FCA authorised · FRN 724952 0117 325 0027Quote & buy →
Aipedia: Planning consultants
A client ordered to pay costs because of improper AI use in its evidence may try to recover them from its planning consultant, and whether PI pays depends on the policy wording. The Planning Inspectorate has said improper AI use may be unreasonable behaviour leading to costs, so this is a live exposure.
Part of: AI in Planning consultants
In short
The Planning Inspectorate AI guidance, updated on 23 September 2026, warns that improper AI use may be unreasonable behaviour leading to an award of costs. Where costs are awarded against the client as the party to the casework, the client may claim the costs, and its own wasted costs, from the consultant as damages for negligence. PI usually covers damages for negligent professional work, but wordings differ on fines and penalties, contractual liabilities and fee disputes. No insurer statement on AI-linked costs awards was found, and no such costs decision had been found as at October 2026.
The Planning Inspectorate guidance on AI in casework evidence sets a "golden rule" of responsible use. It warns that AI can create fake representations, evidence, text and images, and says improper AI use may be unreasonable behaviour leading to an award of costs. Inspectors may also ask for clarification about AI use.
Improper use could include citing appeal decisions that do not exist, submitting undeclared AI-altered images, or relying on AI summaries that misstate evidence. As at October 2026, no costs decision specifically citing AI misuse by a planning consultant had been found, so how inspectors will apply the warning is not yet known. The PINS AI declaration guide explains the guidance.
This page considers the common case where costs are awarded against the client as the party to the casework, such as an appellant or an interested party. The client may then claim against the consultant for breach of the duty of care in contract or tort. To succeed the client generally needs to show:
Causation is often the main battleground. If several experts contributed to the behaviour criticised, or the client gave instructions that led to it, the consultant's share may be disputed. Per-expert declarations help here, because they show who used AI on which document. See AI in appeal statements and proofs.
A claim for damages equal to a costs award is usually a civil liability claim, so many PI wordings would be expected to respond, subject to their terms. Points to check:
| Policy issue | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Fines and penalties exclusion | A costs award is not usually described as a fine, but insurers may look at how the exclusion is worded |
| Contractual liability | Indemnities or liabilities accepted beyond the common law duty may be excluded |
| Fee disputes | Claims to return the consultant's own fees are often excluded or limited |
| AI exclusions or conditions | Some wordings may add specific terms on AI use |
| Excess | Smaller costs claims may sit largely within the excess |
No insurer statement on AI-linked costs awards was found. See are fines and penalties covered by PI, contractual liability in PI and does PI cover AI mistakes.
Illustrative. An appellant's planning witness relies on AI-generated appeal references that prove not to exist. The inspector asks for clarification and the inquiry is adjourned. The council applies for the costs of the wasted sitting day and obtains a partial award. The appellant pays and claims the award, its own wasted costs and the consultant's fees from the consultant. The consultant's insurer considers the damages claim under the civil liability cover, and the fee element under any fee-dispute terms.
A clarification request from an inspector about AI use, or a costs application that refers to AI material, is commonly a circumstance that may give rise to a claim. PI policies commonly require prompt notification of circumstances, and late notice can affect cover. See circumstance notification in PI.
Apex arranges PI for planning consultants and a broker can review how your wording treats costs-related claims and AI-assisted evidence. See the AI in planning consultancy overview.
The guidance says improper AI use may be unreasonable behaviour leading to an award of costs. No costs decision specifically citing AI misuse by a planning consultant had been found as at October 2026, so how it will be applied is still developing.
Not usually in the ordinary sense, but it depends on how the policy wording defines fines and penalties and what it excludes. Where the client claims damages equal to the award, policies may treat it as civil liability, subject to the terms.
Often not. Policies may exclude or limit claims for return of the insured's own fees. Damages for other losses, such as a costs award or wasted costs, are more commonly covered, subject to the wording.
Usually yes, if it could lead to a costs application or a client claim. PI policies commonly require prompt notification of circumstances. Check your policy's notification clause and speak to your broker.
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.
