Professional Indemnity FAQ

Hold Harmless Agreements and your Professional Indemnity

What is a "Hold Harmless" agreement and could this affect my professional indemnity insurance?

We often come across indemnity clauses in contracts which require one contracting party to “hold harmless” the other contracting party.

There are also judicial statements to the effect that an indemnity is a contract by one party to keep the other harmless against loss. So, is there a difference between an indemnity clause and a hold harmless clause? More particularly, what are their insurance implications from a company’s financial liability standpoint?

Essentially, a “hold harmless” clause gives the recipient of that clause (“the recipient”) the benefit of being “held harmless” - or “not be legally bothered” - by the other contracting party or any other party claiming against the recipient. A hold harmless clause is a risk transfer mechanism. In fact, the expression “hold harmless” is derived from the Latin word indemnis which means “not harmed”. The “hold harmless” obligation requires the grantor of that benefit to hold harmless the recipient from risks of potential loss as well as actual loss.

An example of a hold harmless clause is: “The contractor holds the principal harmless from any action, claims, liability or loss in respect of the performance of the services.” Under this hold harmless clause, the contractor is not only prevented from bringing any claim against the principal (even if the principal has contributed to the loss or liability in the first place),

This can have implications for Professional Indemnity Insurance, particularly if the insurers wish to subrogate against a party for a recovery after paying out a large claim for another party it turns out is actually liable. If this other party has a "hold harmless" agreement then insurers cannot do so. Unless disclosed and agreed to, Insurers may decline the original claim. Be careful with any "hold harmless agreement.

Latest News

D&O premium pool ‘must treble’ to return to profitability

A new report – called "Show Me The Money!" by insurer XL Catlin and law firm Wotton + Kearney – is the second in a series of three white papers on securities class actions and their impact on the Directors & Officers Liability (D&O) market. The main conclusion is that Directors’ and officers’ (D&O) insurance premiums are under-priced significantly and need to rise strongly to restore profitability. The main risk areas are those exposed to securities class actions, 

It says Directors & Officer's Side A, Side B and Side C cover has been chronically underpriced since at least 2011, while the frequency of class actions is increasing as more plaintiff lawyers and litigation funders enter the space.

The analysis suggests last year’s overall premium pool of about $210 million would need to increase by at least three times to establish a profitable market, if it is assumed all other factors stay unchanged.

“Recent market developments would indicate most D&O insurers are now endeavouring to restore some semblance of profitability to their portfolios after years of market losses,” the report says.

read more

75% of Cyclone Debbie claims settled

In the 6 months since Cyclone Debbie devastated Queensland and parts of northern New South Wales:

• more than 31,000 homes and business have been repaired or received settlements from their insurance company

• more than 20,000 families have had possessions replaced

• more than 4,500 motor vehicles have been repaired or new vehicles provided

• hundreds of local builders and trades have been working on properties to repair the damage and destruction caused by the cyclone

• over $5 million has been paid EACH DAY to assist local communities, residents and businesses.

read more