I assume that someone has explained to clients the potential effects of not limiting liability.
For government clients it makes sense to insist on limits of liability matching professional indemnity insurance provisions.
Otherwise consultants that go under on one department's project (in a disaster scenario) will no longer be able to provide any insurance cover for projects done for other departments.
I do not understand why legal advisers do not comprehend this. Additionally, by not setting a limit of liability they also introduce inequitable contract terms, in that the actual recompense available to clients for incidents above the set insurance limit will depend on each firm's assets after they go into liquidation.
Mike Allen, CampbellReith, Somerset House, 47-49 London Road, Redhill, Surrey RH1 1LU