An Apex Insurance Brokers publication — 2026 Edition
Construction insurance is the only commercial line we place that is, in almost every case, dictated by a contract you signed before the quote was issued. Office insurance follows the building. Motor follows the fleet. Professional indemnity follows the firm. Construction insurance follows the JCT clause, the NEC option, or the bespoke specification that the employer’s QS dropped into the tender pack — and unless you read those clauses before you mobilised, you are buying cover backwards.
This guide is written for the principal of a contracting business — the MD, the FD, the contracts manager who signs off the cover, and the quantity surveyor who has to interrogate it when a claim lands. It assumes you are working in the UK, on building, civils, fit-out, refurbishment or specialist trade work, with a turnover anywhere from £1m to £50m. It does not assume you have a tame solicitor on retainer or a risk director with thirty years of experience. It assumes you have site-builders’ instincts, a working knowledge of your standard forms, and twenty minutes to think strategically about cover that probably absorbs two percent of your turnover.
The legislation that shapes the market is moving. The Building Safety Act 2022 changed the limitation landscape for residential work in a way that most contractors are still absorbing. JCT 2024 amendments are working through. Insurers are recalibrating after the cladding remediation wave. We have tried to write a guide that will still be useful when you read it again in eighteen months, while being specific enough to be worth reading once.
This is not legal advice. It is not regulated advice. It is a broker’s perspective on how to read your cover. For specific guidance you should speak to your insurance broker, your construction solicitor, your CDM advisor and (where applicable) your professional body.
— The team at Apex Insurance Brokers, Bristol
Why this chapter matters. In most commercial classes you buy cover for your business. In construction you buy cover for your contract. Read the clause before the quote.
The Joint Contracts Tribunal Standard Building Contract With Quantities (SBC/Q 2016, and the substantively unchanged 2024 reprint) sets the insurance position for the bulk of UK construction work. Clauses 6.4 to 6.13 are the insurance core. Read them once and you understand most of what insurers will ask you for.
Clause 6.4.1 obliges the contractor to take out and maintain insurance against personal injury or death and against injury to or damage to property other than the Works. Clause 6.5.1 deals with the contractor’s optional negligence-based cover for damage to the employer’s existing property and clause 6.5.2 deals with the joint-names cover where the employer requires it. Clauses 6.7 to 6.10 govern Insurance Options A, B and C — A being All Risks cover taken out by the contractor in joint names for new works, B being the same cover taken out by the employer, and C being the existing-structures-plus-extension wording used when the works are an alteration or addition to property the employer already owns.
The default figures in the SBC/Q are familiar: Public Liability typically £10m, Employers’ Liability £10m (against a statutory minimum of £5m under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969), and contract works cover of full reinstatement value plus the standard 10% professional fees and 10% above contract sum to allow for inflation and variations. None of these are mandatory; all are negotiable; all are commonly varied upwards by employers.
The choice of JCT form matters because the insurance defaults move with it.
The SBC/AQ (With Approximate Quantities) maps closely to the SBC/Q on insurance and the same clause numbering broadly applies. The Intermediate Building Contract (IC) has its own insurance section at clauses 6.4 onwards with similar structure but reduced provisions, suited to projects under roughly £5m. The Minor Works Building Contract (MW) strips the insurance section back further still — clause 5 deals with insurance in three paragraphs rather than ten clauses — and is sometimes used for jobs that, in retrospect, warranted heavier paper.
The Design and Build Contract (DB) introduces the contractor’s design obligation, which pulls professional indemnity cover into scope. Clause 6.15 of DB 2016 requires the contractor to maintain PI cover to the level and on the basis specified in the Contract Particulars — and the Contract Particulars are where you find out whether the employer wants £1m, £5m, £10m, aggregate or each-and-every, and on what specific design scope.
[Table: “JCT insurance defaults at a glance” — four columns: Form / PL default / EL default / Works cover. Strap-line: “Defaults are what the contract says before the Contract Particulars overwrite them. Always read the Particulars.”]
NEC4 Engineering and Construction Contract handles insurance through Option clauses 81 to 86. Clause 81.1 states the insurance the contractor provides; clause 82 covers the employer’s insurance; clause 83 deals with the form of policies; clause 84 with insurance against death of and injury to employees; clause 85 with insurance against loss of or damage to plant and equipment; and clause 86 with insurance against death or bodily injury to persons not parties to the contract.
NEC also uses Insurance Tables in the Contract Data that strip out the SBC-style narrative and replace it with a tabular minimum-cover requirement. The most flexible piece of any NEC contract is the Z clauses — bespoke amendments inserted by the employer’s advisor. Z clauses routinely modify insurance position, sometimes substantially: extending PI run-off, requiring named-insured endorsements, mandating specific insurer ratings (typically A.M. Best A- or above), inserting cyber liability triggers, or imposing fitness-for-purpose obligations beyond the standard reasonable-skill-and-care duty. Z clauses are where insurance arguments live.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “If you sign an NEC contract without reading the Z clauses, you are not signing the NEC. You are signing whatever the employer’s QS thought sensible the night before tender close. We have seen Z clauses that effectively impose strict liability on a contractor whose PI was rated for reasonable skill and care. The policy will not respond. Read every Z.”]
A growing share of UK construction is now let on bespoke contracts — sometimes JCT or NEC base contracts with heavy amendments, sometimes employer-specific forms used across a development pipeline. Insurance is the first place bespoke contracts diverge from the published forms. Common variations to watch for: cap on contractor liability replaced with an uncapped indemnity; PI required to be on an “each and every claim” basis (substantially more expensive than aggregate); joint-names cover required to include funders, beneficial owners and parent companies; collateral warranties to multiple parties with extended limitation periods; and step-in rights for funders that complicate the named-insured position.
[Common mistake call-out — “Pricing tender insurance from a template rather than from the contract. We have seen contractors win tenders at margins that evaporated the moment the underwriter loaded for the actual clause set. Read the contract, then quote the insurance, then price the job. Not the other way round.”]
Why this chapter matters. Contractors All Risks is the policy most contractors think of as “site insurance”. Its limits, definitions and exclusions vary more widely than any other class we place.
The Contract Works section of a CAR policy covers physical loss of or damage to the permanent and temporary works being constructed under the contract. The trigger is physical damage — fire, theft, escape of water, storm, impact, accidental damage — rather than financial loss or defective workmanship in itself.
The cover ordinarily extends from the date the contractor takes possession of the site or works area until the Date of Practical Completion (or sectional completion for each section). Some CAR policies extend automatically through the Defects Liability Period for damage caused by an Insured Peril during the DLP; others restrict DLP cover to damage caused by Insured Perils which occurred during the construction period and only manifested during the DLP. The distinction matters.
Testing and commissioning is the high-risk window at the end of most contracts. A water-test of a flat roof, an air-test of a sealed envelope, a pressure-test of an LPG system, an electrical commissioning sequence — all introduce energies and conditions that the rest of the construction period did not see. CAR policies vary in how they treat damage arising during T&C. Some include T&C as standard with a time-cap (often 30 days); some require a specific T&C extension; some exclude damage caused by the testing itself but cover consequential damage to other parts of the works.
For mechanical, electrical, plumbing and energy-system contractors, T&C cover is one of the most important fields on the policy. Negotiate it explicitly.
Materials manufactured off-site — bespoke joinery, structural steel, modular bathroom pods, plant items — frequently represent six- or seven-figure values held in a fabrication yard or supplier warehouse before delivery. Two contractual mechanisms recognise these values: the Materials Off-Site (MS-Form) bond required under some JCT employer-financing structures, and the Vesting Certificate that transfers title to the employer in exchange for payment.
For CAR purposes, the policy usually requires off-site materials to be specifically declared, often with sub-limits per location and a total off-site limit. Insurers want to know which premises hold the goods, what physical security is in place, and whether the supplier carries their own all-risks cover. A common gap arises when the contractor has paid the supplier, taken title via a Vesting Certificate, but the supplier’s warehouse holds no equivalent CAR endorsement — and the supplier’s commercial property policy excludes goods belonging to third parties.
Hot works — welding, brazing, soldering, cutting, grinding, bitumen heating, blowtorch use on roofs and any other process that produces flame, sparks or hot slag — are the single most common cause of large CAR losses. Most CAR wordings impose a Hot Works Warranty: a contractual obligation to operate a permit-to-work system, maintain a fire watch (typically one hour after cessation), provide appropriate extinguishers within set distances, and prohibit hot works in roof voids or near combustible materials without specific controls.
Breach of a warranty in insurance law is governed by the Insurance Act 2015. The Act softened the old position — a breach now suspends rather than discharges cover — but the suspension still defeats a claim arising during the breach period. Train your site teams on hot-works compliance and document it.
Where a contract involves works to or in existing employer-owned property (a refurbishment, an extension, a fit-out), the parties have to decide who insures the existing structure against damage caused by the works. JCT 6.5.1 leaves this with the employer on the employer’s own buildings policy, with the contractor liable only for damage caused by their negligence. JCT 6.5.2 requires the contractor to take out a joint-names policy covering the existing structures for damage caused by Specified Perils whether or not the contractor is at fault.
The 6.5.2 position is materially more expensive for the contractor and is uncommon outside larger refurbishment projects with sophisticated employers. Where it is required, declare it to your insurer at the quote stage — it is not within the scope of a standard CAR policy and may require a stand-alone extension or a different insurer.
[Diagram: “CAR policy structure” — three concentric rings labelled Contract Works (centre), Existing Structures (middle), Off-Site Materials (outer). Annotation: “Each ring is a separate underwriting decision.”]
Most CAR policies exclude damage caused by subsidence, heave, settlement and ground movement of the existing structures. The reasoning is that ground risk is, broadly, an employer’s risk — the employer owns the site, the ground conditions and the survey data. Where the contractor is engaged in deep excavation, piling, dewatering, vibration-generating activity or tunnelling adjacent to existing structures, the standard exclusion can leave a material gap.
The gap can be addressed by a specific JCT 21.2.1 cover (non-negligence cover for damage to adjacent property caused by collapse, subsidence, heave, vibration, weakening or removal of support, or lowering of ground water) but this cover is bought separately, often expensive, and frequently overlooked at the tender stage.
[Common mistake call-out — “Assuming the subsidence exclusion only applies to slow movement. Many wordings exclude any earth movement of any speed. Piling-induced cracking, vibration damage from heavy plant, dewatering settlement — all routinely fall outside standard CAR.”]
Why this chapter matters. Two reported cases redrew the contractor’s protection under joint-names insurance. If you operate on existing-structures work, you need to know what they did.
Joint-names insurance is insurance taken out in the names of multiple parties (typically employer and contractor, sometimes sub-contractors too) so that each named party is treated as an insured under the same policy. The intended commercial effect is a “no claim against co-insured” principle: if loss is caused by one named party and the policy responds, the insurer pays the loss and does not then pursue (subrogate against) the co-insured to recover.
In construction, the principle protects the contractor on existing-structures cover. If the contractor causes a fire that damages the employer’s existing building, and the building is insured in joint names under a JCT 6.5.2 or Option C policy, the insurer pays the loss and cannot then sue the contractor.
The leading case for two decades was Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership Ltd [2002] UKHL 17. The House of Lords held that where parties to a JCT contract intended a particular loss to be insured under a joint-names policy, the contractor was not liable to the employer for that loss even if it had been negligent — the joint-names insurance was the agreed remedy, and tort claims that would defeat that allocation were excluded as a matter of contract construction.
CRS v Taylor Young remains good law and has been followed and refined in subsequent cases. For contractors operating on Option C and JCT 6.5.2 work, it is the most important authority in the bundle.
Gard Marine and Energy Ltd v China National Chartering Co Ltd [2017] UKSC 35 examined the same question in a shipping context and reaffirmed the basic principle: where parties agree that a loss will be borne by joint-names insurance, the natural inference is that neither party is to be liable to the other in respect of that loss. The Supreme Court declined to extend the principle automatically to every situation, but where the contractual scheme clearly allocates risk to insurance, that allocation will be respected.
The practical takeaway for contractors is twofold. First, joint-names cover is not just an insurance arrangement — it is a contractual allocation of risk that operates as a defence to liability claims by the co-insured. Second, the protection only extends to the perils actually covered by the joint-names policy. If the policy excludes a peril, the underlying liability is not extinguished by the contractual allocation.
For the contractor’s protection to work, the policy must actually be in joint names. We routinely see contracts that require joint-names cover where the policy schedule names only the employer, with the contractor merely “noted as interest”. Noting an interest is not joint-names cover and does not engage the CRS v Taylor Young protection.
At project inception, ask for the policy schedule (not just a certificate). Read the named insureds. If you are not on the list, raise it formally — and notify your own insurer of the gap, in case a loss occurs before it is corrected.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “The single most common cause of a contractor losing the CRS v Taylor Young protection is failing to verify that the employer’s policy actually names them. The certificate from the broker says joint names; the policy schedule says single name with interest noted; the loss happens; the insurer pays the employer and subrogates against the contractor. By the time we are called, the position is hard to recover.”]
Why this chapter matters. Limit selection in construction is the discipline of matching cover to contract demand, regulatory floor and credible worst-case exposure simultaneously.
Employers’ Liability is compulsory cover under the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 with a statutory minimum indemnity of £5m. The 1969 Act and the supporting 1998 regulations require certificates to be displayed and retained.
In practice, almost no employer or main contractor accepts the £5m statutory minimum in a tender. £10m is standard; £25m is common on large civils, infrastructure and rail work; some projects require £50m or higher. The premium difference between £10m and £25m is rarely large and the larger limit is often the simpler answer.
JCT defaults at £10m PL. Many sub-contracts in the building sector require £5m. Civils work routinely requires £10m and infrastructure work £25m or higher. Demolition, piling, deep excavation and tunnelling face their own underwriting universe with limits often £25m and above, and rarely on standard wordings.
The PL limit should comfortably exceed the largest contractually-required limit you anticipate. If your top three current contracts demand £10m, do not buy £10m and hope — the next tender will demand £15m and you will be re-quoting mid-year.
Where the contractor takes on any design responsibility — full D&B, contractor’s designed portion (CDP) under SBC/Q, or any specification, performance, fitness-for-purpose, value-engineering or temporary works design — professional indemnity cover comes into scope. The contract will specify limit and basis.
The two big variables in PI are the limit basis (aggregate or each-and-every) and the period of cover after practical completion. Aggregate PI is materially cheaper than each-and-every but allows total payouts across all claims in the year to be capped at the limit; each-and-every requires the limit to be available for every individual claim and is the gold standard for employers. Read what the contract requires. Aggregate cover where the contract specifies each-and-every is a contractual breach.
PI is a claims-made policy and must remain in force through the period during which claims can be brought against the contractor for the original design work. Standard JCT D&B requires twelve years of PI cover after practical completion (i.e. the limitation period for a contract under seal); some employers require fifteen.
[Decision tree visual: “Limit setting” — start at contract demand, branch to credible worst-case, branch to regulatory floor, terminate at proposed limit.]
CAR limits are usually each-occurrence with an annual aggregate; PL is typically each-and-every; PI is typically aggregate. The interaction between contracts in the same policy year matters. A busy CAR claim year — three or four moderate losses across separate projects — can erode an aggregate limit faster than expected. Reinstatement of the limit (one additional reinstatement, for a premium uplift) is common in CAR and worth considering for contractors with substantial concurrent work.
Why this chapter matters. The Building Safety Act 2022 retrospectively extended limitation for some residential work to thirty years. Run-off planning is now a decades-long problem, not a years-long one.
Under JCT contracts the Defects Liability Period (called the Rectification Period in some contract reprints) runs typically twelve months from practical completion, during which the contractor is contractually obliged to make good defects notified by the employer. Some contracts extend this to 24 months for specific elements; mechanical and electrical systems often have longer DLPs in the bespoke schedule.
For insurance, the DLP is the bridge between Contract Works cover (which usually ends at PC) and the contractor’s longer-tail exposure under collateral warranties, latent defect provisions and statutory limitation. CAR policies vary in how they treat damage during the DLP, and PI policies have their own claims-made structure that bears no direct relationship to the contractual DLP.
The Limitation Act 1980 sets the basic limitation period for contract claims at six years from breach (twelve years for contracts executed as deeds), and for tort claims at six years from the cause of action accruing (subject to the latent damage extension under the Latent Damage Act 1986 which can extend the period to fifteen years).
The Building Safety Act 2022 changed this fundamentally for residential work. Section 135 of the Act amended section 4B of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to extend the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the DPA 1972 (work in connection with the provision of dwellings) to thirty years retrospectively for buildings completed before the BSA came into force, and fifteen years prospectively for buildings completed afterwards. The effect is that contractors who built or refurbished residential premises in the 1990s and 2000s can now face DPA 1972 claims they had reasonably regarded as time-barred decades ago.
The BSA also introduced a new regulatory regime for “higher-risk buildings” (broadly, residential buildings of at least 18 metres or seven storeys) administered by the Building Safety Regulator within the Health and Safety Executive. The new regime imposes Gateway approvals at design, construction and completion stages, a duty to maintain a “golden thread” of information about the building, and personal duties on principal contractors and principal designers.
For contractors operating in this space, the insurance implications are substantial: PI limits and run-off periods need to reflect the new limitation landscape; collateral warranties to leaseholders take on new significance; and the contractor’s records (the contribution to the golden thread) become evidentially central in any future dispute.
Collateral warranties extend the contractor’s contractual liability to parties beyond the immediate employer — typically tenants, funders, purchasers and subsequent owners. The Supreme Court decision in Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP [2024] UKSC 23 confirmed that a collateral warranty is generally a construction contract for the purposes of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, meaning adjudication is available to beneficiaries — and meaningful liability exposure flows from that availability.
If your contracts routinely involve collateral warranties, your PI limit and run-off term need to reflect the long-tail beneficiary exposure they create.
[Timeline: horizontal line with markers at PC, DLP end (12m), Contract limitation (6y/12y deed), Latent damage (15y), BSA prospective (15y), BSA retrospective (30y). Annotation: “The further right you read, the more PI and run-off matter.”]
Inherent Defects Insurance (also known as Latent Defects Insurance or BUILD insurance, the original UK market product) is a ten- or twelve-year first-party policy purchased by the developer or owner. It indemnifies against the cost of remedying defects in the structural and weathertight elements of the building caused by design, workmanship or materials. It is non-cancellable and assignable to subsequent owners.
IDI is most commonly seen on commercial development, residential schemes with long-term institutional ownership, and projects where the funder requires it. For contractors, IDI does not replace your own PL, PI or CAR — but on schemes where IDI is in place, it tends to take some of the heat out of post-completion claims because the affected party has a direct first-party recovery route.
Why this chapter matters. Health and safety breaches expose individuals to fines and imprisonment, not just the company. Personal liability under HSWA s.37 is real.
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 allocate health and safety duties across the project lifecycle. The key duty-holders are: the Client (regulation 4 and 5); the Principal Designer (regulation 11); the Principal Contractor (regulation 12); Designers (regulation 9); and Contractors (regulation 15). Duties on workers appear at regulation 16.
For the principal contractor, the substantive site duties are at regulations 12 to 14 — planning, managing and monitoring the construction phase, providing site induction, securing the site, and ensuring welfare facilities. For the principal designer, the equivalent duties at regulations 11 to 12 cover the pre-construction phase and the production of the pre-construction information.
CDM duties are not insurable in themselves — you cannot transfer a regulatory duty to an insurer. What insurance does is fund the defence of allegations of breach, the legal representation in HSE-led investigations, and (subject to public-policy limits) the civil consequences of breach.
The Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 2013 require reportable incidents to be notified to the HSE. The categories are: deaths; specified injuries (regulation 4 and Schedule 1, including amputation, loss of sight, serious burns, scalpings); over-7-day injuries (regulation 4(2)); occupational diseases (regulation 8 and Schedule 3); and dangerous occurrences (regulation 7 and Schedule 2).
Insurers expect to see your RIDDOR log at quotation. Patterns matter: clustering of specified injuries by trade, by site or by month is read closely. A RIDDOR-clean year is rewarded; a RIDDOR-cluttered year is loaded.
Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 makes a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer personally liable for an offence committed by the body corporate where the offence was committed with their consent or connivance, or was attributable to their neglect. Section 37 prosecutions are not common, but they are not rare either, and the consequences include personal fines, disqualification under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986, and (in serious cases) imprisonment.
The Sentencing Council’s Definitive Guideline for Health and Safety Offences, in force since 2016 and updated since, has driven a substantial increase in corporate fine levels. Personal fines have followed.
Directors’ and Officers’ (D&O) cover is the insurance response. A well-written D&O policy will fund the defence of section 37 prosecutions, regulatory investigation costs (Health and Safety Executive enquiries, Building Safety Regulator enquiries, coroner’s inquests with potential corporate manslaughter implications), and the civil consequences of regulatory action — subject to the standard exclusion of fines and penalties imposed on the individual themselves where these are uninsurable as a matter of public policy.
[Common mistake call-out — “Believing the firm’s PL policy covers a director’s section 37 defence. It does not. PL covers third-party injury claims, not the director’s personal exposure to regulatory prosecution. D&O is a separate, and often modest, premium that bridges the gap. Buy it.”]
The Construction Insurance Brokers’ Code (CIBC), maintained by trade body initiatives within the UK construction insurance market, sets out broker conduct standards specific to construction: contract review at quotation, clear disclosure of cover limitations, escalation of contract conflicts before binding, and ongoing project notification protocols. Ask your broker whether they operate to the CIBC framework. The answer tells you something about the discipline of their construction practice.
Why this chapter matters. Adjudication compresses dispute timelines to weeks. Your insurer needs to know before the clock starts, not after the decision.
The Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the “Construction Act”) introduced statutory adjudication for construction contracts in 1998, providing a 28-day binding-on-an-interim-basis dispute resolution mechanism. The Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 amended the Construction Act with effect from October 2011 — extending its reach to oral and partly-oral contracts, strengthening the payment notice regime, and refining adjudication rules.
For an insured contractor, adjudication has a specific operational consequence: the 28-day timetable from referral to decision (extendable by 14 days with the consent of the referring party, or further by agreement) is too fast for an insurer to be brought in mid-process. The notice of dispute is the trigger for insurer notification, not the decision.
Most construction-related insurance policies — PL, PI, CAR, D&O — contain conditions requiring notification of claims and circumstances “as soon as reasonably practicable” or within a specified period. The Insurance Act 2015 introduced a statutory duty of fair presentation at placement, but the conditions in the policy continue to govern in-life notification.
Late notification is a defence available to insurers. The defence does not automatically succeed — the insurer typically has to show prejudice — but the burden of running the argument falls on the insured. The simple rule: when you receive a notice of intention to refer to adjudication, a letter of claim, a complaint with potential professional exposure, or any significant pre-action correspondence, notify the broker the same day.
A circumstance is a set of facts that might give rise to a claim. PI and D&O policies expressly allow notification of circumstances; many PL policies do too. The advantage of notifying a circumstance is that it locks the matter to the current policy year — if the claim only materialises three years later, when you have a new insurer, it still attaches to the policy that was in force when you notified.
For contractors with collateral warranties, BSA-affected residential work or live disputes over completed projects, circumstance notification is the lever that prevents the long-tail risk from migrating to a future insurer who never priced it.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “If you are about to issue your final account on a complex contract and there are unresolved arguments on quality, programme or variations, notify those as circumstances before renewal. We do this at every renewal review for contractor clients on heavy-amendment contracts. It costs nothing today and saves arguments tomorrow.”]
If you do one thing after reading this guide, do this: pull out the insurance section of your three largest live contracts and your current PL, PI, EL and CAR schedules. Sit at the table for thirty minutes. Match each contractual requirement to a line on the schedule. Where you cannot find a match — joint-names, limit, retroactive date, run-off period, specific endorsement — flag it.
If gaps appear, your broker should be your first call. If you do not have a construction-experienced broker, or if you would like a second opinion as part of your next renewal cycle, we are happy to talk. No fee for a conversation; no obligation; and we will tell you straight if your current arrangements look sensible.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is a UK insurance broker based in Bristol, working with contractors, sub-contractors and specialist trades across England, Wales and Scotland. We are an independent firm authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority since 2014.
Contact us: - Telephone: 0117 325 0027 - Email: info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk - Web: apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk
Trading address: QCS, 53 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol BS1 4HQ Registered office: c/o Westcan, 5 Anglo Office Park, Bristol BS15 1NT
This guide is general guidance only — not regulated advice. Always consult your broker on your specific cover and circumstances. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited, FCA FRN 724952, Companies House 07014570.
This guide is published by Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. You can verify our regulatory status on the FCA register at register.fca.org.uk. The guide is general information based on our experience as an insurance broker. It is not legal advice, not regulated advice, and not a personal recommendation as to any specific insurance product or contractual position. Any decision about insurance cover or contractual amendment should be taken having regard to your business’s individual circumstances and advice from your own legal and broking advisors. We do not undertake to update this guide to reflect changes in regulation, market practice or law after the version date above. Case references are correct to the best of our knowledge at the date of publication.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on the contents of this guide.
Reviewed by Matt Bartlett, Director. Last reviewed: June 2026.
— End of guide —
Apex Insurance Brokers serves UK professional services firms and commercial businesses. Call 0117 325 0027, email hello@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, or request a quotation.
Get a quote