The strongest allegation is failure to provide coverage for the client’s exposures. A cinema has obvious premises liability exposure, including slip-and-fall injuries to patrons. If Chandeep arranged property and liability coverage but the liability claim was denied shortly after inception, the E & O issue is not timing; coverage was apparently in force. It is also not primarily the failure to issue a tangible policy, because a policy document may follow after binding and does not itself determine whether coverage was properly arranged. Failure to explain claim steps may be poor service, but it would not be the central cause of the denied liability loss. The broker’s core professional duty is to identify material exposures, recommend suitable coverage, and ensure the coverage bound matches the risk presented. If the client reasonably expected premises liability protection and the loss was denied because the exposure was not properly covered, the broker faces a serious E & O problem. References/topics: Liability Insurance; intermediary duty of care, premises liability exposure, binding authority, E & O claims.