Claims Made and Notified: Why Timing Matters in Professional Indemnity

Professional Indemnity insurance does not respond based on when work was done.

It responds based on when a claim is made and when it is notified.

That distinction sits at the centre of claims made and notified policies and is one of the most common reasons clients are caught out when a PI claim arises. For brokers, understanding how timing works, and where it can quietly fail, is critical to protecting clients from unintended gaps in cover.

What does “claims made and notified” actually mean?

Under a claims made and notified policy, cover generally applies when:

• A claim is first made against the insured, and
• That claim is notified to the insurer during the policy period

It does not matter when the alleged error, advice or professional service occurred, provided it occurred on or after the policy’s retroactive date and meets all other policy requirements.

What matters most is timing.

If a claim is made outside the policy period or is not notified in time, the policy may not respond, even if the insured has held PI cover for many years.

Why timing matters so much in PI claims

Professional Indemnity claims rarely arrive fully formed.

They often start as:

• A complaint or expression of dissatisfaction
• A request for information
• An allegation of error
• A threatened or potential claim

If these early warning signs are not recognised and reported appropriately, the insured may lose the ability to rely on their PI policy, even though they were insured at the time the issue first arose.

Timing is not merely administrative. It is a core part of how the cover operates.

Claims vs circumstances: an important distinction

Most claims-made policies distinguish between:

• Claims, and
• Facts or circumstances that may give rise to a claim in the future

Policies often allow insureds to notify circumstances during the policy period. If a claim later arises from those notified circumstances, it may be treated as having been made during the earlier policy period.

Failing to notify of circumstances when first identified can:

• Push the claim into a later policy period
• Trigger exclusions for prior known matters
• Create disputes about which insurer should respond

This is one of the most important and most misunderstood aspects of PI insurance.

Common timing traps for clients

Timing failures are rarely deliberate. They usually stem from misunderstanding.

Common examples include:

“We didn’t think it was serious yet”

Clients may wait for a formal demand before notifying, even when the policy allows or expects earlier notification.

“The issue went quiet”

A complaint may appear to be resolved, only to resurface months later as a formal claim.

“We were changing insurers anyway”

If a circumstance arises late in the policy period but is not notified before expiry, the next policy may exclude it as a prior known matter.

“We didn’t want to cause problems at renewal”

Delaying notification to avoid perceived premium impacts can leave the client without cover if the matter escalates later.

How policy periods and renewal timing interact

Claims-made and notified policies are closely linked to the policy period.

Timing risks often appear:

• In the weeks leading up to renewal
• During insurer transitions
• Where policies lapse, even briefly

A claim made one day after expiry, or a circumstance discovered but not notified until after renewal, may fall outside cover entirely.

This is why brokers often encourage clients to notify early and to treat notification as a protective step, not an admission of liability.

Where retroactive dates fit into the timing equation

Timing does not operate in isolation.

Even if a claim is made and notified correctly, the underlying professional work must still fall within the policy’s retroactive date.

A claim can be:

• Made and notified on time, but
• Still fall outside cover if the work occurred before the retroactive date or after a reset

This interaction between timing and historical scope is one of the most common pressure points in PI claims.

For a detailed breakdown of retroactive dates, continuity risks and how gaps are created, see our related explainer:
Retroactive dates in Professional Indemnity: why continuity matters 

The broker’s role in managing timing risk

Claims-made policies rely heavily on awareness and communication.

Brokers add significant value by:

• Explaining how timing works at placement and renewal
• Helping clients recognise what should be notified
• Encouraging prompt reporting of potential issues
• Coordinating notifications during insurer changes
• Documenting discussions around known matters

In many cases, these conversations matter more than the policy limit itself.

Key takeaway for brokers

Claims made and notified policies reward early action and clear communication.

The most common PI claim issues are not about obscure exclusions. They are:

• When something was noticed
• When it was reported
• Whether it was reported in time

Helping clients understand that timing is part of the cover is one of the most important risk management services a broker provides.

In Professional Indemnity, the difference between a covered claim and an uninsured one often comes down to a single date on the calendar.