Which phrases may void an architect's professional liability insurance if found in an owner's contract?

• A. at the owner's request
• B. to be determined
• C. as required, as necessary, hold harmless, and indemnification
• D. for informational purposes only

Answer: (C)

The risk here comes from how contract language can transfer liability beyond what the architect’s professional liability policy is designed to cover. Professional liability insurance typically protects against claims arising from the architect’s professional services—errors, omissions, and negligence in design and related services. When a contract includes indemnification and hold harmless language, it can obligate the architect to defend and compensate the owner for losses caused by factors outside the architect’s professional scope (such as owner-owned risks, contractor actions, or issues unrelated to the design).

Phrases that require indemnification or a hold harmless duty, especially when paired with broad qualifiers like “as required” or “as necessary,” push the architect to assume liability for a wide range of risks, not just those tied to professional services. That broad, all-encompassing risk transfer can create coverage gaps or even trigger a denial of coverage because the claim may fall outside what the policy covers. In other words, these clauses can undermine the protection the policy is meant to provide.

By contrast, language that is neutral or informational, or that confines obligations to the architect’s professional responsibilities, tends to stay within the policy’s intended scope and is less likely to void or compromise coverage. The phrase “for informational purposes only” doesn’t create a liability obligation, so it’s not a driver of coverage loss in the same way.

In practice, you’d want indemnification and hold-harmless provisions to be carefully scoped—limiting them to the extent of the architect’s professional services and providing protections for the architect when the owner or others are at fault.