FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Structural and civil engineers
Engineers can use AI to help draft reports, but every statement of fact and opinion must be checked by the engineer who signs it. CROSS-UK warned that AI-written reports can "look robust to a non-engineer" while being fundamentally wrong.
Part of: AI in structural and civil engineering
In short
Structural appraisals, condition reports, feasibility studies and specifications are increasingly drafted with generative AI. The risk is fluent text that contains wrong facts, invented references, recommendations the engineer never made, or conclusions broader than the inspection supports. Readers such as clients, purchasers, lenders and Building Control rely on what the report says. IStructE Code of Conduct Article 6 requires appropriate skill and judgement, and the Statement of Ethical Principles asks engineers to explain uncertainties. PI usually responds to report reliance claims, subject to the wording, but scope and limitation wording often decide the outcome.
Typical uses include turning site notes into a first draft of a structural appraisal, generating standard sections of specifications, summarising previous reports, writing executive summaries, and rewording findings for a lay client. Some firms use AI to produce reports from photographs and short voice notes. These can save significant time on routine work.
The problem is that LLMs fill gaps. Where the notes are thin, the model may add plausible detail: a defect cause, a standard reference or a recommendation that the engineer did not intend.
Specifications carry a particular risk. An AI tool asked to produce a clause for, say, concrete or steelwork may combine wording from different sources and editions, quote performance values that do not suit the project, or leave out project-specific requirements the engineer would normally add. Because specifications are contract documents, an error can travel straight into procurement and construction before anyone notices it.
CROSS-UK Report 1554 described a calculation report that looked robust to a non-engineer but was fundamentally wrong, with new errors appearing in each revision. Reports carry the same risk. Common failures include an AI draft stating a defect was "not significant" when the engineer had not reached that view, a specification citing a withdrawn or non-existent standard, and a summary that omits a key limitation from the body of the report. Confidential client information pasted into a public tool is a separate breach.
Illustrative scenario: an engineer uses AI to turn site notes into a pre-purchase structural report. The draft says historic movement "appears stable" although the notes recorded no monitoring. The engineer signs it without close review. The buyer completes, cracking worsens and underpinning is needed. The buyer claims the report gave false reassurance.
A claim that a report was negligent, and that the claimant relied on it, is a core PI claim, and PI usually responds subject to the wording. The engineer's defence often depends on the scope of the instruction, the stated limitations and whether the reader was someone the engineer owed a duty to. Our scope of duty guide and advice versus information guide explain how recoverable loss is limited. AI drafting does not change those principles, but it can introduce statements the engineer cannot defend.
Related: AI inspection, AI in expert witness reports and LLMs and calculations. Back to AI in structural and civil engineering.
Apex arranges PI for engineers who issue appraisals and reports. A broker reviews your cover, your report limitation wording and how your policy treats AI-drafted reports.
Yes, as a drafting aid, provided the engineer checks every statement and owns the conclusions. Article 6 of the IStructE Code of Conduct requires appropriate skill and judgement, which cannot be delegated to a tool.
IStructE advises telling clients what AI is used for, and CROSS-UK suggested disclosing AI-assisted outputs in engineering submissions. A short note on how AI was used and who reviewed the report supports transparency without undermining it.
The engineer who signs and issues it. The tool supplier is not a party to your appointment, and readers rely on your professional judgement. That is why reviewing every sentence against your own evidence before signing is the essential control.
Be careful. Principle 1 asks engineers to respect confidentiality, and IStructE advises client permission before storing data and avoiding AI on sensitive or NDA projects. Use approved tools and remove identifying details where possible.
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.
