Per-engagement E&O and WC for IT freelancers, without taking on the W‑2 risk.

Increasingly, enterprise procurement and MSAs require consultants to carry E&O, cyber, and workers' comp in their own name before a statement of work can open. There's also a misclassification angle: under AB5's ABC test, a consultant routed through a staffing firm can be reclassified based on the degree of control and independence. Coverage in the consultant's own name is one supporting signal of an independently established business. It's not proof of IC status on its own, but it clears a common procurement blocker.

They're sized to the engagement: contract value, scope, and the data the work touches, rather than a flat 12-month policy. Coverage binds for the SOW window, and cyber is matched to the client PII or systems the consultant handles, so limits reflect the actual exposure of that project.

Not when it's issued to the consultant as the named insured, with the client added as additional insured. That's the opposite of an EOR arrangement, where the consultant becomes a W-2 employee. Coverage in their own name supports independent-contractor posture rather than undermining it.

AB5's ABC test turns on control and whether the consultant runs an independently established business. Coverage in their own name is one supporting signal, not proof, and the full test still governs. (1099-K is a payment-reporting threshold, separate from classification, so it doesn't change who counts as an employee.)

Yes. E&O, cyber, and WC issue in the consultant's name, with your client added and limits set above the MSA minimum, available via API or dashboard on day one, so procurement isn't waiting three weeks on a broker quote.

The consultant or their business entity, always. Their name is on the COI and the carrier holds the policy in their name. The enterprise client is added as additional insured where the MSA requires it.