All,

Hit the bench on Monday (Wahay!) Prefer not to be here too long, but realistically I'm not hopeful. Anyway, my PI insurance expires in a few weeks - is it worth renewing if I don't have a contract (ie. am I still covered for past work done while the policy was in place? - not that I'm expecting anything but you never know!)
I read the document 4 times and couldn't make any sense of it. Will call the broker but always like a 2nd opinion....

Thanks!

[TykeMerc]

I would let it lapse then buy a new policy as soon as you step off the bench.

[expat]

Hi All,

Hit the bench on Monday (Wahay!) Prefer not to be here too long, but realistically I'm not hopeful. Anyway, my PI insurance expires in a few weeks - is it worth renewing if I don't have a contract (ie. am I still covered for past work done while the policy was in place? - not that I'm expecting anything but you never know!)
I read the document 4 times and couldn't make any sense of it. Will call the broker but always like a 2nd opinion....

Thanks!

Is it not the case that PI needs to be in place on the day that a claim is made against you, not on the day that you are alleged to have done something wrong?

[Manic]

Is it not the case that PI needs to be in place on the day that a claim is made against you, not on the day that you are alleged to have done something wrong?

I believe so, therefore PI must cover retrospectively.

[TykeMerc]

Is it not the case that PI needs to be in place on the day that a claim is made against you, not on the day that you are alleged to have done something wrong?

If that's legally the case then ignore my previous post.

That being said there are plenty of cases of companies that have stopped trading in the past and their insurers have had to settle for things done when the policies were in force so I'm not convinced.

For that matter if these indemnity insurances have to in effect be retrospective how can the insurers weigh their risk if they weren't the insurance provider at the time?

[Alan @ BroomeAffinity]

Is it not the case that PI needs to be in place on the day that a claim is made against you, not on the day that you are alleged to have done something wrong?

I would have thought they key date would be when the incident occurred. Think of it in house insurance terms: if you had a fire and weren't insured when the fire occurred, you wouldn't be covered if, after the event, you took out insurance and then made a claim.

[TykeMerc]

I would have thought they key date would be when the incident occurred. Think of it in house insurance terms: if you had a fire and weren't insured when the fire occurred, you wouldn't be covered if, after the event, you took out insurance and then made a claim.

That's pretty much how I look at it, surely the cover has to be valid at the time when the incident occurred otherwise it makes next to no sense.

[expat]

That's pretty much how I look at it, surely the cover has to be valid at the time when the incident occurred otherwise it makes next to no sense.

PI is different, it insures against legal action, not against doing something wrong: so it must be in place at the time of the legal action, not at the time of the alleged misdemeanour. But check the policy.

[supersteamer]

Magnum PI

The broker has confirmed that the insurance needs to be kept renewed up to date in case of legal claim.
Eh, doesn't that mean, in case of paranoia, that I need to keeping shelling out for insurance until every single system I've ever tinkered with is decommissioned?

[pleomax]

..or the broker retires to his/he villa in spain?