FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Building control approvers
Building control PI usually responds to negligence claims whether or not AI was involved, subject to the policy terms. The real questions are whether your cover is "suitable" under the BSR codes, how fire safety restrictions apply, and whether you have disclosed AI use.
Part of: AI in building control approvers
In short
The BSR codes require RBCAs to hold adequate insurance and work only where suitably insured (rules 2.1, 2.2 and Annex 1.10), and self-employed RBIs to maintain suitable insurance (RBI code 2.1 and 2.2). They do not name PI or set a minimum limit, policy terms or run-off. A PI policy may not mention AI at all, so a negligent AI-assisted plan check is usually treated like any other negligence claim. Fire safety and cladding restrictions, AI-specific clauses in some wordings, and non-disclosure of AI use are where cover problems are more likely.
| Who | Provision | Requirement |
|---|---|---|
| RBCAs | Rule 2.1 | Work only where suitably insured |
| RBCAs | Rule 2.2 | Comply with insurance requirements |
| RBCAs | Annex 1.10 | Maintain adequate insurance and give BSR the certificate on request |
| RBCAs | Annex 2 | Terms of engagement state the relevant insurance or professional liability cover held |
| RBIs | Code 2.1 | Only take on work you or your employer are suitably insured for |
| Self-employed RBIs | Code 2.2 | Maintain suitable insurance and state it in terms of engagement |
Sources: the RBCA professional conduct rules, the RBI code of conduct and BSR's RBCA registration guidance, which asks applicants to confirm policies covering insurance. No minimum limit, policy wording or run-off period is set, and BSR has published nothing on AI and insurance. "Suitable" is therefore a judgement about the work you do, including higher-risk work and any reliance on AI tools. Records retention under RBI code 5.8 and RBCA rule 5.9 is also linked to insurance requirements.
PI policies usually cover civil liability or negligence arising from professional services and may not mention AI. Using a rule-checker, an image tool or a drafting assistant is a way of doing the work, so a claim that an inspector negligently approved plans, missed a defect or issued a certificate is usually treated in the normal way, subject to the policy terms. Our general guide to whether PI covers AI mistakes explains this in more detail.
Some insurers may introduce explicit AI wording, either to confirm cover or to restrict it. The difference between affirmative and silent AI cover matters at renewal. Cyber and data clauses can also matter if the problem is a system failure or data breach rather than professional error.
Construction PI policies may limit or exclude claims connected with fire safety, combustible cladding or external wall systems, or provide that cover only on an aggregate basis or with conditions. Building control claims frequently involve fire: compartmentation, cavity barriers, fire stopping and means of escape. These are also the areas AI plan-checking and image tools are marketed to cover. A fire safety restriction applies according to its wording, regardless of whether AI was used, so an AI-assisted plan check of a fire strategy may fall squarely within it. See cladding and fire safety exclusions in PI.
Illustrative: an RBCA uses an AI rule-checker on a residential scheme and approves it. A compartmentation defect later leads to a claim. The RBCA's policy covers negligence but contains a fire safety restriction. Whether the claim is covered turns on that clause, not on the use of AI, but the AI-assisted review will be examined closely in the defence.
Under the duty of fair presentation, you must disclose material circumstances at inception and renewal. How you use AI in plans assessment, inspection, records and applicant contact may be material, particularly if it changes how much human review takes place. Insurers may ask about tools, controls and the proportion of remote inspections. Keeping a clear record of AI use also helps; see what to document about AI use. RICS members can draw on the RICS AI standard, which expects terms of engagement to state, if available, the extent of PI cover for AI use.
Useful steps include:
Related: AI plans assessment, AI and competence portfolios and BSR codes and AI. Apex arranges PI for building control approvers and self-employed inspectors. A broker reviews your limit, fire safety terms and how the policy treats AI-assisted work; see PI insurance for building inspectors and approvers and the AI in building control hub.
No. RBCAs must hold adequate insurance, work only where suitably insured and provide the certificate to BSR on request, but the conduct rules do not name PI or set a minimum limit, policy terms or run-off.
A PI policy may not mention AI at all, so negligent AI-assisted work is usually treated like other negligence, subject to the terms. Some insurers may add AI-specific clauses, so check your wording at each renewal.
A fire safety restriction applies according to its wording, regardless of whether AI was used. Because AI tools may be used on compartmentation and fire stopping, check how your policy's fire safety terms would apply.
You must make a fair presentation of the risk, which includes material circumstances. How you use AI in plans assessment, inspection and reporting may be material, especially where it reduces human review.
Tell us about your firm and the work you do. A broker will review how your current PI treats AI-assisted work, or arrange new cover. No fee for a quote. Or call 0117 325 0027.
Start a PI quote Request a callbackApex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Registered in England and Wales, company number 07014570. This page is general information about how AI is used in the profession and how insurance may respond. It is not legal, regulatory or insurance advice on your circumstances, and it does not guarantee that cover will be available or on what terms.
