I deal with the definition of “professional services” a lot – both as the triggering requirement for a Professional Liability policy and an exclusion in a Commercial General Liability policy.

In particular, case law reveals that insures sometimes lose “professional services” exclusions cases that they feel strongly should have gone the other way.  These are cases where there is virtually no doubt that the injury or damage was caused by a “professional service,” yet the court concludes that the “professional services” exclusion in the CGL policy does not apply. 

Ironically, a review of these cases reveals that one important thing that insurers can do, to draft effective “professional services” exclusions for CGL policies, is to not use the word “professional” in the exclusion.  I know, it sounds completely counterintuitive.  But this is what I’ve discovered as a long-time student of the issue. 

Indeed, in May, an Ohio appeals court upheld a “professional services” exclusion in a CGL policy that was drafted using the very playbook that I have long been advocating. 

For any insurers interested in this subject, I have put together a webinar that examines the issue in detail.  It reveals how some insurers have drafted their CGL “professional services” exclusions to avoid affording coverage that was never intended nor priced for.

Drop me a note if you are interested in having the webinar presented to your insurer claims and/or underwriting group.