PlumBot: Bot: Creating new article from JSON

2026-03-14T16:03:49Z

Bot: Creating new article from JSON

New page

📉 '''Eroding limit''' is a [[Definition:Policy limit | policy limit]] structure in which [[Definition:Defense costs | defense costs]], legal expenses, or other allocated [[Definition:Loss adjustment expense (LAE) | loss adjustment expenses]] reduce the total amount of coverage available to pay [[Definition:Claim | claims]]. Sometimes called a "burning" or "wasting" limit, this arrangement means that every dollar spent on investigation, litigation, or defense eats into the same aggregate cap that would otherwise be available to satisfy a judgment or settlement. Eroding limits are most commonly found in [[Definition:Professional liability insurance | professional liability]], [[Definition:Directors and officers (D&O) insurance | directors and officers (D&O)]], [[Definition:Errors and omissions (E&O) insurance | errors and omissions (E&O)]], and [[Definition:Cyber insurance | cyber insurance]] policies.

⚙️ Under an eroding-limit structure, the insurer establishes a single [[Definition:Aggregate limit | aggregate limit]] — say, $5 million — that covers both indemnity payments and defense costs combined. As defense counsel bills accumulate, they are deducted from that $5 million cap. In a complex litigation scenario where defense costs reach $2 million before a settlement is even discussed, only $3 million remains for the actual indemnity payment. This contrasts sharply with policies that provide defense costs "in addition to" the limit, where the full limit stays intact regardless of how much is spent on legal fees. Whether a policy uses an eroding or non-eroding structure significantly affects pricing: eroding-limit policies carry lower [[Definition:Premium | premiums]] because the insurer's maximum exposure is capped at the stated limit, whereas non-eroding structures expose the insurer to defense costs on top of the full indemnity amount.

🔍 Understanding whether a limit erodes is one of the most consequential details a [[Definition:Risk manager | risk manager]] or [[Definition:Insurance broker | broker]] can evaluate when placing coverage. In claims-intensive lines like D&O or [[Definition:Employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) | employment practices liability]], defense costs can consume a surprisingly large share of the policy limit, leaving the insured with far less protection than the headline number suggests. Sophisticated buyers often address this risk by purchasing higher limits, adding [[Definition:Excess insurance | excess layers]], or negotiating for non-eroding defense cost provisions — though the latter option is not available in all markets or for all product lines. In the [[Definition:London market | London market]] and across major [[Definition:Specialty insurance | specialty insurance]] hubs in Bermuda, Singapore, and the United States, the eroding-versus-non-eroding distinction is a standard point of negotiation in [[Definition:Placement | placement]] discussions and a key variable in [[Definition:Coverage comparison | coverage benchmarking]].

'''Related concepts:'''
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Definition:Policy limit]]
* [[Definition:Defense costs]]
* [[Definition:Aggregate limit]]
* [[Definition:Directors and officers (D&O) insurance]]
* [[Definition:Excess insurance]]
* [[Definition:Loss adjustment expense (LAE)]]
{{Div col end}}

Definition:Eroding limit - Revision history

PlumBot: Bot: Creating new article from JSON