Insurance Archaeology - Uncovering Historical Policies for Legacy Liability Protection

Somewhere in a forgotten filing cabinet, a dusty warehouse, or a defunct broker’s archive sits an insurance policy that could provide meaningful protection during your business sale. That policy—written decades ago, perhaps by a company that no longer exists—may help address buyer concerns about legacy liability exposure that surfaces years after you’ve handed over the keys. Or it may not exist at all, leaving you to navigate other risk transfer options.

Executive Summary

Insurance archaeology—the systematic process of locating, documenting, and presenting historical insurance policies—has become an important element of M&A due diligence for businesses with potential long-tail liability exposure, particularly for companies in manufacturing, chemicals, construction, and healthcare where such claims are common. For owners of companies where claims can emerge decades after the underlying activity, historical coverage documentation can represent both a negotiating asset and a factor in deal structure discussions, though outcomes vary significantly based on what documentation is actually recovered.

Sophisticated buyers conducting thorough due diligence often ask about historical insurance coverage, particularly in industries with known long-tail exposure. These acquirers understand that environmental contamination, products liability, and other long-tail claims may surface many years after the triggering event. Medical literature indicates that asbestos-related diseases like mesothelioma typically have latency periods of twenty to fifty years, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and epidemiological studies, though timelines vary by exposure type and intensity. Environmental contamination discovery timelines depend on site remediation circumstances and regulatory activity. Without documented proof of historical coverage, sellers may face pressure to accept indemnification obligations that survive the sale, or buyers may discount their offers to account for unquantified legacy risk.

This article provides a framework for conducting insurance archaeology, including where to search for historical policies, how to document coverage chains, and realistic expectations about success rates and costs. We’ll also discuss when alternative approaches like representation and warranty insurance may be more appropriate than extensive archaeological investigation. Whether you’re five years from exit or beginning formal sale preparation, understanding your historical coverage position can be valuable preparation—if your business profile warrants this investment.

Introduction

The concept seems almost paradoxical: policies that expired before some of your current employees were born could be among your company’s most valuable assets. Yet for businesses with significant long-tail liability exposure, historical insurance archaeology can be important preparation that influences transaction outcomes, though success varies dramatically based on company age, documentation practices, and industry.

Long-tail liabilities are claims that emerge years or decades after the original exposure or incident. Asbestos claims, environmental contamination, certain product defects, professional malpractice, and workplace exposure cases may surface many years after the underlying activity. When they do, the relevant insurance is typically the coverage in place when the exposure occurred, not when the claim was filed.

Consider a manufacturing company that produced components for industrial equipment in the 1980s. A worker who was exposed to a harmful substance during that era might not develop symptoms until 2024. When they file a claim, the relevant coverage may be the products liability policy from 1985—a policy that may have been written by a company that has since merged, been acquired, or gone out of business, and held by a broker who retired decades ago.

For business owners preparing for exit, the challenge is twofold. First, you must locate and document historical coverage to understand your own protection against legacy claims. Second, you must present this documentation in ways that address sophisticated buyers’ concerns and their legal teams’ requirements. A buyer who cannot verify your historical coverage may demand indemnification provisions, reduce their offer to account for unquantified risk, or in some cases walk away entirely.

The reality is that while insurance archaeology follows established methodologies, success rates vary significantly based on company age, documentation practices, and industry. Some companies recover substantial portions of their historical coverage documentation, while others locate only fragmentary evidence despite thorough investigation—and some invest significantly in professional assistance with limited actionable results. Understanding where to look, what to look for, and how to set realistic expectations can help you determine whether archaeological investigation makes sense for your situation.

Why Historical Insurance Coverage Matters to Buyers

When sophisticated buyers evaluate acquisition targets, they’re not just buying current operations—they’re assuming responsibility for everything that happened under previous ownership. This historical exposure creates significant concern, particularly in industries where claims may emerge decades after the triggering activity.

The Long-Tail Liability Landscape

Different industries face different long-tail exposure profiles, and the urgency of insurance archaeology depends heavily on your industry’s historical exposure profile. Manufacturing companies may face products liability claims from equipment still in service decades after production. Chemical companies and industrial operations may inherit environmental contamination liability. Healthcare organizations face medical malpractice claims with extended discovery periods. Construction firms may encounter claims related to building materials or methods used years earlier.

High-priority industries for insurance archaeology: Manufacturing, chemicals, construction, and healthcare businesses with products or environmental exposure face significantly higher legacy liability risk and should prioritize insurance documentation. These industries see the most sophisticated buyer scrutiny of historical coverage.

Lower-priority industries: Service businesses, retail, and technology companies with limited physical product exposure typically face lower long-tail risk, though any business with extended operating history should assess potential exposures in their specific context. For these businesses, insurance archaeology may be less critical than other exit preparation activities.

Regarding statutes of limitations, many jurisdictions follow the “discovery rule,” meaning the limitation period doesn’t begin until the injured party knew or should have known about their injury. Application varies significantly by state and claim type. Consult your legal counsel regarding applicable limitations periods in your jurisdiction, as they critically affect legacy exposure duration.

Consider the risk assessment from a buyer’s perspective. They’re contemplating acquiring a company that manufactured industrial components from 1970 through today. If that company used any materials later found to be harmful, or if any products failed in ways that caused injury, claims could theoretically emerge at various points. Calculating legacy exposure depends on multiple uncertain variables: probability of claim emergence, likely severity (which may be capped by product liability limits or regulatory changes), statute of limitations in relevant jurisdictions, and evidence of causation. Because these variables are uncertain and long-tail claims may not emerge for years, buyers typically estimate risk through scenario analysis with wide confidence intervals rather than precise calculation.

How Buyers Assess Unverified Insurance Risk

Buyers and their advisors have developed various approaches to assessing legacy liability risk. When historical coverage cannot be verified, they may apply risk adjustment methodologies that can work against sellers.

One approach involves probability-weighted scenario analysis, though methodologies vary. For example, if a buyer estimates a 10% probability of a $5 million environmental claim, they might discount their offer by the expected value of $500,000, or apply additional risk premiums to account for uncertainty and risk aversion. The specific approach depends on the buyer’s risk tolerance, deal structure, and assessment of actual exposure.

Some buyers may be reluctant to close without adequate protection. They may demand that sellers provide representations and warranties regarding historical liabilities, backed by escrow holdbacks or guarantees that survive for years after closing. These provisions can leave sellers exposed long after they’ve mentally moved on from the business.

Well-documented historical coverage may support negotiations by reducing buyer concerns about uninsured legacy exposure, but this outcome is far from guaranteed. When sellers can document that appropriate coverage was in place throughout their operating history, buyers may gain confidence that claims could be addressed by insurance carriers rather than seller indemnification. Several conditions must be true for documentation to influence negotiations: relevant coverage must actually exist, policies must contain protections for the specific exposures buyers are concerned about, and buyers must view legacy liability as a significant deal factor. Documentation may have limited influence when policies contain exclusions for relevant exposures, coverage limits are inadequate relative to potential claims, or buyers aren’t particularly focused on legacy liability concerns in the first place.

Conducting Effective Insurance Archaeology

Locating historical policies requires systematic investigation across multiple potential sources, though success rates vary significantly based on company age and documentation practices. Policies that seem irretrievably lost sometimes leave traces in unexpected places, but many investigations yield only fragmentary results despite thorough effort. Setting realistic expectations from the outset helps you make sound decisions about resource investment.

Internal Documentation Sources

Your own records represent the logical starting point, though they’re rarely complete. Many businesses find that insurance documentation becomes less complete as they look further back in time, though practices vary. Still, a systematic internal search often yields more than expected, or at least identifies leads for external investigation.

Begin with your current files and work backward. Look for policy declarations pages, certificates of insurance, premium payment records, and correspondence with brokers or carriers. Even partial documentation—a declarations page without the full policy, for example—provides valuable leads for further investigation.

Accounting records often contain insurance-related information that policy files lack. Premium payments, broker commissions, and insurance-related journal entries can identify carriers and approximate coverage periods even when policies themselves are missing. Tax returns may show deductions for insurance premiums with carrier names or policy numbers.

Corporate records, including board minutes and shareholder meeting notes, may reference insurance decisions, coverage changes, or claim activity. Legal files related to past litigation often contain insurance correspondence, coverage opinions, or references to applicable policies. Real estate records, including leases and purchase agreements, frequently contain insurance requirements that indicate what coverage was maintained.

Don’t overlook human sources. Long-tenured employees, retired executives, and former owners may remember insurance arrangements that aren’t reflected in current files. A conversation with your predecessor or the person who managed insurance twenty years ago may yield specific carrier names, broker relationships, or policy details that restart stalled investigations, or confirm that documentation is likely irretrievable.

External Documentation Sources

When internal records prove incomplete, external sources may fill gaps, though access and success rates vary considerably. Insurance brokers, carriers, and various third-party repositories maintain records that can sometimes document historical coverage.

Insurance brokers represent your most valuable external resource. Brokers maintain client files that may include policy copies, certificates, correspondence, and claim records. Even if your current broker didn’t handle your account historically, they may know who did. Some brokers maintain acquired client records when one agency acquires another, though practices vary significantly.

Begin with contacts of long-tenured employees, retired executives, and corporate records to identify historical brokers. Broker identification becomes increasingly difficult beyond fifteen to twenty years. Many brokers have retired, been acquired, or changed their business model. When you locate potential predecessor brokers, understand that records may be archived off-site with retrieval delays, privacy restrictions may limit what they can disclose without proper authorization, some records may have been destroyed during office consolidations or system transitions, and brokers may prioritize current client requests over historical research.

Insurance carriers maintain policy records, though retention periods vary and many carriers have purged records beyond their legal retention requirements. Many carriers retain records for policies that could still generate claims under long-tail theories, meaning decades of historical documentation may exist, but this is inconsistent. Contact carriers directly (or through their legal counsel if direct contact is denied) with a formal historical record request. Be prepared for formal processes that may require four to twelve weeks for response, requests for specific policy periods or identifiers to focus the search, potential refusal based on retention policies or privacy grounds, and the possibility that records have been archived or purged if retention periods have passed.

Many state workers’ compensation agencies maintain records of covered employers and claims, though access, detail level, and retention periods vary by state. Contact your state’s labor or insurance department to understand what historical records are available and accessible.

Professional insurance archaeology firms maintain industry databases and can conduct searches for a fee. Based on our experience, professional assistance typically costs $15,000 to $40,000 for standard investigations covering twenty to thirty years of operating history, with complex multi-decade histories involving multiple ownership changes potentially requiring $50,000 or more. When considering professional assistance, verify any firm’s experience, database access, and methodology before engaging. For specific exposure types (asbestos, environmental, pharmaceutical), specialized databases may track industry-wide coverage patterns.

Reconstructing Coverage Through Secondary Evidence

When policies themselves cannot be located, secondary evidence can sometimes support the position that coverage existed. In litigation, courts have accepted secondary evidence as proof of coverage under certain circumstances. Buyers conducting M&A due diligence typically prefer primary documentation: actual policies or declarations pages. While secondary evidence may support or supplement your claim that coverage existed, primary documentation remains the standard for buyer confidence.

Secondary evidence can establish that coverage existed and support your position in negotiations, but sophisticated buyers typically prefer actual policy documents that specify coverage limits, exclusions, conditions, and terms. Use secondary evidence to identify policies you can then locate in primary form, fill gaps where primary documents are irretrievable, and support your claim that you exercised reasonable diligence to locate coverage. But understand that buyers may discount unverified coverage terms or exclude unverified periods from their risk model.

Certificates of insurance, while not policies themselves, provide evidence that coverage existed. Certificates issued to customers, landlords, or contracting parties document coverage dates, carriers, policy numbers, and coverage limits. Claim records provide supporting evidence: if a claim was filed and paid during a particular period, coverage must have existed. Correspondence with carriers and brokers may reference policies, coverage terms, or coverage decisions in ways that establish the existence and parameters of coverage.

Documenting and Presenting Historical Coverage

Locating historical policies is only half the challenge. Presenting that coverage in ways that address sophisticated buyer due diligence requires thoughtful organization, professional documentation, and honest acknowledgment of limitations.

Creating a Comprehensive Coverage Timeline

The foundation of effective insurance presentation is a timeline that documents coverage by year and coverage type. This timeline should include all policies that could respond to long-tail claims, organized in a format that allows buyers to verify coverage history.

For each policy, document the carrier name (including any name changes through mergers or acquisitions), policy number, coverage period, coverage limits, deductibles or retentions, and any relevant exclusions or endorsements. Note the source of documentation: whether you have the original policy, a declarations page, a certificate, or secondary evidence, and include copies of all supporting documentation.

Pay particular attention to documenting coverage gaps. Buyers are especially concerned about coverage gaps during periods of active operations, particularly in lines of business where long-tail claims might emerge. Gaps during periods of inactivity, business transitions, or lines of business that have since been divested are generally less concerning. Contextualize gaps by explaining what operations were occurring (or not occurring) during the gap period.

Addressing Coverage Gaps and Limitations

Transparent acknowledgment of limitations strengthens rather than weakens your presentation. Buyers who discover problems independently will question the entire presentation; buyers who see problems forthrightly disclosed gain confidence in the overall accuracy.

If you cannot document coverage for certain periods, acknowledge the gap and explain your search efforts. Describe what sources you investigated and why documentation wasn’t located. Note any secondary evidence suggesting coverage existed even if it cannot be documented. Explain what this means for potential liability exposure during those periods.

A critical caveat on transparency: While transparency generally strengthens credibility, consider how disclosure of gaps might affect buyer perceptions. In some cases, disclosing that you conducted a comprehensive investigation that found major gaps may create buyer concerns that didn’t previously exist or strengthen their negotiating position on indemnification. If your investigation is yielding mostly negative results, consult with your M&A advisors about the most appropriate disclosure approach before presenting findings.

While documenting coverage history is important, equally important is understanding what that coverage actually protects. Historical policies may contain exclusions, coverage limits, or conditions that leave gaps in protection despite documented coverage. As you locate policies, evaluate not just that coverage existed, but what coverage actually meant: Were environmental claims excluded? Were product-related claims covered? What were the actual limits relative to potential exposure severity? Were there notice requirements or conditions that couldn’t be met? Present buyers not just with “continuous coverage” but with accurate assessment of what exposures were actually insured and which may have remained unprotected.

Similarly, address coverage limitations directly. If historical policies contained significant exclusions, or if coverage limits were lower than current standards, explain the context. Coverage limits that seem inadequate by today’s standards may have been appropriate for their era. Exclusions that seem concerning may not apply to your actual exposure profile.

Consider obtaining professional opinions where coverage questions are complex. Insurance archaeologists, coverage counsel, and forensic accountants can provide assessments of historical coverage adequacy and documented coverage positions. These professional opinions may add credibility to your presentation.

Using Historical Coverage in Negotiations

Well-documented historical coverage may become a negotiating asset that can influence deal terms, though impact varies significantly based on buyer priorities, industry risk profile, and specific coverage terms recovered. Sellers who can demonstrate comprehensive coverage history may be positioned to negotiate from strength on several key issues, but documentation supports negotiations rather than guaranteeing favorable outcomes.

Indemnification obligations represent a direct impact area. Buyers routinely seek broad indemnification for pre-closing liabilities, with the scope and duration of these obligations often becoming major negotiation points. Sellers with documented coverage can argue that insurance provides intended protection, potentially reducing the need for personal indemnification, though documentation supports negotiations but doesn’t eliminate buyer caution.

Escrow provisions often reflect buyer concerns about undocumented liability exposure. In our experience, escrow provisions in middle-market transactions typically range from 5% to 20% of purchase price, with higher-risk industries often seeing provisions toward the upper end of that range. According to SRS Acquiom’s annual studies of private target M&A transactions, escrow terms correlate with perceived deal risk and industry exposure profiles. Insurance documentation may support negotiation for reduced escrow, but the magnitude of any reduction depends on the specific risks identified in due diligence and overall buyer confidence.

Representation and warranty insurance (RWI), increasingly common in middle-market transactions, interacts with historical coverage documentation. RWI carriers underwrite based on deal risk profiles, and undocumented historical exposure may increase premiums or trigger exclusions. Insurance archaeology may support more favorable RWI terms.

Alternatives to Insurance Archaeology

Insurance archaeology isn’t always the optimal approach. Understanding when alternative risk transfer mechanisms may be more appropriate helps you allocate exit preparation resources effectively.

Representation and Warranty Insurance

RWI offers an alternative risk transfer mechanism that may reduce the need for insurance archaeology in some situations. RWI policies can cover uninsured legacy liabilities and reduce indemnification requirements, though they come with their own costs, exclusions, and waiting periods.

When RWI may be preferable to archaeology:

• Short timeline to close that doesn’t allow for thorough investigation
• Limited operating history where archaeology would yield little
• RWI coverage adequate for identified exposures and reasonably priced
• Archaeology costs exceed likely risk reduction value
• High probability that historical records are irretrievable

When archaeology may be preferable to RWI alone:

• RWI exclusions don’t cover key legacy exposures
• Historical coverage would provide better protection than RWI terms
• Archaeological investigation is likely to yield useful documentation
• Deal size justifies investigation investment

RWI typically costs 2.5% to 4% of coverage amount, according to industry surveys. Compare this against archaeological investigation costs of $25,000 to $80,000 or more (including internal costs and legal review) to determine which approach, or combination, makes sense for your situation.

Accepting Indemnification Provisions

For some sellers, accepting indemnification and escrow provisions may be the most practical approach.

When accepting risk retention may be appropriate:

• Low actual exposure risk based on operating history
• Strong personal balance sheet that can absorb potential claims
• Desire to close quickly without investigation
• Archaeology unlikely to find meaningful coverage
• Cost of alternatives exceeds expected liability

When risk retention is inadvisable:

• High-exposure industry with significant long-tail risks
• Personal liability aversion or insufficient financial capacity
• Known exposure history that buyers will scrutinize

The decision framework involves comparing the expected cost of retained liability (probability-weighted exposure) against the cost of investigation, RWI, or other risk transfer mechanisms. Your M&A advisors can help model these tradeoffs for your specific situation.

Building Your Insurance Archaeology Strategy

The optimal time to conduct insurance archaeology is well before you need the results—if investigation makes sense for your situation. Understanding when to invest in archaeology, and what realistic outcomes look like, helps you allocate resources effectively.

Timing Your Investigation

Timeline depends on company age, operating history complexity, and documentation availability. A business operating for twenty years with stable ownership may complete archaeology in six to twelve months, assuming reasonable internal documentation and available broker contacts. A business with fifty-year history, multiple predecessors, and dispersed records may require eighteen to twenty-four months or longer. Allow additional time when records are fragmentary or multiple ownership changes have occurred. Begin as soon as practical, allowing time for follow-up on initial findings.

If you’re already in transaction preparation, prioritize your investigation based on exposure profile. Focus first on coverage types most relevant to your industry’s long-tail risks. A manufacturing company should prioritize products liability documentation; a chemical company should focus on environmental coverage; a healthcare organization should emphasize professional liability.

Realistic Success Expectations

Setting realistic expectations about archaeological success is critical for sound resource allocation. While successful investigations can yield valuable documentation, many archaeological projects recover only partial historical records, and some investments in professional assistance yield limited actionable results.

Factors that predict higher success rates:

• Stable ownership history with good record retention
• Operating history less than thirty years
• Current or recent broker relationships with long-tenured firms
• Industries where carriers maintain extended records
• Documented claims history that provides policy evidence

Factors that predict lower success rates:

• Multiple ownership changes with record loss
• Operating history predating 1990
• Broker consolidation or bankruptcy in historical chain
• Carrier mergers or insolvencies affecting record retention
• Informal record-keeping practices in earlier decades

For businesses with operating histories predating 1985-1990, expect significant gaps in documentation recovery regardless of investigation thoroughness. Broker consolidation during the 1990s and 2000s destroyed many historical records that might otherwise have been retrievable.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

Before committing to archaeology, evaluate whether the investment makes sense for your situation.

Full cost accounting for professional archaeology:

Weigh this investment against potential benefits: reduced escrow (if deal size is substantial), improved RWI terms, stronger negotiating position on indemnification, and peace of mind about legacy exposure. For smaller deals or situations where investigation is unlikely to yield useful results, the investment may not be justified.

When insurance archaeology is worth the investment:

• Deal size substantial enough that even modest escrow reduction justifies cost
• Operating history spans decades with potential for meaningful recovery
• Industry’s long-tail risks are substantial and buyer scrutiny expected
• Time cost to conduct investigation yourself is high
• Realistic probability of recovering useful documentation

When archaeology may not be worth the investment:

• Smaller transactions where investigation costs exceed potential benefit
• Operating history where records are almost certainly irretrievable
• Low-exposure industries where buyers won’t focus on legacy liability
• Short transaction timelines that don’t allow thorough investigation
• RWI or indemnification provisions provide adequate protection at lower cost

The Incomplete Recovery: A Realistic Scenario

Consider a realistic scenario that illustrates both the value and limitations of archaeological investigation: a manufacturing company founded in 1973 with stable ownership through 2000, then three ownership changes through exit. Despite systematic search, they recovered most policies from 2000 forward, partial policies from 1990-2000 from broker archives, but only scattered certificates and premium records from 1973-1990. Broker records had been purged in a 1995 office consolidation; predecessor brokers were out of business.

In this situation, the company filled gaps with secondary evidence but couldn’t fully document the 1973-1985 period. They presented this honestly to buyers: documented coverage where evidence existed, acknowledged gaps where it didn’t, and negotiated indemnification provisions for the undocumented period. This approach, while not ideal, preserved deal momentum by demonstrating diligence and transparency.

The lesson: Archaeological success is often partial, and honest presentation of mixed results typically serves sellers better than overstating coverage confidence.

Ongoing Documentation Practices

Insurance archaeology becomes unnecessary when businesses maintain records from the outset. While this observation doesn’t help with historical gaps, it suggests practices that protect future value.

Maintain complete policy copies, not just declarations pages. Store insurance documents separately from general files, with clear retention policies that preserve records indefinitely. Document broker and carrier relationships in ways that survive personnel changes. Create regular coverage summaries that capture key terms even if original documents are later lost.

When claims occur, preserve all related documentation permanently. Claims files document coverage existence and terms more reliably than policy files that may be purged during routine retention processes.

Actionable Takeaways

Assess whether archaeology makes sense for your situation. Identify the long-tail liability types most relevant to your industry and business history. Manufacturing, chemical, construction, and healthcare businesses with extended operating histories face the highest documentation needs. Service businesses and technology companies may have lower-priority needs that don’t justify significant archaeological investment.

Set realistic expectations before investing. Many investigations yield only partial results, and some professional investments produce limited actionable documentation. Evaluate success probability based on your company age, ownership history, and industry before committing significant resources.

Conduct a thorough internal search first. Before engaging external resources, systematically review your own records including policy files, accounting records, legal files, and corporate documents. Interview long-tenured employees and former executives about historical insurance arrangements. This low-cost phase often reveals more than expected, or confirms that external investigation is unlikely to succeed.

Budget for full costs. Plan for internal staff time (50-100 hours) and legal review ($5,000-$15,000) in addition to professional archaeology fees ($15,000-$50,000+). Total investment for investigation typically runs $27,000 to $80,000 or more.

Consider all risk transfer options. Evaluate whether insurance archaeology, representation and warranty insurance, or accepting indemnification provisions best fits your situation. RWI may be preferable when timelines are short or archaeology is unlikely to yield documentation. Indemnification may be acceptable when actual exposure is low and personal financial capacity allows ongoing risk retention.

Create professional documentation of whatever you find. Organize your findings into a coverage timeline with supporting documentation. Address gaps and limitations transparently rather than hoping they won’t be noticed, while being thoughtful about how disclosure of unsuccessful searches might affect buyer perceptions.

Understand what your coverage actually protects. Don’t assume continuous coverage means complete protection. Review policy terms, exclusions, and limits to understand actual protection levels.

Start early if you’re going to investigate. Insurance archaeology takes time, and rushed investigations sacrifice thoroughness. Begin your search well before anticipated exit, allowing time for follow-up on initial findings.

Conclusion

Historical insurance archaeology may seem like an obscure corner of exit preparation, but for businesses with significant long-tail liability exposure (particularly in manufacturing, chemicals, construction, and healthcare), it can be important due diligence that influences transaction outcomes. Sophisticated buyers in these industries often ask detailed questions about legacy exposure, and the documentation you provide shapes discussions about deal structure and risk allocation.

Archaeology isn’t universally valuable. Success rates vary dramatically, costs can be substantial, and alternative risk transfer mechanisms may better suit your situation. The key is making an informed decision about whether archaeological investment makes sense given your industry exposure, operating history, deal timeline, and available alternatives.

For businesses where investigation is warranted, the policies in forgotten archives aren’t just historical artifacts. They provide information about historical risk management, may offer protection against claims that could emerge years after your exit, and signal to buyers that your company was professionally managed throughout its history. Locating and documenting these policies, while being transparent about what you found and what remains uncertain, can transform potential deal obstacles into demonstrated preparation.

Whether you’re years from exit or actively preparing for sale, understanding your historical coverage position deserves thoughtful evaluation. If investigation makes sense for your situation, the research takes time, sources become less available as years pass, and the support that comes from documentation cannot be created under transaction deadline pressure. Make the decision about whether to invest in archaeology early, set realistic expectations about outcomes, and ensure that whatever coverage you can document delivers its value when you need it most.