Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Practice Areas
Newsletter
Sign up to our newsletter
INSURANCE HUB
When a professional indemnity claim lands, the pressure is immediate. Policy terms need to be assessed, coverage positions confirmed, and a defence strategy set — often before you have anything close to a complete picture of what actually happened.
Insurers operating in Australia's professional indemnity market face a particular kind of legal challenge. Claims are technically dense, the professionals involved are usually articulate and credentialled, and claimants are increasingly well-represented. Fair Go Australia connects insurers with specialist defence lawyers who understand this landscape from the ground up.
THE ROLE
When a policyholder faces a negligence claim, the insurer typically has both the right and the obligation to manage the legal response under the terms of the policy. Defence lawyers appointed by the insurer take carriage of that response — from initial coverage advice through to litigation if the matter escalates.
Their role is broader than pure advocacy. Skilled defence counsel in this space will:
The insurer’s interests and the policyholder’s interests don’t always run in the same direction. Good defence lawyers understand that tension and manage it without compromising either party’s legitimate position.
SPECIALIST ENGAGEMENT
Not every claim demands the same level of legal engagement. But there are scenarios where specialist involvement is essential from day one:
Claims where exposure is material and the policy limit is genuinely at risk — particularly where multiple professionals or policy layers are involved.
Claims involving several professionals simultaneously — a solicitor, barrister and expert witness all implicated in the same matter, for example.
Matters where the insurer's obligation to indemnify is itself in question — requiring coverage advice that is independent from the conduct of the defence.
Common in financial services and medical practice — where AHPRA or ASIC proceedings run alongside civil claims and require coordinated strategy.
Representative proceedings where individual claims aggregate into exposure that exceeds any single policy limit and demands a coordinated defence response.
Australia’s professional negligence case law is substantial — from Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 to Perre v Apand (1999) 198 CLR 180 — and effective defence requires lawyers who know it and apply it with precision.
CLAIM CATEGORIES
Legal profession
Solicitor negligence claims are among the most frequently litigated professional indemnity matters in Australia. Common allegations include missed limitation periods, inadequate advice on claim prospects, negligent drafting and breach of fiduciary duty. The advocate’s immunity recognised in D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1 has narrowed considerably, making defence work in this space more technically demanding.
Medical and health practitioners
Claims arising from misdiagnosis, surgical error, failure to obtain informed consent and medication errors create dual exposure — civil liability and AHPRA regulatory proceedings. The interaction between those two tracks requires careful strategy and early coordination.
Financial services and advice
Claims against financial planners, advisers and fund managers have grown significantly following the Banking Royal Commission. ASIC regulatory action often runs alongside civil claims, and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) creates specific obligations that inform both the allegation and the defence.
Accountants and auditors
Audit failure claims and tax advice negligence frequently turn on highly technical expert evidence. The loss of a chance doctrine — as analysed in Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638 — regularly features in damages assessments, and defence counsel needs to be across it.
Engineers, architects and construction professionals
Design and construction professionals face claims that layer statutory obligations under the Building Code of Australia on top of common law negligence. The evidential challenges are significant and expert engagement is almost always required early.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Professional indemnity insurers in Australia operate within a layered regulatory and legislative framework that directly affects how claims must be managed.
The Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth) governs rights and obligations between insurer and policyholder, including the duty of utmost good faith under section 13. That duty operates throughout the life of the claim — not just at inception — and constrains how the insurer conducts the defence.
The Civil Liability Acts across each state and territory establish the framework for assessing breach, causation and damages. There are material differences between jurisdictions — particularly around economic loss, proportionate liability and damages caps — that affect how a defence strategy is constructed in each state.
The Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW and VIC) and equivalent state legislation create specific obligations for lawyers and their insurers around supervision, client communication and retainer terms. Where claims touch on financial services conduct, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and ASIC's regulatory framework add a further layer that defence counsel must hold in mind alongside the common law principles at the heart of the claim.
OUR ROLE
Fair Go Australia operates as a specialist legal claims platform with deep connections across Australia’s professional negligence legal community. For insurers seeking to appoint defence counsel in professional indemnity matters, we can:
We understand that insurers need lawyers who are cost-disciplined, strategically clear, and experienced at managing the often-delicate relationship with the policyholder alongside the conduct of the defence itself.
EVALUATING COUNSEL
Not all experienced litigators are suited to professional indemnity defence work. When evaluating defence counsel, these are the criteria that matter most:
Does the lawyer have a genuine, documented track record in professional indemnity, or are they a generalist litigator who handles it occasionally? The difference shows under pressure — in cross-examination, in expert briefing, and in how they assess the real exposure of a claim at first instance.
Professional indemnity claims turn on expert evidence. Does the lawyer have established relationships with appropriately credentialled experts across the relevant professions? The quality and credibility of expert witnesses often determines outcomes.
Claims arise across the country. The managing lawyer needs to be able to respond — and if necessary, brief — across state lines without the insurer having to engage multiple firms for a single matter.
The best outcome for an insurer is not always a full defence verdict. Lawyers who understand settlement strategy and can give hard commercial advice at the right moment are more valuable than those who default to litigation as a first response.
Where a claim has a regulatory dimension — AHPRA, ASIC, the Law Society or another professional body — defence counsel must understand how proceedings in each forum interact, and how to avoid decisions in one that create exposure in the other.
GET IN TOUCH
If you are managing a professional indemnity claim and need to identify defence counsel with the right specialist experience, our team can help. We work across all Australian jurisdictions and all professional categories covered by professional indemnity policies.
Enquiries are handled confidentially and without obligation.
FAQS
Coverage advice concerns whether the insurer is obliged to respond to a claim under the terms of the policy at all. Defence representation concerns the conduct of the actual legal proceedings once coverage is confirmed. In complex matters these roles are handled by different lawyers — keeping coverage and defence advice independent to avoid conflicts of interest within the insurer’s own legal team.
In most professional indemnity policies, the insurer holds the right to nominate or approve defence counsel and to manage the conduct of the claim. That right is subject to the insurer’s duty of good faith under the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (Cth). The policyholder’s legitimate interests — including their professional reputation — must be properly considered in how the defence is conducted and any settlement decisions are made.
This is one of the most sensitive issues in professional indemnity defence. If the insurer’s preferred settlement position conflicts with the policyholder’s wish to have the matter fully defended, specialist advice is needed immediately. In some circumstances, the policyholder may be entitled to independent legal representation at the insurer’s cost. This tension must be identified and addressed early — not managed reactively once litigation is underway.
Proportionate liability legislation — enacted across all Australian states and territories — allows a court to apportion liability between multiple defendants who each contributed to the same loss. For insurers defending professional indemnity claims, this can reduce the net exposure of any single professional. It also requires careful coordination of claims against other parties and, in some cases, strategic decisions about whether to join other potential defendants.
Our goal is to help people in the best way possible. this is a basic principle in every case and cause for success. contact us today for a free consultation.
Sign up to our newsletter