Nobody was hurt. Nothing was struck. The client says the work was wrong.

General liability answers bodily injury and property damage. A claim that the work was specified, sized or advised incorrectly involves neither, which is why it falls outside the policy entirely rather than being reduced or sublimited. That is a gap, not a haircut.

The line between installing and advising

The useful test is not your trade, it is your role on the job. A contractor building strictly to someone else's drawings, offering no input, carries mostly general liability exposure. That is a legitimate reason not to buy this coverage.

The line is crossed quietly. Recommending a system. Sizing a unit. Value-engineering a detail to save the client money. Telling an owner what will work. None of that requires a design fee or a stamp, and all of it invites reliance. Once a client can say "you told me this would work," the complaint is professional even if your invoice said installation.

Design-build, the clearest case

Under design-build you own both the design and the construction. A design failure is therefore yours, not an architect's, and general liability does not cover design error.

That leaves a design-build contractor without professional coverage carrying an uninsured gap over a core contractual obligation. It is one of the few situations where the need is structural rather than a matter of appetite.

Claims-made, and why the date matters

Errors and omissions is almost always written claims-made. The policy must be in force when the claim is made, not when the work was performed. Construction complaints surface slowly, so that distinction has teeth.

Two things follow. The retroactive date determines how far back your coverage reaches, and a gap in continuity can strip protection from years of completed projects at once. If you change carriers or wind down, tail coverage is what preserves the history. This is the line where letting a policy lapse for a few months does lasting damage.

Guarantees are not the same as negligence

Worth being direct about a trap. The coverage generally responds to negligent professional error measured against a standard of care. It does not exist to make good on a promise you chose to give.

A contractor who guarantees a specific performance number has arguably created a contractual warranty rather than a professional standard, and express warranties are commonly excluded. What you write into a proposal can move a future claim outside the policy, which makes proposal language an insurance decision as much as a sales one.

What contracts are starting to require

Design-build, public, and institutional contracts increasingly name professional liability outright. More subtly, many contracts contain a standard-of-care clause without naming any insurance at all.

That clause is a professional obligation, and general liability does not answer it. Signing a standard-of-care commitment while carrying only general liability is a mismatch worth catching at review rather than at claim.

Questions worth asking before you sign

Ask whether any part of your work involves recommending, sizing, specifying, or advising. Ask what your retroactive date is and whether your history is continuous. Ask whether the contract contains a standard-of-care clause. Ask how express warranties and performance guarantees are treated. If you do design-build and carry only general liability, that is the gap to close first.