This case study is an anonymised composite based on publicly reported commercial insurance claim patterns. It is not actual Apex client data and does not constitute legal or insurance advice. Names, locations and identifying details have been changed. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952.
A mid-sized regional principal contractor based in Avonmouth, around 95 directly employed staff, turnover £58m. The firm builds out logistics warehouses, distribution centres and light industrial units under design-and-build contracts for institutional developers and end-user occupiers. The firm carries combined liability cover with a £25m PL/PD limit and £10m EL limit, an annual contractors’ all risks policy, and a separately placed professional indemnity policy. The firm’s subcontractor management procedure requires verification of public liability cover and other insurances at appointment and at each renewal during a subcontract.
The firm appointed a specialist roofing subcontractor to install a 22,000 m² PIR insulated single-ply membrane roof on a distribution warehouse for a national retailer. The roofing subcontractor had worked with the firm on three previous projects without incident over the preceding four years. At appointment, the subcontractor provided a current public liability insurance certificate showing £5m cover and a current employers’ liability certificate. The firm’s commercial team filed the certificates and progressed the appointment.
Approximately four months into the project, with around 60% of the roof installed, a fire broke out in the central spine of the building during an out-of-hours operation. The fire originated near a roofing operative’s working area where hot-air welding equipment had been used to seal a section of single-ply membrane. The Fire and Rescue Service investigation concluded that the most probable cause was inadequate cooling of the welded area before the operative left the site, combined with the proximity of insulation off-cuts and packaging materials that had not been removed at the end of the shift. The fire destroyed approximately 8,000 m² of completed and partially completed roof, damaged the steel frame beneath, and caused contamination of the warehouse floor slab from fire-water run-off and debris.
The reinstatement cost was estimated at £4.2m. The principal contractor’s contract works policy responded on the firm’s first-loss basis. Subrogation rights against the roofing subcontractor were the central downstream question.
When the principal contractor’s broker contacted the roofing subcontractor’s insurance broker to put them on notice of the subrogation, two facts emerged. First, the public liability certificate that had been provided four months earlier had been correct at the time but the policy had subsequently been cancelled mid-term by the insurer for non-payment of premium instalments — the cancellation had taken effect approximately seven weeks before the fire. The subcontractor had not notified the principal contractor of the cancellation. Second, the subcontractor’s directors were now indicating that the business was unable to fund a defence or any settlement, and the subcontractor entered administration approximately three weeks after the fire.
The principal contractor’s first-loss reinstatement cost of £4.2m was covered under its CAR policy subject to a £100,000 each-and-every-loss excess. The CAR insurer’s subrogated recovery against the roofing subcontractor was effectively defeated by the subcontractor’s insolvency and the absence of any subsisting public liability policy that could respond.
The retailer’s downstream claim against the principal contractor for delay costs, alternative storage costs during the rebuild and consequential losses across the retailer’s supply chain was approximately £1.8m. This was managed through the contract framework and ultimately settled at approximately £820,000 through a combination of contract negotiation and a contribution from the principal contractor’s combined liability public liability cover.
The CAR policy responded on the principal contractor’s first-loss reinstatement of the works subject to the £100,000 excess, with subrogated recovery rights against the subcontractor that proved unenforceable in the event. The combined liability PL cover responded to the retailer’s downstream claim on the basis that the principal contractor owed the retailer a contractual duty in respect of delay and consequential loss arising from the fire.
The professional indemnity policy was put on notice but did not engage substantively — the loss arose from operational subcontractor work, not from design failure.
The subcontractor verification failure was the central commercial issue. The principal contractor’s procurement procedure had relied on a certificate provided at appointment four months earlier with no subsequent verification. The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM 2015) duties on the principal contractor in respect of subcontractor competence and supervision were engaged, although the HSE took no enforcement action given the absence of personal injury. The principal contractor’s contract with the retailer contained a representation that all subcontractors would carry appropriate insurance throughout the project, and the failure of that representation was relevant to the contract claim negotiation.
The principal contractor’s CAR insurer reviewed the firm’s subcontractor verification procedures as part of the claim closure process and identified that the procedure needed to be tightened: certificate verification at appointment was insufficient on its own, and the firm needed either a structured periodic re-verification (typically quarterly) or a more rigorous certificate-of-insurance product that automatically notified the principal contractor of policy cancellation or lapse.
The CAR policy renewed with a 38% premium increase, a £250,000 each-and-every-loss excess (raised from £100,000), and a new condition precedent requiring quarterly re-verification of all subcontractor insurance certificates with a documented audit trail. The combined liability policy renewed with a 22% increase. The principal contractor implemented a new subcontractor management system using a third-party insurance verification platform that monitored policy status in real time.
The roofing subcontractor’s administration concluded with negligible asset recovery. Some operatives were re-employed by the principal contractor directly or by other subcontractors in the supply chain. The directors of the subcontractor were not personally pursued, although the loss-of-cover and non-notification matter was a relevant factor in the principal contractor’s commercial decision not to do business with companies controlled by those directors in future.
The single greatest controllable risk in subcontractor management is the gap between certificate of insurance at appointment and continuing cover throughout the project. First, certificates of insurance verify cover at a point in time, not continuing cover; either periodic re-verification or a real-time monitoring product is essential. Second, the principal contractor’s CDM 2015 duties on subcontractor competence include verification of resources, which has been held to include insurance arrangements. Third, the contract framework with the end client typically contains representations about subcontractor insurance that survive the project and that engage the principal contractor’s contractual liability cover if breached. Fourth, subrogated recovery against an uninsured and insolvent subcontractor is effectively a paper right — the principal contractor’s own cover and excess have to be sufficient to absorb the loss on the assumption that no recovery will be made. Fifth, hot works on construction sites remain one of the highest-frequency causes of major construction-phase fires; the Royal and Sun Alliance and Allianz published guidance on hot works management is reflected in many CAR policy conditions and should be embedded in subcontract appointments, not merely referenced.
We would have audited the subcontractor verification procedure at the previous CAR renewal and would have specifically recommended a real-time insurance verification platform — the cost is essentially trivial against the cost of an uninsured subcontractor failure. At notification, we would have ensured the CAR insurer’s loss adjuster and the combined liability insurer were coordinated from day one, and would have engaged with the retailer’s commercial team alongside the principal contractor’s project leadership to manage the downstream claim conversation. The contractual representation about subcontractor insurance in the prime contract is one we would have flagged at contract review stage as a known coverage and reputational exposure.
For the underlying cover, see our Construction insurance hub.
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