Professional indemnity insurance for Dentists

Clarke McEwan Accountants



Today's dentists operate in a far more litigious environment than they did in past decades. So it's crucial that your professional indemnity insurance affords you adequate and appropriate cover for your full scope of practice, say experts.

Like all health professionals, dentists now operate in an increasingly litigious environment. Nearly one in 10 dental practitioners will face a lawsuit in their professional lifetime, and one in 20 will be slugged with a regulatory complaint or matter in any given year. So it's crucial that dentists' professional indemnity insurance (PII) covers them for the full scope of their practice and that its limits enable them to mount a proper defense, should they wind up in court or face regulatory action.

Why dentists need PII

According to the Dental Board of Australia, PII refers to a policy or arrangements "that secure for the practitioner's professional practice insurance against civil liability incurred by, or loss arising from, a claim … made as a result of a negligent act, error or omission in the conduct of the practitioner".

"Having PII is a legal requirement, part of your registration," explains Dr Hugo Sachs, Australian Dental Association federal president. "It covers you for the actual procedural events that occur in a dental surgery, so anything from restorative work to tooth removals.

"PII also ensures members of the community that if something untoward occurs in their [dental] treatment, the provider of that service is indemnified, and therefore they will be recompensed."

Craig Hockley, head of marketing at Guild Insurance-the ADA's preferred insurer in NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and SA-says having comprehensive PII cover isn't just mandatory; it's a necessity.

"Twelve years ago, around one in 30 dentists experienced the stress of a professional indemnity claim; today, it's closer to one in 10," Hockley says. "Not only has the incidence of claims increased, so has the cost. Without professional indemnity insurance, dentists risk losing their business and personal assets."

Clive Levinthal, CEO of Experien Insurance Services, agent for Australia's largest indemnity insurer, Vero, notes that dentists' need for PII cover has increased with changes in the regulatory environment. "Historically, the main concern for dentists was civil claims, and that's still a high risk. But [as] regulatory bodies have become … easier for consumers to access, regulatory cases have spiked: in 2016-17, these increased by around 30 per cent year on year."

Regulatory cases run the gamut, Levinthal says, from complaints about quality of work done, "say, in putting on veneers, to failing to exercise 'reasonable care and judgement' during a filling or extraction that failed, or the dentist having inadequate skills to do work such as implants or orthodontics" to allegations of poor infection-control measures, inappropriate behaviour and threats to patient safety.

"It could come from anyone-a patient, current or former staff member or the regulators themselves, following an audit of compliance practices or allegations made by a third party," he says.

And even competent, careful dentists can be at risk, cautions Dr Sachs. "No-one's immune-there are some scurrilous claims," he says. "And in general, the more complicated the treatment, the higher the risk. Which is why you have professional indemnity insurance: it's there to help both patient and practitioner."

Registration standard

Under Section 129 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, a registered health practitioner can engage in his or her profession only if "adequate and appropriate" PII arrangements are in force.

"No-one's immune-there are some scurrilous claims. And in general, the more complicated the treatment, the higher the risk. Which is why you have professional indemnity insurance: it's there to help both patient and practitioner."-Dr Hugo Sachs, president, Australian Dental Association

All dental practitioners except those with student or non-practising registration must be covered by PII that meets the minimum terms and conditions outlined in the DBA's Indemnity Insurance Registration Standard.

Whether direct or third-party, your PII cover must include civil liability cover, appropriate retroactive cover; and automatic reinstatement, dictates the DBA.

Civil liability cover pays for any legal expenses you incur defending or settling a civil claim, plus any damages. Retroactive cover means PII arrangements covering you against claims arising from procedures undertaken prior to the start of the policy, while automatic reinstatement means the limit of indemnity (amount insured) is reinstated for new, unrelated claims even after claims have been paid to the indemnity's limit.

If you work under third-party PII that doesn't meet this standard, you'll need to take out additional cover. Ditto if you intend to practise outside the scope of your employer's PII-say, through additional study or volunteer work

Moreover, under the DBA's registration standard, 'practice' isn't restricted to direct clinical care; it includes "using professional knowledge in a direct non-clinical relationship with clients… and [in any roles] that impact on safe, effective delivery of services in the profession".

Practice owners should take out practice entity cover in addition to their individual PII, advises Levinthal. "Though it's not mandatory, it's recommended, especially if they employ other dentists. Because if one of those associate dentists makes a mistake, litigation … can be brought on both the individual treating dentist and the practice that employed that dentist."

The same could apply to an assistant's error, he notes. "So if you're the owner and employ staff, ensure you're covered for mistakes they may make."

Full scope of practice

In line with the National Law, the DBA sets out "broad scope-of-practice requirements for the different types of dental practitioners, rather than specific activities", explains the Board spokesperson. "Practitioners are expected to practise safely and within the limits of their competency, training and expertise.

"In all cases, dental practitioners need to assess whether their PII is adequate, given the area/s of practice they work in, their professional experience, the risks involved in their practice and any previous insurance claims made against them," says the spokesperson.

"All dental practitioners must declare if they meet the Board's standard on PII when they apply to renew their registration. The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency audits practitioners at random to ensure they meet … registration standards. Any practitioner who cannot produce evidence demonstrating that they're covered by appropriate PII may have action taken against them."

While most APRA-approved insurers take a 'full scope of practice' approach to PII for dental practitioners, not all policies are equal, asserts Levinthal.

"It's important a practitioner pays close attention to these details as well as any limits of cover the policy may extend."-Craig Hockley, head of marketing,

Guild Insurance

"We don't nitpick and charge additional premiums for general dentists who, say, do implants or orthodontics-our policy covers for everything they're registered to practise," he explains. "There are different premium bands, however. So a part-time dentist can opt to pay less. And while there's no discount for not practising particular treatments, choosing certain excesses lowers your premium."

Hockley notes that while some insurers "dictate the number of hours a week a practitioner can work or limit the number of hours they can spend on specific treatments, Guild's dental PII policy's written in such a way that if the DBA says you're able to do it, you're covered".

That said, loadings are applied to general dentists intending to undertake implants and/or orthodontics, Hockley says, because audits show "there's a greater risk to those two procedures".

For general dentists, taking out a full-scope-of-practice PII policy is a simple way to ensure you're covered in any eventuality, says Dr Sachs. "If you don't, and you're not paying the add-ons-which, for orthodontics and implants, [can] attract a significant loading-you can't legally practise these procedures. And without 'full scope of practice' cover, dentists who've had repetitive misadventures can find their insurer says, 'We'll no longer insure you for that'."

Read the fine print

When weighing up various PII options-and before you sign-read the fine print, experts caution. "It's important a practitioner pays close attention to these details, as well as any limits of cover the policy may extend," says Hockley.

PII providers offer anything from $100,000 to $500,000 for defending regulatory matters, and typically between $10 million and $20 million for civil claims. "It's certainly worth shopping around," Levinthal stresses.

Hockley, however, contends that with PII, price correlates directly with the service you receive. "Just because another insurer's premiums are cheaper doesn't mean it's like for like," he says.

"Nine out of 10 of our customers who've made a claim go on to recommend us to a colleague. While we're close to it, we don't pretend to be the cheapest: we aim to be the best, and to be there when you need us. Dentists pay, on average, $2500 a year-claims can be millions. There's a distinct possibility that if you're not properly covered, you can lose your livelihood."

Failing to note changes to the fine print could also prove costly.

For example, the 2012 amendment applied to many Australian health practitioners' PII policies, excluding from coverage anyone using 'therapeutic goods' not registered under our TGA-designed to discourage dentists from using cheap unregistered imports that could be harmful to patients-entailed an apparently 'minor' alteration to the fine print. Ignoring this crucial amendment could, potentially, have cost a practice or practitioner millions-enough to render them bankrupt, with their professional reputations damaged irreparably.

Clarke McEwan's Network of Contacts includes brokers, insurance specialists in the medical industry.
Call us for an obligation free consultation about your needs.

#clarkemcewan #doctorinsurance #riskassessment

By Clarke McEwan September 1, 2026
At the Federal Budget in May 2026, the Government announced that it would reintroduce a loss carry back tax offset for companies, providing a crucial buffer to any business facing difficult trading conditions.
By Clarke McEwan August 30, 2026
Tax Time 2026 is in full swing, and with that comes a decision for anyone who uses their car for work purposes: is it better to claim a deduction using the logbook or cents per kilometre method? When can I claim car expenses? Broadly, tax deductions for car expenses (i.e. the costs you incur to own and operate a car) are available where you use your car for work-related trips, such as for travel between workplaces or to perform your work duties. The exception is ordinary commuting to and from work - such expenses cannot typically be claimed, as they’re considered private expenses. Cents per kilometre method The cents per kilometre method allows you to claim a fixed rate for each work-related kilometre you travel, up to a maximum of 5,000 km each year. This fixed rate per km covers all of your car expenses for a year, including decline in value, registration and insurance, maintenance, repairs and fuel costs. For the 2025-26 tax year, the rate of deduction is 88 cents per kilometre, which means this tax time, the maximum potential amount of deduction is $4,400. (And keep in mind that the rate of deduction has been increased to 91 cents per km as of 1 July 2026, meaning a total potential deduction of $4,550 in the 2026-27 tax year). One of the benefits of using the cents per kilometre method is that it’s relatively simple, as you don’t need to keep receipts for your fuel or car expenses. However, you do need to keep records to show how you’ve calculated your work-related kilometres (for example, a diary), and you also need to be able to show that you own the car you’re using for work. Logbook method If you have a lot of work-related car expenses and have the time, you might find that the logbook method gives you the best deduction. The logbook method allows you to claim the work-related portion of your actual car expenses. This means that you can claim for a percentage of the actual expenses incurred on running costs such as fuel, electricity, servicing, registration, insurance and the decline in value, provided you’ve used the car in the course of your work. However, as the potential deductions under the logbook method are higher, there are stricter record-keeping requirements to meet. This includes keeping a logbook, which allows the calculation of how much you can claim back, it must: - cover at least 12 continuous weeks and be broadly representative of your travel, - include the reason and purpose, as well as the destination of every work-related journey, - the odometer reading at the start and end of each journey, - and the total kilometres travelled on the journey, - include odometer readings for the start and end of the logbook period and the total kilometres travelled during that period. Each journey in your logbook must be made at the end of the journey or as soon as possible afterwards. If you don't have a valid logbook, then unfortunately you cannot use the logbook method to claim car expenses, although the cents per km method may be available instead. Which is better? The answer to whether you should choose the logbook or cents per km method is very dependent on your personal situation. If you have light work-related car use and don’t love keeping extensive records, the cents per km method may be better suited to your needs, while those who use their car for work frequently may receive a higher deduction under the logbook method. If you’re unsure which method is best for you, speak to a member of our team today.
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
By Clarke McEwan August 19, 2026
Why Allied Health Practices Need an Accountant Who Actually Understands Allied Health
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
By Clarke McEwan August 17, 2026
Medical Practice Accounting for Practice Owners & Groups
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care.
By Clarke McEwan August 11, 2026
Running a successful medical practice requires more than delivering excellent patient care. Strong financial management is essential for maintaining profitability, supporting growth, meeting compliance obligations, and ensuring the long-term sustainability of the practice.
By Clarke McEwan August 10, 2026
To ensure passage of the negative gearing and CGT discount changes that were announced in the May 2026 Federal Budget the Government agreed to make amendments to the SMSF borrowing rules. SMSFs are able to borrow in restricted circumstances which includes borrowing under a limited recourse borrowing arrangement (LRBA) to purchase a single acquirable asset. While there have previously been no specific legislative restrictions on the type of asset a SMSF can borrow to purchase, most commonly we see LRBAs being used to purchase property. Up until this point, this could have been any type of real property. These amendments will mean that when SMSF trustees wish to borrow to purchase a property, it must meet the business real property (BRP) definition. This BRP definition relates to usage of the property rather than zoning or what the property was originally built for. This change became law on 26 June 2026, but the Bill includes a 45 day transitional period which will finish on 10 August 2026. This transitional period may allow for arrangements that are currently being implemented on non-BRP assets to be allowable under the new rules where settlement occurs after 10 August 2026, provided the arrangement to purchase the property was entered into on or before 10 August 2026. We recommend that SMSF trustees who are currently implementing LRBA arrangements on non-BRP assets seek specialist SMSF legal advice to ensure their arrangements meet these transitional rules. While this change has been referred to in the media as a ban on super funds borrowing to purchase residential property, the use of the BRP definition makes the change slightly more complex than this. As this definition relates to usage of the property, it is possible that some residentially designed properties could meet the BRP definition (for example, a medical practice that operates from a residentially designed terrace dwelling). The BRP definition also requires that the property is wholly and exclusively used for business purposes. This could mean that some properties that may initially appear to be commercial in nature may not meet the BRP definition (for example, a mixed use residential and retail property on a single title). We recommend that SMSF trustees entering into new LRBAs seek advice from specialist legal and financial advisers to ensure the new requirements are met. Existing arrangements The updated rules allow for existing LRBAs over non-BRP assets to continue. They also allow for existing arrangements to be refinanced, subject to lender availability and approval. For any further information please contact our office.
More Posts