The premium on two liability insurance offers can differ substantially – and the reason is rarely “the pricier insurer”: typically, the content is simply different. That's why a good comparison isn't a list of premiums, it's a table of criteria: every offer set out along the same rows, side by side. This article walks through the rows of our table – what you receive at the end of a competitive process.
- The backbone of the table: limit(s), deductible, retroactive date, exclusions, extensions, premium – in that order.
- The premium is the table's last row: comparing price only makes sense once the content matches.
- The table doesn't decide for you – but it shows you where offers genuinely differ.
The rows of the table – and why this order
1. Limits: the per-event and annual limit, plus the relevant inner limits (items being worked on, rented premises, pure financial loss) – because at claim time, this is what most of it comes down to (the limit article). 2. Deductible: the amount AND the form (fixed, percentage, minimum-maximum) – “10%” on its own tells you nothing (the deductible article). 3. Retroactive date and time-based scope: for a claims-made structure, this is the continuity question – when switching, it belongs at the top of the list, not the bottom (the key article). 4. Exclusions: the variations that touch your own activity – two policies' exclusion lists are rarely identical (the exclusions map). 5. Extensions: what's included as standard, what costs extra, what isn't available at all (article). 6. Premium: now it's meaningful – set against content that's the same, or knowingly different.
The typical comparison mistakes
Three patterns. The premium-order trap: starting from the lowest premium and “justifying upward” – the table works the other way round: content first, then price. The apples-and-oranges table: offers with different limits and different content on the same row – which makes the premium difference meaningless; a proper competitive process requests quotes against one identical specification (the needs assessment). The missing rows: leaving out the retroactive date or the inner limits – exactly the rows where the big differences tend to hide.
How to read the finished table
In three steps. First, the disqualifiers: is there an offer that fails on a critical row (your required limit, a mandatory extension, carrying over the retroactive date) – that one drops out, whatever its premium. Then the material differences: where does one offer give more, and is that extra worth what it costs. Finally, the decision – which is always yours: I provide the table, showing the strengths and weaknesses; the right and the responsibility to choose stay with you.
The next step
The table isn't theory: every competitive process I run ends with one. The path: activity assessment → needs specification → offers → table → your decision → binding cover. For the first step: free consultation.
Example: when the table flipped the outcome
A contractor received three offers; ranked by premium, the one that looked best at first glance would have won. The table told a different story: in the lower-premium offer, the inner limit for items being worked on was a fraction of the other two – on exactly the row where most of the business's claims tend to arise – and it had no subcontractor extension. The mid-priced offer was strong on both rows, and the difference between them, annualized, worked out to roughly the price of a small tool. The decision was no longer about premium, but about content – and the contractor knew precisely what he was buying. That's what this table is for: not to hand you the right answer, but to make it visible.
A question tailored to your own trade? Book a free 20-minute consultation →
