Business

E&O vs. general liability: which mistake is which policy’s problem.

Both are called liability insurance. Both show up in client contracts. They answer different questions. General liability asks: did your operations hurt a person or damage their property? E&O — professional liability — asks: did your work or advice cost someone money? Sorting your own worst-case scenario into the right bucket is most of the buying decision, and it’s the sort most businesses get wrong at least once.

General liability, in one sentence

GL responds to bodily injury and property damage to third parties arising from your premises, operations, and products: the client who trips over a cable in your office, the ladder through the customer’s window, the product that hurt someone. Bodies and stuff — not spreadsheets. It usually arrives bundled inside a BOP for eligible small businesses.

E&O, in one sentence

E&O responds to financial harm from your professional work or advice when nobody was hurt and nothing was physically damaged: the missed filing deadline, the bad spec, the misconfigured system that scrambled a client’s quarter. (Where the mistake is a security or data incident, E&O and cyber start to overlap — which one leads depends on the forms.)

The classic confusions

  • A consultant ships a defective deliverable and the client loses money — that’s E&O, not GL. No injury, no property damage, no GL trigger — a surprise to many consultants who own only a GL policy because a landlord once required one.
  • A client trips over your laptop bag during an on-site meeting — that’s GL, not E&O. The quality of your advice is irrelevant to their broken wrist.
  • A contract demands "professional liability" and you send your GL certificate — the requirement isn’t satisfied. Contracts name the two policies separately because they respond to separate failures; additional-insured status, when requested, typically rides on the GL side.

Faulty workmanship: often neither

The honest paragraph contractors deserve to read: when your own work turns out defective, GL commonly does not pay to redo or replace the work itself — "your work" and "your product" exclusions exist precisely to keep the policy from becoming a performance bond. What GL can respond to is resulting harm: the defective pipe fitting that floods the finished kitchen, the failed railing that injures someone. Tearing out and redoing the botched tile is, in most forms’ eyes, a business expense. Specialized professional forms exist for the design side of construction, but the redo cost itself is generally nobody’s policy — a fact better priced into the bid than discovered in the dispute.

Claims-made vs. occurrence, in plain English

GL is typically written on an occurrence basis: the policy in force when the injury happened responds, even if the claim arrives years later. E&O is typically claims-made: the policy in force when the claim is made responds — and only for work performed after the policy’s retroactive date. Three practical consequences: keep the retro date intact when the policy is re-marketed; never let claims-made coverage simply lapse, because past work loses its coverage path the day the policy dies; and when closing or retiring, ask about tail coverage (an extended reporting period) so late-arriving claims still have somewhere to land.

General information, reviewed July 2026. Consumer background: the California Department of Insurance’s Commercial Insurance Guide. Every form differs — retroactive dates, exclusions, and definitions control. This page is not insurance or legal advice.

A contract on your desk asking for both? Check my coverage — free