A construction health and safety consultant — IOSH-chartered, OSHCR-registered, ten years in independent practice after fifteen years client-side at a tier-one contractor — is retained by a regional principal contractor on a £14m mixed-use scheme. The retainer covers monthly site H&S audits, review of subcontractor risk assessments and method statements (RAMS), induction support, and acting as the contractor's competent person under regulation 7 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Five months into the build a steel erector is struck by a partially-cut purlin that fell from height during dismantling; he survives with a permanent spinal injury. The HSE attends within hours, an investigation under section 20 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 begins, a prohibition notice is served and the site stops for nine days. Two years later the principal contractor is fined £640,000 under the Sentencing Council guideline; the injured worker's civil claim settles at around £1.4m. The principal contractor's insurers then commence a contribution claim against the consultant, alleging that the most recent monthly audit failed to identify the unsafe purlin-dismantling sequence, that the reviewed method statement was generic and that the consultant should have stopped the work. The consultant's PI policy is the only thing standing between the consultancy and a seven-figure contribution exposure.
This article is the construction-site companion to our pillar guide on H&S consultants' PI. It explains where the construction H&S consultant fits in the legal and contractual chain, where things go wrong, and what the PI policy does — and importantly does not — respond to. Its sibling cluster on CDM principal designer PI covers the related but distinct question of the principal designer dutyholder appointment under CDM 2015 and the Building Safety Act 2022.
What construction H&S consultants actually do
The "construction H&S consultant" role spans a band of services rather than a single defined function. At one end, the consultant is an external compliance adviser to a principal contractor or contractor, attending site weekly or monthly to audit working practices against the construction phase plan, the project-specific RAMS and HSE guidance. In the middle of the band, the consultant is the contractor's regulation 7 MHSWR "competent person" — the named person providing internal H&S assistance, typically delivering inductions, signing off RAMS, advising on permits-to-work and producing toolbox talk material. At the other end, the consultant is acting more closely with site supervision, attending pre-start meetings, advising on sequencing and being consulted before high-risk work commences (lifts, hot works, confined-space entry, work at height in unusual conditions).
The CDM 2015 framework allocates statutory duties to the client, the principal designer, the principal contractor, designers, contractors and workers. The consultant is rarely a CDM dutyholder in their own right (that question — and where consultants take on principal designer appointments themselves — is dealt with in the cluster on CDM principal designer PI). What the consultant does is advise the dutyholders. The legal status of that advice is the central question for PI.
The legal framework — what the consultant is advising on
The everyday statutory framework the construction H&S consultant operates inside is dense. HSWA 1974 is the criminal backbone — section 2 (duty to employees), section 3 (duty to non-employees, which catches subcontractors and visitors), section 7 (personal duty on individual employees including senior employees), section 33 (offences) and section 37 (consent, connivance or neglect by directors and senior managers, the personal liability route). MHSWR 1999 sits across it with the risk assessment, planning and competence framework, including the regulation 7 "competent person" requirement that brings most external H&S consultants into their engagements.
CDM 2015 allocates the construction-specific duties: the client (regulation 4) must make suitable arrangements; the principal designer (regulation 11) plans, manages and monitors the pre-construction phase; the principal contractor (regulation 12) plans, manages, monitors and coordinates the construction phase, including producing the construction phase plan; designers and contractors carry their own regulations 9–10 and 13–14 duties. Where a consultant is advising the principal contractor, they are advising on regulation 12 and the construction phase plan — the document at the heart of most post-incident scrutiny.
The Building Safety Act 2022 has added a parallel dutyholder regime for higher-risk buildings (residential 18m or 7 storeys with two or more dwellings), with separate client, principal designer and principal contractor appointments, gateways one to three under the Building Safety Regulator and the golden thread record-keeping duty. The construction H&S consultant working on HRB projects needs to know which regime each duty derives from. The Fire Safety Act 2021 and Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 sit alongside for residential occupations.
The Sentencing Council guideline for health and safety offences (in force 1 February 2016) drives the fines outcome — the turnover-banded matrix that has produced six- and seven-figure fines as routine outcomes for medium and large contractor convictions, with the consultant's advice often subject to detailed scrutiny during the prosecution because it shapes the contractor's culpability assessment.
Where things go wrong — the recurring failure modes
Anonymising across the industry, construction H&S consultants' PI claims tend to cluster around a handful of failure modes that the broker sees over and over.
The omitted hazard. The consultant's risk assessment, method statement review or audit failed to identify a hazard that was present and subsequently caused harm. The omitted hazard is often something at the edge of a defined work scope — the temporary works detail that nobody quite owned, the sequencing risk between two trades, the residual hazard left by an earlier phase that the next phase's RAMS treated as historic. Where the contributing factor in the eventual incident is the omitted hazard, the consultant is in the chain.
The generic risk assessment or method statement. The deliverable was produced using template content from a previous similar project without adequate project-specific adaptation. Generic template content survives audit by the client and the principal contractor but fails the post-incident test when investigators ask what about this site, this trade, this configuration produced this document. The line between sensible re-use of competent template material and unsuitable generic content is the line that gets crossed.
Inadequate supervision recommendation. The consultant identified a risk but recommended controls that depended on supervision that the contractor did not in practice have the capacity to deliver — the toolbox talk plus visual check rather than the permit-to-work, the briefing rather than the standing presence of a competent supervisor for a high-risk activity. Where the eventual incident involves the activity the consultant recommended lesser controls for, the chain of causation argument writes itself.
Audit findings not closed out. The consultant's monthly audit identified non-conformances that were recorded but not adequately followed up, either by the consultant in subsequent audits or by the contractor closing them out. When the incident relates to one of the open non-conformances, the audit record becomes the central document in the claim and the consultant's follow-up process is scrutinised.
Post-incident attendance. The consultant attended after a notifiable incident, produced an investigation report, made recommendations, and the same or a similar incident recurred. The recurrence claim turns on whether the consultant's investigation correctly identified root cause and whether the recommendations were adequate.
Competence advice. The consultant advised the duty-holder on the competence of a subcontractor, a supervisor or a site operative; that person turned out to be inadequately competent and an incident followed. The consultant's competence-advice deliverable becomes evidence in the eventual prosecution and is the basis for the contribution claim.
The chain of causation when site workers are harmed
When a site worker is harmed, the legal proceedings that follow split into two parallel tracks. The criminal track is an HSE investigation that may lead to prosecution of the principal contractor, the contractor employing the worker, individual managers under section 37 HSWA, and in the most serious cases the contracting entity under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The civil track is the injured worker's claim (or the family's claim in a fatality) brought against the employer and the principal contractor, joined under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 to anyone else alleged to have caused or contributed to the loss.
The consultant typically sits in the civil track. The injured worker rarely sues the consultant direct; the contribution claim comes from the principal contractor or the employer once they are facing civil liability themselves. The pleaded case is that the consultant's advice failed in one of the modes above and that the failure caused or materially contributed to the incident. Causation is the battleground — the consultant's defence is usually that the contractor was the dutyholder, that the contractor exercised independent professional judgment, that the consultant's deliverable was advisory and that the actual cause of the incident was an operational decision taken on the day by the contractor or supervisor. Whether the defence succeeds turns on the documentation: what the appointment said the consultant was retained for, what the deliverables actually contained, what the audit records show, what was discussed at pre-start meetings.
The criminal track touches the consultant in two ways. First, the consultant is often a witness in the prosecution of the contractor — required to give evidence about the deliverables produced and the advice given. Second, in rarer cases, the consultant is themselves at risk of prosecution under section 3 or section 36 HSWA (acts of another person) or section 7 (where the consultant is treated as an employee for the purposes of the section) where the consultant's own conduct contributed to the breach. Personal-liability prosecution of consultants is uncommon but not unknown, and any consultant who is interviewed under caution should treat that as an immediate notification trigger to their PI insurer.
What PI does — and does not — respond to
This is the most important paragraph in the article. Professional Indemnity Insurance pays civil damages and the legal costs of defending civil claims. It does not pay criminal fines. A fine imposed on the principal contractor under HSWA 1974 is not paid by the consultant's PI policy (and would not be paid by the contractor's own PI policy either; HSE fines are not insurable as a matter of UK public policy). A fine imposed on the consultant personally is similarly not insurable.
What the consultant's PI policy does respond to is the civil contribution claim from the principal contractor or the employer for the damages they have paid to the injured worker — including the defence costs of fighting that contribution claim and any settlement or judgment. That is the structural exposure: not the fine, but the civil follow-on.
Defence costs to HSE investigations are handled differently across the market. Some PI policies include a defence costs sub-limit that responds where the consultant is being investigated or interviewed under caution by the HSE; some include this as a separate legal expenses extension keyed to "regulatory investigations and inquiries"; some treat it as covered only where civil joinder is in prospect; some exclude it altogether and require a separate commercial legal expenses policy. The sub-limit is typically modest by comparison with the PI limit itself — figures in the £50,000 to £250,000 range are common — which can be exhausted quickly on a major HSE investigation. Whether the cover extends to the consultant's costs of assisting the duty-holder's defence (preparing witness evidence, reviewing prosecution disclosure, providing expert analysis to the contractor's solicitors) is a separate wording question.
Fee for Intervention costs imposed on the duty-holder under the HSE's cost recovery regime are not paid by the consultant's PI. But where the duty-holder includes those costs in a civil contribution claim against the consultant, the contribution claim is itself a PI loss to the extent it succeeds.
Section 37 HSWA prosecutions of individual directors of the consultancy are not insurable in the criminal-fine sense; the legal defence costs may sometimes be picked up by a separate Directors and Officers (D&O) policy, which sits alongside PI rather than as a substitute. Larger consultancies operating as limited companies should consider whether D&O is in place.
Sizing the limit and shaping the policy
The civil exposure is the figure to size against. A serious construction injury claim — life-changing spinal injury, head injury, amputation, fatality — typically produces damages in the seven figures once future care, loss of earnings, future loss of pension and accommodation adaptation are factored in. Multi-worker incidents (an explosion, collapse, fall of multiple workers in a single event) can push exposure into eight figures. The PI limit should be sized to that worst-case civil exposure with headroom for defence costs, not to the consultant's fee income or the smallest project value.
Indicative ranges for construction H&S consultants: a sole-trader consultant doing a mix of audit, RAMS review and competent person work for small contractors and SME principal contractors typically sits at £2m to £5m per claim; a small partnership with framework work for tier-two contractors and some BSA exposure sits at £5m; a consultancy with substantial principal contractor framework work, tier-one client base or HRB exposure commonly sits at £5m to £10m or more, sometimes layered.
The wording variables to focus on are: the definition of professional services (does it include audit work, competent person services and CDM advice explicitly); the duty of care covered (reasonable skill and care, with exclusion of fitness-for-purpose obligations); the retroactive date (continuous with previous cover); defence costs for HSE investigations (in-policy sub-limit, separate extension or excluded); aggregate caps on BSA-related, asbestos-related or cladding-related work; and the excess structure on each-and-every claim. The pillar guide covers the wording detail in depth.
How Apex helps
Apex Insurance Brokers is an independent FCA-authorised insurance broker. We act for the consultancy under the FCA's Conduct of Business rules, which means we represent the consultancy's interests in the negotiation with the insurance market. We work regularly with construction-facing H&S consultancies — from sole-trader OSHCR-registered chartered consultants through to multi-disciplinary firms with substantial principal contractor framework work and HRB exposure. The terms on which we act are in our Terms of Business; our handling of personal data is in our Privacy notice; the route to raising concerns is on our Complaints page. The health and safety consultants sector page is the place to start a renewal conversation, or contact us directly.
Frequently asked questions
My PI policy says it covers "professional services" — does that include site audit work?
Most standard H&S consultants' PI policies cover the firm's professional activities as scheduled in the policy. Site audit work, RAMS review, regulation 7 MHSWR competent person services and CDM advice are core activities and should be explicitly within scope, but the schedule needs to record them. Where the consultancy also does asbestos surveying, fire risk assessment, occupational hygiene or expert witness work, those activities are often listed separately with their own sub-limits. The broker's job at each renewal is to make sure the schedule matches the actual mix of work the firm is doing.
Will my PI pay the HSE fine if I am prosecuted?
No. Criminal fines under HSWA 1974, CDM 2015 or any other H&S regulatory regime are not insurable under UK public policy and are excluded from every standard PI policy. What the policy may cover, subject to wording, is the legal costs of defending an HSE investigation or prosecution against the consultant personally — usually within a defence costs sub-limit or a separate legal expenses extension. Fines imposed on the contractor or principal contractor are not paid by the consultant's PI either; the consultant's PI exposure is the civil contribution claim the contractor may bring afterwards.
What is the criminal vs civil distinction in practice?
After a notifiable incident, two sets of proceedings typically run in parallel. The criminal track is the HSE investigation and any prosecution that follows — usually of the contractor or principal contractor under HSWA 1974, sometimes of individual directors under section 37, and in the gravest cases under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The civil track is the injured worker's damages claim, brought against the employer and principal contractor and capable of being joined to anyone alleged to have contributed under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The consultant typically sits in the civil track as a contribution defendant, not in the criminal track as a defendant.
Are defence costs to HSE investigations covered?
It depends on the wording. Some policies include a defence costs sub-limit for HSE investigations against the consultant; some treat it as a separate legal expenses extension; some require the consultant to be at risk of civil joinder; some exclude it altogether and require a separate commercial legal expenses policy. The typical sub-limit, where included, is £50,000 to £250,000 — enough for many investigations, capable of exhaustion on a major one. The broker should always confirm the position explicitly at renewal rather than relying on assumptions.
My audit identified a non-conformance that wasn't closed out before an incident happened. Am I exposed?
Potentially, yes. Open audit non-conformances that are not adequately followed up — either by the consultant in subsequent audits or by the contractor in their closure process — are one of the recurring fact patterns in construction H&S consultant claims. The defence usually turns on what the consultant's appointment said about follow-up responsibility, what the audit reports recorded, what was communicated to the contractor and what the consultant did on the next visit. Good documentation of the escalation process is critical.
Does my PI cover advice I give to the principal contractor about subcontractor competence?
Competence advice is a professional service within scope of standard H&S consultants' PI wordings. The exposure is where the advised competence assessment proves wrong and a subcontractor or supervisor recommended as competent turns out not to be — particularly where an incident follows. The consultant's defence usually focuses on what information the consultant was given, what checks were done, what the deliverable actually said and the limits of the assessment. Defensive practice — using a documented competence assessment framework rather than oral sign-off — materially strengthens the position.
How does run-off work for a construction H&S consultancy?
Run-off is a non-renewing PI policy bought on cessation of practice that responds to claims notified during its term arising from work done before cessation. The right run-off period is set by the longest realistic limitation period applicable to the firm's back catalogue — six years for standard contracts, twelve years for deeds, longer where personal injury Limitation Act 1980 considerations apply (the three-year date-of-knowledge rule means industrial disease claims can be notified decades after the work). Run-off is paid as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of the last working policy premium.
Related guides
- The pillar — H&S consultants' PI insurance UK guide 2026
- CDM principal designer PI — the dutyholder appointment exposure
- Health and safety consultants sector page — speak to a broker
- All Apex PI sectors
About Apex Insurance Brokers
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FCA firm reference 724952. Registered in England and Wales, Companies House 07014570. Trading address QCS, 53 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol BS1 4HQ; registered office c/o Westcan, 5 Anglo Office Park, Bristol BS15 1NT. Email info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk, telephone 0117 325 0027. This guide is general information about Professional Indemnity Insurance for UK construction health and safety consultants and is not advice tailored to any individual firm's circumstances. Last reviewed: May 2026.
FAQPage JSON-LD (hand-rolled — add via Yoast Custom Field or theme injection)
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "FAQPage",
"mainEntity": [
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "My PI policy says it covers professional services — does that include site audit work?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Most standard H&S consultants' PI policies cover the firm's professional activities as scheduled in the policy. Site audit work, RAMS review, regulation 7 MHSWR competent person services and CDM advice are core activities and should be explicitly within scope, but the schedule needs to record them. Where the consultancy also does asbestos surveying, fire risk assessment, occupational hygiene or expert witness work, those activities are often listed separately with their own sub-limits. The broker's job at each renewal is to make sure the schedule matches the actual mix of work the firm is doing."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Will my PI pay the HSE fine if I am prosecuted?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "No. Criminal fines under HSWA 1974, CDM 2015 or any other H&S regulatory regime are not insurable under UK public policy and are excluded from every standard PI policy. What the policy may cover, subject to wording, is the legal costs of defending an HSE investigation or prosecution against the consultant personally — usually within a defence costs sub-limit or a separate legal expenses extension. Fines imposed on the contractor or principal contractor are not paid by the consultant's PI either; the consultant's PI exposure is the civil contribution claim the contractor may bring afterwards."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the criminal vs civil distinction in practice?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "After a notifiable incident, two sets of proceedings typically run in parallel. The criminal track is the HSE investigation and any prosecution that follows — usually of the contractor or principal contractor under HSWA 1974, sometimes of individual directors under section 37, and in the gravest cases under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007. The civil track is the injured worker's damages claim, brought against the employer and principal contractor and capable of being joined to anyone alleged to have contributed under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The consultant typically sits in the civil track as a contribution defendant, not in the criminal track as a defendant."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Are defence costs to HSE investigations covered?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "It depends on the wording. Some policies include a defence costs sub-limit for HSE investigations against the consultant; some treat it as a separate legal expenses extension; some require the consultant to be at risk of civil joinder; some exclude it altogether and require a separate commercial legal expenses policy. The typical sub-limit, where included, is £50,000 to £250,000 — enough for many investigations, capable of exhaustion on a major one. The broker should always confirm the position explicitly at renewal rather than relying on assumptions."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "My audit identified a non-conformance that wasn't closed out before an incident happened. Am I exposed?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Potentially, yes. Open audit non-conformances that are not adequately followed up — either by the consultant in subsequent audits or by the contractor in their closure process — are one of the recurring fact patterns in construction H&S consultant claims. The defence usually turns on what the consultant's appointment said about follow-up responsibility, what the audit reports recorded, what was communicated to the contractor and what the consultant did on the next visit. Good documentation of the escalation process is critical."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does my PI cover advice I give to the principal contractor about subcontractor competence?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Competence advice is a professional service within scope of standard H&S consultants' PI wordings. The exposure is where the advised competence assessment proves wrong and a subcontractor or supervisor recommended as competent turns out not to be — particularly where an incident follows. The consultant's defence usually focuses on what information the consultant was given, what checks were done, what the deliverable actually said and the limits of the assessment. Defensive practice — using a documented competence assessment framework rather than oral sign-off — materially strengthens the position."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "How does run-off work for a construction H&S consultancy?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Run-off is a non-renewing PI policy bought on cessation of practice that responds to claims notified during its term arising from work done before cessation. The right run-off period is set by the longest realistic limitation period applicable to the firm's back catalogue — six years for standard contracts, twelve years for deeds, longer where personal injury Limitation Act 1980 considerations apply (the three-year date-of-knowledge rule means industrial disease claims can be notified decades after the work). Run-off is paid as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of the last working policy premium."
}
}
]
}