Professional liability insurance has never been more complex – or more critical. But as exposures mount and the regulatory landscape shifts, many brokers are asking whether insurers are still up for the job.
Olivia Reed (pictured), managing director at BMS Canada Risk Services Ltd., doesn’t think so. “There is no room for standardized cover in group programs,” she said. “We negotiate each on an individual basis, always have and always will.”
That posture isn’t about brand – it’s a warning. Reed and her team have watched too many players misprice, overreact, or simply walk away when risk complexity doesn't fit traditional models. “You get those that aren’t more broadly comfortable with the kind of sector, either pricing incorrectly or not having an appetite altogether,” she said. “That does hinder the professional relying on that PLI policy.”
BMS has carved out its niche in professional liability – particularly for regulated health professions – and hasn’t budged in over a decade. That decision to stay hyper-specialized, rather than chase broader commercial or personal lines growth, reflects the volatility of the space.
“You have to have carriers that are willing to be in it for the long term,” Reed said. “Not knee-jerk at the sight of potentially one bad year or one bad loss.”
The pandemic was a stress test. Policy language often didn’t match practice realities – especially when health professionals were asked to operate slightly outside their scopes to administer vaccines. “We worked very quickly with our carriers to endorse the policy,” Reed said, citing it as a case where speed and specialization made the difference.
Maggie Green, executive director, affinity, at BMS Canada, added that their position is partly driven by proximity to regulators. “We can get in front of that and work with our carriers to pull together coverage that ensures that they’ll continue to be protected,” she said, referencing pending shifts like pan-Canadian licensure and more entrenched virtual care models.
The rise in claims activity is making some carriers skittish. But rather than pulling back, Green argued, group programs should be used to balance cost and exposure – especially for new entrants or professionals working part-time.
“There are mechanisms often in place to deliver that exact same really comprehensive, robust policy,” she said, “but be supported with a better rate... to support them through that transition into practice.”
For brokers, this creates a tension point. The open market is shrinking, complexity is rising, but specialized group programs – done right – still offer stable coverage and margin. Reed emphasized the role of scale: “You can obtain [coverage] through leveraging scale that’s remarkably more competitive,” she said.
That also enables more advanced structuring: retention models, group-funded deductibles, and creative transfer mechanisms that individual risk placements can't support. But those options only exist if the broker is willing to go deep.
The message to brokers is clear: don’t enter this market lightly. PLI demands more than just quoting and closing. It means understanding the profession, the regulator, the carrier, and the policy language.
“It can be somewhat deterring… unless you’re really willing to dive head-first and be all in,” Reed said.
While some might see that as a deterrent, others – especially those with associations or group clients – might see it as an opportunity to own a niche others are abandoning.
And brokers who already operate in health, legal, or social service verticals should take note: claims are not only rising but diversifying. “It’s quite hard to pinpoint one or two specific trending areas,” said Reed. “We are absolutely seeing an increase in claims activity overall and an increase in the variety of exposures.”
Without sector commitment and tailored coverage, it’s not hard to imagine more denials – and more fallout for brokers who placed the wrong policy with the wrong carrier.
