Personal training has evolved well beyond the traditional gym floor. Trainers now work across studios, shared facilities, private homes, outdoor spaces, and online platforms, often blending multiple delivery models at once.



While this flexibility creates opportunity, it also introduces insurance risks that are not always obvious. In our experience, many trainers hold insurance because it is required, not because it has been carefully aligned with how they actually work day to day. That gap between policy wording and real-world practice is where issues tend to surface.

This article outlines five insurance risks we commonly see in personal training environments and explains, at a general level, how these risks are typically addressed through industry-aware insurance arrangements. It is intended for general information only.

1. Exposure Linked to Instruction and Exercise Selection

Instruction sits at the centre of personal training. How exercises are selected, demonstrated, progressed, or modified creates an ongoing professional exposure.

Situations that commonly give rise to claims include:

• Incorrect or unclear technique instruction
• Progression that does not account for ability or training history
• Failure to adapt exercises for prior injuries
• Overexertion leading to strain or joint issues

These matters are not usually related to premises or equipment. They are typically assessed under professional indemnity considerations, where the focus is on advice, instruction, and decision-making.

A frequent issue we encounter is the assumption that public liability insurance responds to all injuries. In practice, public liability and professional indemnity respond to very different circumstances. If instruction-related exposure is not clearly addressed, trainers may be relying on cover that was never designed for that purpose.

2. Training Across Multiple or Changing Locations

Modern personal trainers rarely operate from a single, fixed venue. Training may take place across:

• Commercial facilities
• Shared or private studios
• Client homes
• Outdoor or public spaces
• Remote or hybrid formats

Insurance complications arise when policies assume a single training environment, while actual delivery occurs elsewhere. If locations are not accurately reflected in policy documentation, incidents may fall outside the scope of defined activities.

This misalignment is one of the most common sources of confusion during claim assessment, particularly where mobile or outdoor training is involved.

3. Contractor, Sub-Contractor, and Role Clarity

Personal trainers often work under varied arrangements, including contractor models, shared spaces, or branded studios. Insurance responsibility is not always intuitive in these structures.

Common misconceptions include:

• Assuming venue insurance extends to individual trainers
• Believing partial or overlapping cover is sufficient
• Confusing access rights with insurance responsibility

In practice, insurance follows defined roles and responsibilities, not assumptions. Where contractual arrangements and insurance wording do not align, trainers may unknowingly retain personal exposure.

Clear alignment between working arrangements and insurance structure is essential, particularly as businesses scale or diversify.

4. Increased Exposure Through Group Training

As trainers grow their businesses, many introduce:

• Small group sessions
• Semi-private training
• Circuit or interval-based classes

While commercially effective, group training introduces different exposure considerations, including reduced individual supervision, mixed ability levels, and higher fatigue-related risk.

Some policies place conditions around:

• Group size
• Training format
• Intensity levels

If group activity is not clearly reflected in policy definitions, coverage may be assessed differently than expected. This is an area where generic policies often fall short of reflecting how training is actually delivered.

5. Online and Hybrid Coaching Models

Remote coaching, app-based programming, and hybrid delivery models are now common. However, insurance wording has not always evolved at the same pace.

Key considerations include:

• Limited supervision during exercise
• Interpretation of instructions by clients
• Delivery of services beyond physical premises
• Duty of care in non-face-to-face environments

Many standard policies either exclude digital delivery entirely or address it only in very narrow terms. When training models change but insurance remains static, gaps can emerge without being immediately obvious.

Why These Risks Are Often Missed

These risks are rarely ignored intentionally. They tend to develop because:

• Training models evolve gradually
• Policies renew automatically
• Coverage appears adequate on the surface
• No claims have occurred to prompt review

In most cases, the issue is not the absence of insurance, but the assumption that existing cover automatically adapts as services change.

The Value of Industry-Aware Insurance Alignment

Insurance outcomes are determined by definitions, disclosures, and policy structure — not intent. When training delivery becomes more complex, generic insurance descriptions often struggle to keep pace.

At Martial Arts Australia Insurance Services, our role focuses on aligning insurance arrangements with how trainers actually operate, rather than relying on simplified or outdated activity descriptions.

This reference is provided for general awareness only and does not constitute personal advice or a recommendation.

Insurance as Part of Professional Practice

When viewed correctly, insurance is not just a compliance requirement. It forms part of a trainer’s professional framework, supporting:

• Continuity of income
• Professional reputation
• Client confidence
• Long-term sustainability

Trainers who understand their exposure and structure insurance accordingly are better positioned to grow without unnecessary uncertainty.

Final Thoughts

Personal training sits at the intersection of physical performance, instruction, and client trust. This creates exposures that generic insurance policies are not always designed to address.

Understanding common risks — including instruction, location, working arrangements, group delivery, and online coaching — allows trainers to approach insurance with clarity rather than assumption.

When insurance reflects real-world practice, it becomes a safeguard rather than a source of surprise.