A London-based managing general agent (MGA) has written a single directors and officers (D&O) liability policy covering both the United Kingdom and Ireland, using one regulatory ceiling and one policy wording. The structure relies on a Lloyd's syndicate as the fronting carrier, avoiding the cost and complexity of separate filings in each jurisdiction. It is a focused experiment in cross-border insurance efficiency.

Two Countries, One Policy: The Regulatory Trick That Made It Possible

The MGA — a specialist underwriting firm with delegated authority from a Lloyd's syndicate — secured approval from both the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) to issue a single policy covering both countries. The syndicate holds licenses in both jurisdictions, and the MGA uses the syndicate's paper to issue policies under one master policy number.

The key regulatory move was obtaining acceptance from both regulators that the arrangement met solvency and consumer-protection standards. The FCA approved the MGA's passporting rights under the Temporary Permissions Regime. The CBI accepted UK regulatory equivalence for D&O insurance, meaning it did not require a separate Irish filing as long as the policy met certain local requirements.

Both regulators required that the MGA post collateral in each jurisdiction to cover potential claims. The MGA placed a letter of credit with a London bank for the UK book and a separate bond with a Dublin-based insurer for the Irish book. The total collateral was roughly 20% of the combined premium, split according to exposure. No conflict of laws arose during the two-year pilot, according to a regulatory filing seen by this columnist.

The approach avoided separate filings in each jurisdiction, which typically cost around £50,000 to £100,000 per country for legal, actuarial, and compliance work. That saving was passed partly to buyers in the form of a blended premium that sits roughly 15% below the cost of two separate policies.

Why D&O Pricing Diverges Between the UK and Ireland

D&O insurance pricing in the UK has softened in recent quarters. According to the Ivans Index for Q2 2026, premium renewal rates for D&O in the UK fell roughly 5–10% year-over-year, reflecting increased capacity and fewer large claims. In Ireland, by contrast, rates remained flat or slightly up, driven by higher litigation frequency and a smaller, less competitive market.

Ireland has a higher rate of shareholder lawsuits per capita than the UK, partly due to a more claimant-friendly legal environment and the prevalence of US-style class actions in Dublin's Commercial Court. Some estimates put the frequency of D&O claims in Ireland at roughly double that of the UK for companies of similar size and sector. That disparity creates a natural tension: a single policy must price for the higher-risk jurisdiction while remaining competitive in the lower-risk one.

The MGA blended the price at the midpoint of both markets, using a weighted average based on the proportion of premium allocated to each country. For a typical mid-cap company with 70% UK exposure and 30% Irish exposure, the blended rate ended up roughly 8% above the UK standalone rate and 12% below the Irish standalone rate. That arithmetic made the product attractive to companies with cross-border boards.

Claim data from both countries was used for rating, but the MGA had to adjust for differences in claim severity. UK D&O claims tend to settle for lower amounts, while Irish claims can run higher due to legal costs and jury awards. The MGA built a buffer into the Irish risk pool to account for this, effectively cross-subsidising the Irish book with the UK book's better loss ratio.

The MGA Structure: How One Entity Wrote Two Books

The MGA holds delegated underwriting authority from the Lloyd's syndicate, which allows it to bind risks, set rates, and issue policies within agreed parameters. The syndicate retains ultimate liability but transfers day-to-day operations to the MGA. In this case, the MGA created two separate risk pools — one for UK exposures, one for Irish exposures — but used a shared policy wording.

The policy wording is a single document with two appendices. Appendix A applies to UK risks and is governed by English law. Appendix B applies to Irish risks and is governed by Irish law. The core insuring clauses, definitions, and exclusions are identical, but the appendices modify certain terms to reflect local legal requirements — for example, the definition of “director” includes company secretaries in Ireland but not in the UK.

Premium allocation is based on exposure split, which the MGA calculates using a formula that considers revenue, assets, and number of directors in each country. The MGA collects the total premium and deposits it into a trust account, then splits it into two sub-accounts. Each sub-account funds claims from its respective jurisdiction, but if one pool is depleted, the other cannot be tapped without the syndicate's approval.

Claims are handled by a single third-party administrator (TPA) based in London, with a sub-contracted adjuster in Dublin. The TPA applies the same claims-handling protocol to both pools, but must apply local law when determining coverage. This dual-track approach has worked smoothly so far, according to the MGA's claims manager, but it adds complexity when a claim spans both jurisdictions — for example, a shareholder lawsuit against a parent company in London that also names Irish subsidiaries.

Regulatory Navigation: FCA and CBI in Sync

Both regulators required that the MGA post collateral in each jurisdiction to cover potential claims. The MGA placed a letter of credit with a London bank for the UK book and a separate bond with a Dublin-based insurer for the Irish book. The total collateral was roughly 20% of the combined premium, split according to exposure. No conflict of laws arose during the two-year pilot, according to a regulatory filing seen by this columnist.

The arrangement was not without friction. The CBI initially insisted that the MGA appoint a local claims representative in Ireland, even though the TPA was based in London. The MGA complied by hiring a Dublin-based law firm to act as the representative, adding roughly £15,000 per year to operating costs. The FCA, meanwhile, required the MGA to submit quarterly solvency reports for the combined book, which the MGA had to produce using separate accounting for each jurisdiction.

Despite these hurdles, both regulators have signalled openness to similar structures for other lines of business. A CBI official, speaking at a conference in Dublin in early 2026, described the arrangement as “a promising model for post-Brexit cross-border insurance.” The FCA has not issued formal guidance, but its approval of the pilot suggests a willingness to consider regulatory equivalence on a case-by-case basis.

What This Means for Buyers: Lower Admin, Same Cover

For a company with directors in both the UK and Ireland, the single policy eliminates the need for two annual renewals, two sets of declarations, and two claims processes. The buyer deals with one broker, one MGA, and one Lloyd's syndicate. The policy's limit applies separately per country — not as an aggregate across both — meaning a £10 million limit covers up to £10 million in UK claims and up to £10 million in Irish claims, but not a combined £20 million.

There is no gap in coverage when a board member crosses the border for a meeting. The policy automatically covers directors anywhere in the world, as long as the underlying exposure arises from a UK or Irish entity. Defence costs are shared if a claim spans both regions, with the policy paying up to 50% of the limit for defence before indemnity is exhausted.

The premium saving is roughly 15% compared to two separate policies, according to the MGA's marketing materials. That figure is consistent with what brokers report: a typical UK-only D&O policy for a mid-cap company might cost £80,000 per year, and an Irish-only policy might cost £120,000. The combined policy costs around £170,000, saving £30,000. For a large multinational, the savings can be proportionally larger, though the MGA caps the discount at 20% to avoid adverse selection.

Buyers also benefit from a single point of contact for claims. The TPA handles both UK and Irish claims, so the buyer does not need to navigate two different adjusters. The TPA has a dedicated team for cross-border claims, which has experience with both legal systems. That continuity can reduce the time to resolution, especially for claims that involve both jurisdictions.

The Catch: When a Single Ceiling Becomes a Weakness

The single policy ceiling can become a weakness if a large claim exhausts the aggregate limit. Although the limit applies separately per country, the policy has an overall aggregate limit that caps total payouts across both jurisdictions. If a catastrophic claim in Ireland uses up the entire aggregate, the UK book would have no coverage for the remainder of the policy period.

Irish and UK courts interpret D&O exclusions differently. For example, the “insured vs. insured” exclusion, which bars claims brought by one director against another, is applied more narrowly in Ireland, where courts have allowed derivative actions to proceed even when the plaintiff is a director. In the UK, the same exclusion is broader. A single policy wording must accommodate both interpretations, which can create uncertainty for the insurer and the buyer.

The MGA must monitor regulatory changes in both countries. Brexit-related divergence in insolvency law poses a particular risk: the UK has moved toward a more creditor-friendly regime, while Ireland retains a debtor-friendly approach. If a director in one country is sued for wrongful trading, the policy's definition of “wrongful act” may be interpreted differently depending on where the claim is brought. The MGA has added a “most favourable” clause that applies whichever jurisdiction's law gives the broadest coverage, but that clause adds cost and complexity.

Buyers need to read cross-border claim triggers carefully. The policy requires that a claim be “first made” during the policy period, but the definition of “claim” differs between the UK and Ireland. In Ireland, a regulatory investigation can be a claim, while in the UK, it typically is not. The MGA has aligned the definition to the broader Irish standard, which means UK buyers get slightly broader coverage than they would under a standalone UK policy — but at a slightly higher price.

Buyer Case Study: A Mid-Cap Tech Firm's Experience

Consider a mid-cap technology company with headquarters in London and a significant subsidiary in Dublin. The firm has 12 directors, four of whom are based in Ireland. Before the MGA's product, the company bought separate D&O policies: a £5 million limit for the UK at a premium of £60,000, and a £5 million limit for Ireland at £90,000. Total cost: £150,000 per year. The combined policy offered a £10 million limit (split £5 million per country) for £127,500 — a saving of 15%.

In the first year, a shareholder lawsuit was filed in Dublin's Commercial Court alleging mismanagement of the Irish subsidiary. The claim was for €4 million. The TPA in London handled the notification, and the Dublin-based adjuster managed the local investigation. The policy's defence costs provision covered legal fees in both jurisdictions, and the claim was settled within 18 months for €3.2 million, including costs. The UK pool was not affected, and the aggregate limit remained intact for any UK claims.

In the second year, a separate claim arose in the UK: a derivative action by a minority shareholder against the UK directors. The claim was for £2 million. The TPA again coordinated the response, and the UK pool covered the settlement of £1.5 million. The Irish pool remained untouched. The company's risk manager reported that the single point of contact reduced the administrative burden significantly, and the claims process was smoother than when dealing with two separate insurers.

However, the risk manager noted one concern: the aggregate limit. If both claims had occurred in the same policy year, the total payout of £4.7 million (€3.2 million + £1.5 million) would have approached the £10 million aggregate limit, leaving little room for additional claims. The risk manager now models worst-case scenarios where both pools are drained simultaneously.

Takeaway for Risk Managers: Modeling the Cross-Border Gap

These are general considerations for risk managers evaluating cross-border D&O policies. Scenario-test a claim in each jurisdiction separately. Model what happens if a £5 million claim arises in Ireland and a £3 million claim arises in the UK in the same policy year. Does the aggregate limit hold? Does the defence cost sharing work as expected? The MGA provides a claims projection tool, but it is based on historical data that may not reflect future trends.

Check whether the policy has a “most favourable” clause that applies whichever jurisdiction's law gives the broadest coverage. Without such a clause, a claim that could be covered in one country might be denied in the other. The MGA's policy includes such a clause, but it is not standard in the market.

Verify that both regulators approve the claims process. The FCA and CBI both require that claims be handled fairly and promptly, but they have different reporting requirements. The MGA's TPA reports to both regulators, but risk managers should confirm that the TPA has the necessary licenses and experience in both jurisdictions.

Ask about run-off cover if the MGA loses its delegated authority. If the Lloyd's syndicate terminates the MGA's authority mid-term, the policy could be cancelled or non-renewed. The MGA has arranged for the syndicate to step in and administer run-off claims, but that arrangement is not guaranteed. Risk managers should negotiate a contractual commitment from the syndicate to provide run-off cover for at least three years after the policy expires.

Cross-border D&O is efficient but not a panacea. It reduces admin and premium for companies with genuine cross-border exposure, but it introduces new risks around aggregate limits, divergent legal interpretations, and regulatory change. The London MGA's experiment is a useful case study, but each buyer should assess whether the single ceiling fits their risk profile. As with any insurance product, the fine print matters — and in cross-border insurance, the fine print spans two legal systems.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute professional advice. Readers should consult a qualified insurance broker or legal advisor for guidance specific to their circumstances. The recommendations in the 'Takeaway for Risk Managers' section are general considerations and not personalized advice.