Enterprise workflow software for mid-market logistics and manufacturing operators. The insured hosts customer operational data, integrates with customer enterprise resource planning systems, and provides implementation services. An exception-handling module released in November 2025 executes defined actions within customer environments without per-instance human authorization.
The program comprises four policies placed across four insurers, renewing on three separate dates, with $200,600 of annual premium and total cost of risk of $411,600 over the trailing twelve months.
Position. The current technology errors and omissions policy carries an amendment, added at the March renewal, that removes coverage for claims caused by software taking action inside a customer’s systems without a person reviewing it first. That describes the exception-handling module, which now accounts for roughly a fifth of product usage and was released after the insurer priced the policy.
Effect. The exposure growing fastest in the business is presently carried entirely by the insured. A single customer dispute over an automated action would be defended and paid out of cash.
Consideration. Have the amendment removed or narrowed at the March renewal, supported by written documentation of how the module is controlled: what it is permitted to do, when a person is required to approve, how an action is reversed, and what is logged. Markets writing this exposure affirmatively should be approached in parallel. Amending mid-term is not advisable, as it surrenders renewal leverage and puts at risk the 2019 date that governs coverage for past work.
Position. The governing customer agreement requires $10,000,000 of technology errors and omissions and cyber limits and a $5,000,000 umbrella. The program provides $5,000,000 and no umbrella. A certificate issued in February states limits the insured does not hold.
Effect. Two exposures, not one. The insured is short of limits against an indemnity in that agreement which is uncapped for data incidents, and it is in breach of a term it signed, which is a termination right on its largest contract.
Consideration. Purchase the umbrella and price an excess layer over the existing errors and omissions limit, then correct the certificate so that the correction reflects a compliant position. The added premium should be weighed against the indemnity it answers, not against the current spend.
Position. Premium rose from $96,000 to $118,000 at the March renewal while three restrictions were added or left in place: the automated-action amendment, a war and widespread-event clause drafted more broadly than the current market standard, and a $1,000,000 sublimit for losses caused by a vendor outage that names the primary cloud provider but omits two data vendors the product depends on.
Effect. The headline limit is $5,000,000, but the terms beneath it narrow what that limit will actually respond to.
Consideration. Treat this as a wording exercise rather than a pricing one at renewal. Competing quotations should be compared on the three clauses above before premium, and the vendor schedule updated to match the product’s actual dependencies.
Position. A single $5,000,000 limit serves claims against the directors and officers, employment claims by staff, and benefit plan claims. An open employment matter is already drawing on it.
Effect. With 142 employees in 17 states, employment claims are the most likely source of erosion, and whatever they consume is no longer available to the directors personally. The protection the board believes it has is contingent on something unrelated to the board.
Consideration. Price a separate employment practices limit and a layer dedicated to the individual directors at the June renewal. Both are standard diligence questions in a Series C process and are cheaper to address before a term sheet than during one.
Position. The errors and omissions policy excludes physical injury and property damage. The general liability policy excludes anything arising from professional services. The software directs material handling in customer warehouses, so a defective instruction that damages goods lands between the two.
Effect. Both insurers would have a respectable argument that the other one owes the claim. The insured funds defense while they resolve it, and may fund the loss.
Consideration. Ask both insurers to confirm in writing how they read the overlap. Where confirmation is not given, the gap can be closed by endorsement on one policy or the other.
Position. Latch Analytics was acquired six months ago and appears on none of the four policies. Separately, the crime policy covers theft by employees and fraud involving a break-in to the insured’s systems, but not payments made because someone was deceived into authorizing them, which is what occurred in February.
Effect. The acquired company’s operations, employees, and past work are uninsured on every line. The February loss of $186,000 was declined, correctly, and the same loss would be declined again tomorrow.
Consideration. Add the acquired entity across all policies with coverage for its past work, and add fraudulent payment coverage to the crime policy now rather than at renewal. Insurers cap that coverage well below the policy limit by default, so the cap is the term to negotiate.
Reporting deadlines, methods, and carrier addresses for each policy are maintained with this record. The sequence below governs the first day of any reportable matter.