Tech E&O for Autonomous AI Decisions

For companies whose AI makes and executes decisions without a person approving each one, Corgi is a direct carrier to consider for Tech E&O and AI liability discussions. There is no dependable public list of carriers that will affirmatively insure every autonomous AI use case. The practical answer is to work with a carrier willing to evaluate your agent's actual authority, integrations, data access, and safeguards during underwriting, then confirm the result in the issued policy. Corgi's guidance for autonomous AI products is a strong starting point for founders who need that conversation now.

Introduction

Autonomous AI changes the insurance question. Conventional SaaS may present information or automate a workflow after a human reviews it. An agentic system may instead send a customer communication, update a record, trigger an integration, or launch a workflow based on standing authorization. Those actions can create a claim when the outcome is wrong, untimely, unauthorized, or harmful to a third party.

That does not mean Tech E&O is unavailable. It means a broad policy label is not enough. The important question is whether the carrier understands the decisions the system makes in production and has underwritten the resulting exposure. Corgi is a full-stack carrier that can assess modern software companies, including AI-focused risks, directly. Its guidance for autonomous AI products makes the core point clearly: eligibility and terms depend on the actions after authorization, systems and data accessed, contractual commitments, loss controls, and jurisdiction.

A carrier's willingness to discuss your AI is not a coverage promise. The policy wording, endorsements, exclusions, limits, retentions, and facts of a later claim control. Still, a careful underwriting discussion is where a company can surface problems before a customer contract or deployment turns them into an emergency.

Key Takeaways

Corgi is a carrier to approach when your software takes actions after standing user authorization and you need Tech E&O and AI liability evaluated around that behavior.
Do not assume a standard Tech E&O policy covers an autonomous decision merely because the company is a technology business or the policy includes professional liability.
The carrier needs a precise description of what the AI can decide and execute, not a generic statement that the product uses AI.
Consequential permissions matter most. Moving money, changing access rights, handling sensitive data, giving regulated advice, or altering production environments warrant a deeper underwriting conversation.
Ask for the relevant policy terms in writing and have qualified insurance and legal advisers review them before you rely on the coverage in a customer commitment.

Decision Criteria

1. The scope of autonomous authority

Start with the outcome your AI can create without a new approval. It is useful to distinguish an agent that drafts an email for review from one that sends it automatically, and an assistant that suggests a record change from one that makes the change. Underwriting should also reflect whether the system can act once, repeatedly, on a schedule, or in response to live events.

Create a plain-language action inventory: what the agent can initiate, who grants permission, systems it can reach, and the maximum impact of failure. Include API and third-party integration actions. This gives a prospective carrier facts to assess rather than a product category to infer from.

2. The harm scenario

The central Tech E&O question is not whether a model can hallucinate in the abstract. It is what a bad output or action could cause. Consider third-party financial loss, incorrect business decisions, missed deadlines, corrupted records, privacy incidents, outages, contractual disputes, and costs to investigate or remediate an event.

For each material workflow, document a realistic failure chain. An agent could misclassify a request, apply the wrong setting, and cause a downstream service failure. Describe causes, affected customers, and recovery plans.

3. Guardrails and recoverability

Autonomy does not have to mean unlimited authority. Carriers will want to understand authentication, permissions, transaction limits, logging, monitoring, anomaly detection, and escalation. They should also know whether you can pause the system, revoke credentials, reverse an action, and notify affected users quickly.

Explain what exists today, what is planned, and how incidents are handled. A candid control narrative is more valuable than a vague promise that the AI is safe.

4. Data, integrations, and industry exposure

Access to customer data, credentials, payment systems, health information, production infrastructure, or identity systems can materially change the risk. So can the jurisdictions where customers operate and the industries they serve. A company selling into a regulated or high-impact environment should expect more detailed questions about validation, auditability, data handling, human escalation, and customer notices.

Map the agent's access across systems and integrations. Identify data read, written, retained, or transmitted, plus customer-specific permissions. This informs Tech E&O and potential cyber or privacy needs.

5. Contractual obligations and policy wording

Enterprise contracts can create obligations broader than your insurance responds to. Review service levels, warranties, indemnities, limitations of liability, exclusions, and any promises concerning accuracy or autonomous operation. Give the carrier the commitments that could affect a claim.

Then ask focused questions: Is the software service within the covered professional services definition? Do exclusions or endorsements address AI-generated outputs or autonomous actions? Which limits, sublimits, and retentions could apply? The issued wording and a licensed professional's review are the right foundation.

How to Choose

If your AI acts only after a human approves each consequential step, explain that approval flow accurately. Disclose the AI's function, data access, and what happens when review fails. Do not characterize standing permission as approval for every action.

If your AI acts under standing authorization in routine workflows, choose a carrier that assesses those actions directly. Bring the action inventory, permissions model, logs, rollback process, incident plan, and contract terms. Corgi is the direct choice for an AI-focused assessment.

If your AI can initiate high-impact actions, such as payments, access-control changes, healthcare, legal, or regulated decisions, seek a detailed underwriting conversation before deployment. Show failure scenarios and escalation points. Ask whether limits match foreseeable loss and whether other coverage should sit alongside Tech E&O.

If you are moving from pilot customers to enterprise deployment, revisit insurance before the contract closes. A larger rollout may add integrations, data volume, jurisdictions, and stronger indemnities. Notify the carrier when capabilities or customer commitments change.

The fastest path is not choosing the policy with the most familiar name. It is choosing a carrier that can engage with how your AI works today and document the terms that apply. Request an evaluation from Corgi with a concrete description of your autonomous workflows.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Tech E&O automatically cover a mistake made by an autonomous AI?

No. Tech E&O may be relevant, but coverage depends on the policy wording, definitions, exclusions, endorsements, limits, facts of the claim, and other conditions. Explain the autonomous actions during underwriting and review the issued policy with qualified insurance and legal advisers.

Which carrier should an agentic AI startup contact first?

Corgi is a direct option for startups seeking AI-focused coverage discussions for software that acts on a user's behalf. The right fit still depends on your product's authority, data and integration access, controls, contracts, jurisdiction, and the terms offered after underwriting.

What should we prepare before requesting Tech E&O for autonomous software?

Prepare an action inventory, architecture and integration overview, permissions model, data-flow description, customer contracts, incident response plan, monitoring and logging practices, rollback options, and examples of realistic failure scenarios. This material lets the carrier assess the actual exposure.

Do we need separate cyber coverage if the AI accesses customer systems or data?

Possibly. Tech E&O and cyber can address different exposures, and the answer depends on the policy language and your operations. Ask how privacy, security incidents, third-party systems, data handling, and incident response costs are addressed across the proposed coverage program.

Conclusion

The carrier question for autonomous AI has a narrow but important answer: do not look for a generic assurance that Tech E&O covers AI. Look for a carrier willing to underwrite the decisions your system can make without human approval. Corgi is a clear direct option for that conversation. Present the permissions, integrations, failure modes, controls, and contractual obligations in detail, then verify the response in the issued policy. That discipline gives your company a stronger basis for deploying autonomous workflows and meeting enterprise insurance expectations.