The software worked. The customer still lost money.Founded by a software developer who owns a software company.

Failure to perform

The product or service did not do what was promised, and the client lost money.

Without it — General liability answers injury and property damage, and a client’s lost revenue is neither.

Negligent advice or configuration

An implementation, migration or recommendation that caused loss.

Without it — The most common claim against an MSP or consultancy has no policy behind it.

Missed deadlines and cost overruns

Delay claims on fixed-scope work, which are the everyday disputes of this trade.

Without it — A disputed project becomes a self-funded legal argument.

Intellectual property infringement

A claim that code, content or a name infringes somebody else’s rights.

Without it — A library with the wrong license in it can end a product.

Combined with cyber

Most technology programs place E&O and cyber on one form, because a breach at a provider is both at once.

Without it — Two policies argue about which one responds while the client waits.

Do we need this as well as cyber liability?

They answer different halves of the same incident and technology companies generally need both, usually on one combined form. Cyber responds to a breach of data, including your clients’ data in your systems. Tech E&O responds to a failure of the service itself: the deployment that took the client offline, the integration that corrupted their records, the advice that did not work. An MSP whose error causes a client outage has an E&O claim, not a cyber one, and finds out which policy they bought at exactly the wrong moment.

Where cyber responds instead

Our contracts limit our liability. Is that enough?

It helps and it is not cover. Limitation clauses are routinely challenged, are unenforceable in some circumstances, and do nothing about defense costs, which in a disputed project are frequently the whole loss. They also do not bind a third party who was harmed but never signed anything. A good contract and a policy do different jobs.

Is this claims-made?

Almost always, and it changes how you buy it. Cover responds to claims made during the policy period rather than work done during it, so continuity matters more than the limit: let the policy lapse and the work you did last year stops being covered. Keep the retroactive date intact when you move insurer, and never let a gap open between policies.

A contract requires $5M of tech E&O. Our current carrier stops at $2M. Where does the rest come from?

From a primary underwriter who will write the limit, and where they will not, from an excess layer built above the best primary available. The online platforms stop at a fraction of $5M and their forms never ask what a $5M underwriter needs to know, which is what your agreements make you responsible for, how many records you hold and what protects them. We put the cyber and tech E&O on one primary and structure the excess above it, and the certificate shows the limit the contract named.

How $10M cyber and $5M tech E&O get placed

Does tech E&O cover our AI feature when it gives a customer wrong output?

Failure to perform is the core grant of the form and wrong output from an AI feature is a failure to perform, so yes, unless the policy now carries an AI exclusion. Since 2026 it might. W.R. Berkley filed an absolute AI exclusion across E&O, D&O and fiduciary lines and Hamilton filed one naming specific tools, while Beazley, Hiscox and Coalition wrote AI cover in. The certificate does not show which you have. Ask for the affirmative AI endorsement in writing at renewal.

AI liability insurance, and who writes it

Our product handles personal or patient data through an AI model. Is that tech E&O or cyber?

Both, and for patient data a third thing. Tech E&O pays for the product’s failure to perform; cyber and privacy liability pay for the data it exposed. For protected health information the claim also turns on whether a business associate agreement covered every model in the chain, which for a vendor means a BAA upstream with the model provider and downstream with each healthcare customer. One combined form with affirmative AI wording pays the claim once; three carriers with three AI positions argue about it first.

Tech E&O for AI products that touch PII and PHI

An enterprise customer is asking whether our tech E&O covers AI. What do they want to see?

A certificate at the limit they name, usually $2,000,000 to $5,000,000, and increasingly a statement that the policy covers AI affirmatively rather than by silence. Healthcare and financial customers add their data-processing or business associate agreement and ask which models sit in your product and under whose BAA. Vendors whose agents act inside customer systems are now asked for AI-specific coverage, which the standalone AI products with limits to $50,000,000 were built to answer.

What enterprise procurement asks an AI vendor