Professional indemnity (PI) insurance - also referred to in the technology sector as technology errors and omissions (Tech E&O) insurance - covers your business against claims made by clients or third parties who allege that your professional work, advice, or products caused them a financial loss.

In plain terms: if a client claims that your software failed, your advice was negligent, your system produced harmful outputs, or your work infringed their intellectual property, PI insurance meets the cost of defending that claim and, if the claim succeeds, paying the damages awarded.

PI insurance is a claims-made policy, which means it covers claims made during the policy period regardless of when the underlying work was done - provided that work falls on or after the retroactive date of the policy. The retroactive date matters enormously for AI companies: it determines how far back your cover extends when a claim is made against historic work.

This is the question that every AI company should be asking - and most are not asking carefully enough.

The standard professional indemnity insurance software companies UK market has been relatively slow to catch up with the specific risks of AI development. Many technology PI products were drafted when the primary risk for software companies was deterministic code failing to perform as specified. They were not written with machine learning models, generative AI, algorithmic decision-making, or autonomous systems in mind.

The result is a market where policy coverage for AI-specific risks is inconsistent. Some policies will respond to AI liability claims; others will not - and the difference is in the wording, not the product name.

Here is what to look for:

• AI liability extension. Some specialist Tech E&O products have explicitly extended their coverage to include AI liability - covering claims arising from AI-generated outputs, model failures, algorithmic errors, and AI-driven decisions that cause harm. These extensions are deliberate and material additions to coverage, not incidental benefits of broadly-worded standard language.
• Technology definition. How the policy defines "technology services" or "professional services" is critical. A narrow definition that focuses on traditional software development may not extend to AI training, model development, or the deployment of AI decision systems.
• Exclusions. Some policies contain exclusions for gradual damage, pollution equivalents applied to data, or "unforeseeable" outcomes - language that could be used by an insurer to resist an AI liability claim on the basis that probabilistic model outputs were inherently unforeseeable.
• Autonomous system language. Policies drafted for conventional software may not have provisions for AI systems that make autonomous decisions.

The core message: coverage is not universal. Do not assume your existing PI policy covers AI liability. Check the wording - and use a specialist broker to do so.

A well-structured technology professional indemnity policy for an AI company should cover:

Claims Arising From Software Errors or Project Failures

The most common PI claims involve software that does not perform as promised, projects delivered late or not at all, or systems that fail in ways that cause financial loss. For AI companies, this extends to models that produce inaccurate outputs, AI systems that underperform against specified benchmarks, and machine learning products that degrade over time as data patterns shift.

Where an AI liability extension is in place, cover should also extend to claims arising from model failure - outputs that are harmful or discriminatory, recommendations that cause downstream harm, and decisions made by autonomous systems that result in losses. For a detailed breakdown of how liability is attributed in those scenarios, see our guide to AI Liability Insurance.

Intellectual Property Infringement (Including Training Data Disputes)

AI development has created a new category of IP liability that is still being resolved by courts in the UK and globally: the use of copyrighted data to train AI models. Rights holders have brought claims against AI developers on the basis that training on their content without licence constitutes infringement.

Professional indemnity insurance should cover IP infringement claims. The specific question of whether training data IP claims are covered depends on how the policy defines infringement and whether there are exclusions for use of third-party content. This is an area where specialist policy wording analysis matters.

For AI companies building on generative models, the training data IP question is particularly acute. See our dedicated guide: Insurance for Generative AI Products.

Negligent Advice or Consultancy

Many AI companies provide professional consultancy alongside their software. If that advice is negligent and the client suffers a financial loss, professional indemnity insurance should respond. AI consultancy carries significant downstream risk - recommendations about AI adoption in financial services or healthcare carry real consequences if wrong.

Breach of Confidentiality

AI companies routinely handle commercially sensitive client data - often in fine-tuning models, building bespoke AI systems, or integrating with client infrastructure. If that data is disclosed inappropriately through negligence, a PI policy should cover the resulting claim.

The appropriate indemnity limit depends primarily on the size of contracts you hold and the nature of the AI systems you develop.

Enterprise contracts. Many enterprise clients specify minimum PI indemnity limits in their supplier contracts - commonly £1m, £2m, or £5m. Review your contracts before renewing your PI policy.

Sector-specific requirements. Financial services firms, NHS bodies, and government procurement frameworks often impose minimum PI limits on technology suppliers as a non-negotiable condition of doing business.

Nature of downstream risk. An AI system that makes medical recommendations, drives financial decisions, or controls physical infrastructure carries higher downstream risk than a productivity tool.

Revenue. Insurers use revenue as a proxy for exposure. As your revenue grows, your indemnity limits should be reviewed accordingly.

The right indemnity limit for your business is a question for a specialist broker who understands your contract profile and the specific risks of your AI products.

Understanding what affects cost helps you manage it intelligently. For specific pricing factors, see our guide to Technology Insurance Cost for AI Software Companies.

Key factors include:

• Type of AI system. High-risk AI applications - medical, financial, autonomous - attract higher rates and more scrutiny from underwriters.
• Revenue. Larger revenue means larger potential claims. PI premiums are typically calculated by reference to a rate applied to revenue.
• Indemnity limit. Higher limits cost more, though not proportionally.
• Claims history. Prior claims will increase the cost of cover. A clean claims history is a material positive underwriting factor.
• Governance maturity. AI companies that can demonstrate structured AI governance - documented model validation processes, responsible AI frameworks, testing procedures - are viewed more favourably by specialist underwriters.
• Retroactive date. Policies with longer retroactive dates carry more historic exposure. When switching insurers, continuity of the retroactive date matters.

Taurus Risk works exclusively in the technology insurance market. We know which Tech E&O products have extended AI liability coverage, which policy wordings hold up when a claim is made, and how to structure a PI programme that matches your specific risk profile.

For a comprehensive overview, see our pillar guide: What Insurance Does an AI Software Company Need?

To discuss your requirements, contact Taurus Risk - technology insurance specialists.

A PI policy is only as good as its wording when a claim is made. For AI developers, the right policy is one with an explicit AI liability extension, a broad technology services definition, and indemnity limits matched to your contract profile. Generalist tech PI may not be enough.