In the healthcare sector, it’s common for Employers’ Liability (EL) and Public Liability (PL) to be placed on a separate “office” or “surgery” package policy. At first glance, that might seem sensible as quite often the premiums look more cost-effective than including them within a medical malpractice policy.

The reality, however, is that in healthcare settings, the line between malpractice and liability exposures is far less clear-cut than in most industries. And that can create real problems for clinics, practices, and healthcare businesses if their EL and PL are not written into their medical malpractice cover.

Here’s why.

1. The Crossover of Exposures

• A patient trips in the waiting room. If this is simply a slip on a wet floor, it looks like a straightforward PL claim.
• But if the patient was unsteady because they had just undergone a procedure or were left unattended after sedation, that exposure overlaps with malpractice.
• Similarly, if an employee suffers a needlestick injury, it might look like an EL matter — but because it arose directly from delivering treatment, it carries malpractice implications too.

When policies are split, these “grey areas” open the door for disputes between insurers — and delays in claims being settled.

2. Eliminating Coverage Gaps

When EL, PL, and malpractice are insured separately, each insurer can argue the claim belongs with the other. That means:

• Delays in settlement
• Uninsured losses where neither policy responds fully
• Additional legal costs for the practice

With everything under one malpractice policy, there’s no ambiguity. One insurer, one policy, one response.

3. Consistency in Defence

A malpractice insurer will use solicitors and claims handlers who specialise in medical negligence and healthcare liability. By contrast, a standard office package policy is designed for slips and trips, not complex clinical matters.

A single malpractice policy ensures joined-up defence strategies, avoiding a scenario where two sets of lawyers (and two insurers) work at cross-purposes.

4. Meeting Regulatory & Contractual Requirements

Healthcare regulators, NHS contracts, and private sector agreements increasingly look for seamless cover with no gaps. Being able to demonstrate that EL, PL, and malpractice sit together under one Lloyd’s-backed policy reassures regulators, landlords, and contracting partners that your business is fully protected.

5. One Incident, One Insurer

Imagine this:

• A nurse employed by your clinic suffers a needlestick injury (an EL claim).
• Distracted, they then mis-dose a patient, causing harm (a malpractice claim).

If you have separate policies, you now have two insurers, two claims processes, and likely two arguments about who pays what.

If it’s all under your malpractice policy? One insurer, one claims handler, one seamless resolution.

Final Thought

Whilst arranging employers liability in public liability in simple office and surgery packages may seem like the most cost-effective solution, it is also important to understand the repercussions.

Placing medical practice policies is our specialty and this is always a sticking subject for many of our clients. As brokers our duty is to make sure that our clients receive the most cost-effective premiums but we must also make sure that we are confident in the way that the policy will trigger. If you'd like to learn more, please get in contact.