Mon - Fri 8am - 5pm (203)-834-5900

Trusted By

2500+ Clients

Industry Leader Since

1932

Serving Customers In

38 States

Get A Quote

Errors and Omissions Coverage for Design-Build Contractors — What It Covers and Why Your GL Does Not

  • Construction

Errors and omissions insurance, called professional liability or E&O in the design context, is the coverage that addresses what general liability explicitly excludes for design-build contractors. Understanding how it works, when it responds, and how to size it appropriately is foundational to building an insurance program that actually covers the exposure profile design-build project delivery creates. Here are the four most important questions design-build contractors ask about E&O coverage, answered directly.

What Does E&O Insurance Actually Cover for a Design-Build Contractor?

E&O insurance covers claims arising from professional services — the design decisions, specifications, calculations, drawings, and professional advice that constitute the design component of a design-build project. When a claim alleges that a design error, specification failure, or professional judgment call caused damage or loss to a project owner or third party, E&O is the policy that responds.

The coverage grant in a design-build E&O policy is typically framed around “wrongful acts” in the performance of professional services. A wrongful act is a negligent act, error, or omission in the performance of professional services that results in a claim. The coverage does not require that the design-build firm intended to make an error. It requires that a claimant can establish that a professional services failure occurred and that the failure caused a loss.

In practical terms, E&O responds to claims such as: a waterproofing system failure attributed to a specification error in the waterproofing detail; a structural element that fails to perform as designed due to a calculation error; a mechanical system that does not meet performance specifications because of a design coordination error between disciplines; and a project that cannot be occupied because a code compliance error in the design requires expensive remediation. These are all professional services failures, and none of them are covered by a standard commercial general liability policy.

How Is E&O Different From General Liability — and Why Do Design-Build Firms Need Both?

The distinction between E&O and GL coverage is fundamental to understanding why design-build firms face a unique insurance requirement that traditional design-bid-build contractors do not.

General liability insurance covers claims for bodily injury and property damage caused by the physical operations of the business — the construction work performed by the firm’s crews on the job site. If a third party is injured because of a condition created by the construction work, or if the construction process damages adjacent property, GL responds. GL policies contain a professional services exclusion that bars coverage for claims arising from the rendering or failure to render professional services. Design decisions, specifications, and engineering calculations are professional services. When a claim attributes damage to a design error rather than a construction defect, the GL policy’s professional services exclusion applies.

In a traditional design-bid-build project, the architect carries E&O for the design and the contractor carries GL for the construction. Each party’s coverage corresponds to their scope. In a design-build project, both scopes are merged under a single entity. That entity’s GL policy excludes the design exposure, and without E&O coverage in place, the design error exposure is uninsured.

Both policies are required because a design-build claim rarely allocates neatly to one category or the other. A waterproofing failure may involve a design specification error and a construction installation defect. Both policies need to be in place and properly coordinated for the full liability exposure to be covered. When only one policy exists, the other policy’s exclusion defines the coverage gap.

What Triggers an E&O Claim for a Design-Build Contractor?

E&O policies are written on a claims-made basis, which means two things: the policy in force when a claim is first made not when the alleged error occurred is the policy that responds, and coverage ends if the policy lapses or is not renewed after the firm completes the project.

A claim is typically triggered when the project owner or a third party makes a written demand for compensation arising from an alleged professional services failure. In design-build contexts, claims commonly arise during or after construction when: a structural element does not perform as specified; a system fails during commissioning or shortly after occupancy; a code compliance issue discovered during inspection requires design revision and additional construction cost; or a post-occupancy investigation attributes a building defect to a design error rather than a construction defect.

The claims-made nature of E&O creates a specific risk for design-build firms: if the firm completes a project and then allows its E&O policy to lapse — because it has no active projects or because it is between coverage periods — claims that arise from completed projects have no policy to report to. This is the scenario that tail coverage endorsements, also called extended reporting period endorsements, address. A tail provides a window — typically three to five years for construction projects — during which the firm can report claims arising from professional services rendered before the policy lapsed, even though the policy itself is no longer active.

How Much E&O Coverage Does a Design-Build Contractor Actually Need?

E&O limit adequacy depends on the size and complexity of the projects the firm undertakes and the nature of the professional services being provided. Three factors drive the analysis.

The design fee represents the minimum meaningful reference point. A design-build project with a $400,000 design fee component and a $3.6 million construction component has $4 million in total project exposure — but the professional services exposure is specifically tied to the design component. E&O limits should at minimum be sized to address the design fee exposure and the likely cost of the design errors that could arise from the firm’s scope of services.

Project complexity is the more important driver for firms doing technically complex work. A design-build firm working on mixed-use mid-rise construction with concrete structural systems and complex MEP coordination has professional services exposure that is qualitatively different from a firm doing ground-up commercial shell buildings. The nature of the work, the criticality of the structural systems involved, and the potential consequence of a design error all inform appropriate limit selection.

Contract requirements imposed by project owners increasingly specify minimum E&O limits as a condition of contract award. In design-build procurement, owners commonly require $1 million to $5 million in E&O coverage, with larger public projects sometimes requiring limits that match or exceed the design fee. Understanding what the firm’s typical owner clients require before going to market for coverage allows the E&O program to be structured efficiently rather than reactively.

Tooher-Ferraris works with design-build contractors to evaluate E&O exposure, structure coverage that reflects the firm’s actual project mix and complexity, and coordinate E&O with the broader commercial insurance program including GL, umbrella, and builder’s risk. Learn more at https://toofer.com/specialty-programs/ and https://toofer.com/commercial-insurance/.

RIMS, the risk management society, publishes resources on professional liability for design-build delivery at rims.org. The Design-Build Institute of America provides guidance on standard design-build contract insurance requirements at dbia.org.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does my GL policy cover any design-related claims?

Standard commercial general liability policies contain a professional services exclusion that bars coverage for claims arising from design errors, specifications, or professional advice. Some GL policies are endorsed to provide limited coverage for claims where the damage was caused by construction operations even if a design error contributed — but this is not standard and should be confirmed by reviewing the specific policy language, not assumed. For design-build firms, an E&O policy is the only reliable coverage for the design error exposure.

What is the difference between E&O and professional liability insurance?

In the design and construction context, E&O and professional liability are different names for the same product. The term “errors and omissions” is commonly used in technology and some professional services contexts; “professional liability” is the term more commonly used in architecture, engineering, and design-build contexts. The coverage grant, the claims-made structure, and the tail coverage considerations are the same regardless of which term is used.

How long should my E&O tail coverage extend after project completion?

The appropriate tail period depends on the type of projects completed and the statute of limitations applicable to professional liability claims in the relevant jurisdiction. For most commercial construction projects, a tail period of three to five years after substantial completion is the minimum reasonable standard. Projects with long-term performance warranties, complex structural systems, or significant public use exposure warrant consideration of longer tail periods. Consult with your insurance broker about the specific tail requirements for the types of projects your firm completes before allowing an E&O policy to lapse.

Ready to evaluate your design-build E&O program? The team at Tooher-Ferraris has been helping contractors structure complete construction insurance programs since 1932. Contact us today to schedule a no-obligation consultation — https://toofer.com/contact-us/

Related Post

  • Construction

Builder’s Risk Coverage Is Getting Cheaper. Your Project Values Are Not. Here Is the Gap That Creates.

The builder’s risk market has softened. Rates in non-catastrophe-exposed zones are declining, capacity has returned, and contractors who shop their builder’s risk programs at renewal are seeing lower premiums than they did two or three years ago. This is genuinely good news — and it is creating a dangerous blind spot. The softening rate environment is encouraging contractors to focus on what they pay rather than what they cover. Those two questions have diverged meaningfully since 2022.

Supply chain volatility and materials inflation have pushed average US project values approximately 14% higher since 2022, according to construction cost index data. A contractor whose builder’s risk program was structured around project values from two or three years ago likely carries limits that don’t reflect what a complete rebuild would cost today. The softening rate means the premium on that underinsured limit is lower than ever — which makes the gap between coverage and exposure easy to overlook right up until a total loss claim reveals it.

What Builder’s Risk Actually Covers — and What It Does Not

Builder’s risk insurance is a course-of-construction policy that covers the structure being built, materials intended to become part of that structure, and in many cases materials in transit to the site or in temporary off-site storage. It responds to physical loss or damage from covered causes — fire, windstorm, theft of materials incorporated or intended to be incorporated into the structure, and similar perils.

What builder’s risk typically does not cover is where most contractor surprises originate at claim time. Contractor-owned tools and mobile equipment used on the job are almost universally excluded from builder’s risk policies. Those require separate inland marine or contractor’s equipment coverage. Design errors and faulty workmanship are excluded — builder’s risk covers the resulting damage to other parts of the structure in some policy forms, but not the cost of correcting the error itself. Earthquake and flood are standard exclusions in most markets, requiring separate endorsements or standalone policies. The collapse of an existing adjacent structure is frequently excluded unless the collapse is caused by a covered peril affecting the project itself.

The Three Coverage Elements Most Contractors Overlook

Ordinance or law coverage: When a partially completed or damaged structure must be brought into compliance with building codes in effect at the time of repair or reconstruction, the cost of that compliance is often not covered under a standard builder’s risk form. A contractor rebuilding a structure after a fire may be required to upgrade electrical systems, install sprinkler systems, or modify structural elements to meet current codes — at costs that can represent 10 to 25% of the rebuild value. Ordinance or law coverage, added by endorsement, addresses this gap. Without it, the compliance cost falls to the project owner or the contractor, depending on the contract.

Soft costs coverage: A covered loss that interrupts construction generates costs beyond the physical damage: extended financing costs, additional architectural and engineering fees, permit re-application costs, and the carrying costs of a project that is not generating revenue while repairs are completed. These soft costs are not covered under a standard builder’s risk form. They are covered by a soft costs or delay in completion endorsement, which should be sized based on a realistic estimate of what a project interruption would actually cost the insured beyond the physical rebuild.

Completed value versus limit adequacy: Builder’s risk policies are typically written on a completed value basis — the insured limit should represent the total completed value of the project at the time of substantial completion, not the value at the time coverage is bound. For projects where materials costs have escalated significantly during construction, the completed value may materially exceed the original contract amount. Reviewing the covered limit against current project cost projections mid-construction — not just at policy inception — is the discipline that prevents a mid-project underinsurance gap from becoming a claim-time shortfall.

What Lenders Are Now Requiring

The underinsurance risk in the current market has not gone unnoticed by construction lenders. Lenders are now routinely requiring proof of adequate builder’s risk coverage as a condition of funding draws, and the definition of adequate has tightened to reflect current replacement costs rather than original contract amounts. A contractor whose builder’s risk limit was set at contract execution two years ago may be facing a draw funding delay if the lender’s current appraisal of replacement cost exceeds the covered limit.

Addressing this proactively — reviewing builder’s risk limits against current cost estimates before the draw request, rather than at the lender’s request — avoids the project disruption that a mid-construction coverage dispute creates.

Tooher-Ferraris helps contractors structure builder’s risk coverage around current project values, address common gaps with the right endorsements and coordinate protection with their broader commercial insurance program. Explore our specialty programs to learn more.

The Insurance Information Institute provides current builder’s risk market data and coverage guidance at iii.org. OSHA’s construction site safety resources, which affect claims frequency and loss control credit opportunities, are available at osha.gov.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does builder’s risk insurance cover?

Builder’s risk insurance covers physical loss or damage to a structure under construction, including materials intended to become part of that structure, from covered perils such as fire, windstorm, theft, and vandalism. It typically covers materials in transit to the site and in temporary off-site storage. It does not cover contractor-owned tools and equipment, design errors, faulty workmanship, or losses from earthquake and flood without specific endorsements.

Why do builder’s risk rates decrease while I should still review my limits?

Rate and limit are separate questions. A rate decrease means you are paying less per dollar of coverage. Limit adequacy is about whether your covered amount reflects what a complete rebuild would actually cost. If project values have increased due to materials inflation while your limit has not been updated, the rate decrease is reducing your premium on an underinsured limit — which produces a savings on paper and a shortfall at claim time.

What is soft costs coverage and do I need it?

Soft costs coverage, added by endorsement, covers the additional expenses a project owner or contractor incurs when a covered builder’s risk loss interrupts construction — extended financing costs, additional design fees, permit re-application costs, and carrying costs during the repair period. Whether you need it depends on your contract structure and who bears the risk of these costs in the event of a project interruption. For larger projects with significant financing, soft costs coverage is almost always worth evaluating.

Ready to review your builder’s risk program against current project values? The team at Tooher-Ferraris has been helping contractors structure complete construction insurance programs since 1932. Contact us today to schedule a no-obligation consultation.

Learn More
  • Personal Lines

Surging Digital and Cyber Exposures — Why Personal Insurance Programs Have Not Kept Up

Personal insurance programs were designed in an era when household risk was primarily physical: fire, theft, weather, liability for bodily injury and property damage. The products that exist today — homeowners, auto, umbrella, scheduled personal property — are refinements of coverage structures that have existed for decades. The digital economy has created an entirely new category of household risk in a fraction of that time, and personal insurance programs have not kept pace.

The gap between digital exposure and insurance coverage is widening in 2026. S&P Global Ratings projects personal cyber insurance premiums to reach $23 billion by 2026 — a market that barely existed a decade ago. The growth reflects the expanding scope of what households have to lose digitally and how little of it standard policies address. Here are six digital and cyber exposures that most personal insurance programs are not covering and why each one deserves explicit evaluation.

1. Cryptocurrency and Digital Asset Losses

Cryptocurrency holdings represent a significant store of value for a growing number of households, and standard homeowners policies were not designed to cover them. The classification of cryptocurrency as property, currency, or something else varies by jurisdiction and insurer. Most homeowners policies that cover theft of personal property were written before cryptocurrency existed and do not address losses from wallet compromise, exchange insolvency, or private key theft. Specialized digital asset coverage, offered by a small number of carriers and through dedicated digital asset custody programs, addresses this gap — but it requires explicit evaluation and placement, not an assumption that existing coverage extends to digital assets.

2. Social Engineering and Authorized Wire Transfer Fraud

Standard homeowners policies typically cover theft — the unauthorized taking of property. Social engineering fraud involves a victim being deceived into voluntarily authorizing a transfer. The distinction is legally significant: when a homeowner is tricked by a deepfake voice call into authorizing a $200,000 wire transfer, the loss may not qualify as theft under a standard homeowners policy because the transfer was authorized. Personal cyber policies that include social engineering fraud coverage address this gap explicitly. The coverage limit, the deductible, and the specific definition of a covered social engineering event are all material coverage terms that vary across policies.

3. Ransomware and Extortion Targeting Household Systems

Ransomware attacks against households — encrypting home computer systems, threatening to release personal data, or locking smart home infrastructure — represent a growing category of personal cyber loss. Standard homeowners policies do not cover the ransom payment, the cost of professional incident response, or the data recovery costs associated with a ransomware attack. Personal cyber policies provide first-party coverage for these costs, including ransom payments (subject to legal restrictions), forensic investigation, data recovery, and crisis management services. The coverage is meaningfully different from standard homeowners identity theft coverage, which is typically limited to restoration costs rather than direct financial losses from extortion.

4. Online Account Takeover and Identity Restoration

Account takeover — the unauthorized access to financial, social media, email, or other online accounts — produces both direct financial losses and significant administrative costs of remediation. Freezing credit, disputing unauthorized transactions, notifying affected parties, restoring account access, and monitoring for subsequent misuse of compromised information requires time, professional assistance in complex cases, and sometimes legal support when identity theft has been used to commit fraud in the victim’s name. Standard homeowners identity theft coverage provides modest limits — commonly $10,000 to $25,000 — that are adequate for simple identity theft cases and inadequate for complex account takeover scenarios involving multiple financial accounts, business accounts, or sustained identity misuse.

5. Cyberbullying, Online Harassment, and Reputational Harm

Online harassment targeting household members — particularly younger family members — has emerged as a distinct personal cyber coverage category. Cyberbullying response coverage typically provides access to crisis counselors, reputation management services, and in severe cases, legal support for pursuing remedies against identified harassers. This coverage has no analog in standard homeowners or umbrella policies, which are designed around physical tort liability rather than digital harm. The coverage is not primarily financial — it is access to professional resources during a situation that most families are not equipped to navigate independently.

6. Smart Home and IoT Device Failure or Compromise

The connected home represents a coverage gray area that most policies have not addressed explicitly. When a smart home security system fails during a burglary because the internet connection was disrupted, the resulting theft claim falls under the homeowners policy — but questions about whether the technology failure constitutes a covered cause of loss or a maintenance exclusion can complicate the claim. When a smart home system is intentionally compromised and used to facilitate a burglary, the cyber and property components of the loss interact in ways that standard policies were not designed to coordinate. Explicit coverage for smart home system compromise, included in some personal cyber policies, addresses this coordination gap.

Tooher-Ferraris helps individuals and families evaluate their complete digital exposure and structure personal cyber coverage that addresses the specific risks most relevant to their household. Learn more at https://toofer.com/additional-personal-insurance-coverages/ and https://toofer.com/private-client-group/.

The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center publishes annual data on cybercrime losses and attack types at ic3.gov. The Identity Theft Resource Center provides detailed analysis of identity theft and data breach trends at idtheftcenter.org.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does homeowners insurance cover cryptocurrency theft?

Most standard homeowners policies do not explicitly address cryptocurrency. The coverage outcome depends on how the insurer classifies cryptocurrency under the policy’s personal property definitions, the cause of loss (theft versus market loss), and whether the specific policy form has been updated to address digital assets. Specialized digital asset coverage, available from a limited number of carriers, provides explicit protection for cryptocurrency and other digital assets against covered causes of loss including theft and compromise.

What is the difference between identity theft coverage and personal cyber insurance?

Identity theft coverage, commonly included in homeowners policies or offered as an endorsement, typically covers the administrative costs of restoring your identity after it has been stolen — credit bureau notifications, legal assistance, lost wages, and similar remediation costs. Personal cyber insurance is broader: it covers direct financial losses from social engineering fraud, ransom payments in extortion events, data recovery costs, crisis management services, and in some policies, cyberbullying response. The two coverages address different aspects of digital risk and in many cases both are worth carrying.

How much personal cyber coverage does a household need?

The appropriate limit depends on the household’s digital exposure profile: the value of digital assets held, the volume and value of financial transactions conducted electronically, the complexity of online account relationships, and the household’s tolerance for the administrative burden of managing a significant cyber incident without professional support. Households with significant cryptocurrency holdings, active online financial management, or multiple family members with active digital lives typically warrant higher limits than those with minimal digital footprints.

Ready to evaluate the digital exposure gaps in your personal insurance program? The team at Tooher-Ferraris has been helping families protect their financial security since 1932. Contact us today to schedule a no-obligation consultation — https://toofer.com/contact-us/

Learn More
  • Personal Lines

Why High-Net-Worth Households Are Lowering Risk Appetite and Raising Retained Risk

The conventional wisdom about personal insurance for high-net-worth households says: the more assets you have, the more coverage you need, and the lower your deductibles should be. In 2026, the most sophisticated private clients are doing something more nuanced — and more financially rational. They are intentionally accepting higher retentions on predictable, manageable losses while concentrating premium and coverage capacity on the catastrophic, low-frequency risks that could actually threaten their financial security. This is not cost-cutting. It is risk architecture, and there is a meaningful difference.

The distinction matters because the personal insurance market in 2026 is pricing predictable, high-frequency risk more aggressively than it has in years. Homeowners rates are still elevated in most markets. Auto profitability has been restored after years of shock increases, but repair costs remain high. Umbrella capacity for limits above $10 million has become harder to secure. In this environment, households that insure every foreseeable loss through first-dollar coverage are paying the most for risk that they could absorb without meaningful financial consequence, while potentially underinvesting in coverage for the tail risks that actually warrant protection.

The Economic Logic of Retained Risk for High-Net-Worth Households

Insurance is priced to cover not just the expected value of losses but the insurer’s cost of capital, administrative expenses, and profit margin. For high-frequency, low-severity losses — a minor water damage claim, a small theft, a glass breakage — the insurance premium over time will typically exceed the losses themselves, because the insurer must price in those additional costs above the expected loss. A household with the financial capacity to absorb these losses without meaningful impact to its financial position is paying for risk transfer that does not generate a net financial benefit.

The math changes for catastrophic losses. A total fire loss of a primary residence, a catastrophic liability judgment, a cyber event that results in significant fraudulent wire transfers, or a disability that eliminates a primary income source — these are losses that high-income households cannot absorb without meaningful financial consequence, regardless of the size of the estate. The insurance premium for catastrophic tail coverage is small relative to the exposure it transfers. The value of coverage is highest precisely where the loss would be most devastating.

Deliberately accepting higher retentions on the predictable losses — through higher deductibles on homeowners, auto, and other property coverages — frees premium capacity to strengthen the catastrophic coverage structures that matter most. Higher umbrella limits, broader personal cyber coverage, extended replacement cost on the primary residence, and comprehensive fine arts and valuables coverage are all more impactful uses of insurance premium than first-dollar coverage on routine property claims.

What Intentional Risk Retention Actually Looks Like

A risk retention strategy is not simply choosing the highest available deductible on each policy. It is a deliberate analysis of which loss categories the household can absorb versus which loss categories require insurance transfer — and then building the coverage program around that analysis rather than around standard market forms.

For homeowners coverage, intentional retention typically means accepting a higher dwelling deductible — $5,000, $10,000, or higher — in exchange for ensuring that the coverage limit reflects true replacement cost, that ordinance-or-law coverage is included, and that extended replacement cost endorsements provide adequate buffer above the stated limit. The household accepts the cost of routine claims to ensure the policy performs on the losses that would be financially significant.

For auto coverage, retention typically means accepting higher collision and comprehensive deductibles on vehicles whose repair costs the household can absorb, while ensuring that liability limits — both primary auto and umbrella — reflect the current nuclear verdict environment. A household that accepts a $5,000 collision deductible on a vehicle it could repair out of pocket is not underinsured. A household with a $1 million personal liability umbrella in a market where serious injury verdicts routinely exceed that amount is.

For liability coverage, intentional retention means exactly the opposite: reducing retentions and increasing limits. Umbrella liability is where high-net-worth households are most systematically underinsured relative to their actual exposure, and the premium cost of additional umbrella limits is low relative to the protection they provide.

Why the Private Client Market Is Responding to This Shift

The private client insurance market — the carriers and programs specifically designed for high-net-worth households — has responded to this strategic shift with product structures that were not available in the standard market a decade ago. Agreed-value coverage on high-value properties eliminates the replacement cost dispute that standard policies invite. High-deductible structures with meaningful premium credits allow households to calibrate retention levels precisely. Blanket personal property coverage with higher limits and broader perils addresses the complexity of insuring significant personal property across multiple residences.

The common thread across these products is that they are designed around the household’s actual risk profile rather than around standard actuarial assumptions about median household behavior. The household that owns a primary residence, a vacation property, several vehicles, significant fine arts and jewelry, and maintains investment assets and business interests has a risk profile that standard personal lines products address only partially. Tooher-Ferraris works with private clients to evaluate risk retention capacity, identify where coverage concentration provides the most value, and build programs that reflect the household’s actual financial position and risk preferences. Learn more at https://toofer.com/private-client-group/ and https://toofer.com/additional-personal-insurance-coverages/.

The Insurance Information Institute publishes data on personal lines pricing trends and coverage structures at iii.org. RIMS, the risk management society, provides resources on risk retention strategies and self-insurance at rims.org.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does retained risk mean in a personal insurance context?

Retained risk refers to the portion of potential loss that a household accepts financially rather than transferring to an insurance carrier through premium payment. Higher deductibles, self-insuring predictable small losses, and establishing cash reserves to cover expected minor claims are all forms of risk retention. The economic rationale is that insurance carriers price in their cost of capital and administrative expenses above the expected loss value, making self-retention financially advantageous for losses the household can absorb without material financial impact.

How do I know how much risk I can retain?

The starting point is identifying the loss amounts at which a claim would represent a meaningful financial disruption versus a manageable expense. For most high-net-worth households, routine property claims of $5,000 to $25,000 fall below the meaningful-disruption threshold. Claims above $100,000 — particularly liability claims, major property losses, or cyber events — represent the territory where insurance transfer is most valuable. A personal lines advisor can model retention scenarios against premium savings to identify the deductible levels at which the risk-return tradeoff is most favorable.

Does accepting higher deductibles reduce coverage quality?

Accepting higher deductibles on property coverages reduces first-dollar coverage for predictable losses but does not reduce the quality or breadth of coverage for significant losses above the deductible. The key is ensuring that the coverage above the deductible is comprehensive, adequate, and structured correctly — not simply that the deductible is low. A policy with a $10,000 deductible and a properly structured replacement cost limit provides better protection for catastrophic losses than a policy with a $500 deductible and an inadequate or poorly structured limit.

Ready to evaluate your personal insurance program through the lens of intentional risk retention? The team at Tooher-Ferraris has been helping private clients build more effective personal insurance programs since 1932. Contact us today to schedule a no-obligation consultation — https://toofer.com/contact-us/

Learn More
Scroll to Top

By Appointment Only

Naples Office

By Appointment Only

New York Office

New York Office

New York Office

Connecticut Office

Facebook-f Linkedin-in X-twitter Instagram
Get A Quote
Skip to content