A mid-sized D&B contractor in the South East — twenty years trading, £45m turnover, a clean claims record on commercial fit-out and residential refurbishment — receives a letter before action from a residential developer it last worked with in 2014. The work was a thirty-four unit block of flats, completed and handed over in 2015, sold by the original developer to a build-to-rent investor in 2018, and remediated by the investor in 2024 after a fire-safety review identified non-compliant cavity barriers, missing fire-stopping at compartment junctions, and a façade build-up that did not meet Approved Document B as it stood at completion. The remediation cost £4.6m. The developer is claiming the full cost, plus loss of rental income during the remediation works, plus its own legal and consultant fees. The contractor's managing director rings round his three subconsultants from that project. Two are still trading. The structural engineer's PI was capped at £2m and ran off six years ago when the firm was sold; the fire engineer's firm went into liquidation in 2022; the architect carries £5m of cover but has an aggregate sub-limit of £1m on cladding and fire-safety claims. The contractor's own PI runs at £10m per claim. The contract sat under JCT D&B 2011 with the fitness-for-purpose obligation unamended. The developer's claim is under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 — within the new thirty-year limitation period inserted by section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 — and the contractor is, on the facts, the most solvent target in the chain.
That letter does not, by itself, end a D&B contractor. What turns it from a difficult letter into an existential event is whether the firm has Professional Indemnity Insurance that responds, on a wording wide enough to capture design responsibility through the contractual chain, at a limit that absorbs both the defence costs and a realistic settlement, with the fitness-for-purpose exclusion not being asserted by the insurer, and with a Building Safety Act-aware claims handler on the file from day one. PI for UK D&B contractors is not regulated by a single statutory body, but it is shaped almost entirely by the contracts the contractor signs, the dutyholder regime under the Building Regulations 2010 as amended, and the long-tail of limitation that the 2022 Act inserted into the law. The choices that matter at renewal are not where the headline number is set — they are in the wording.
This guide is written for managing directors, technical directors and finance directors at UK main contractors who take on design responsibility under JCT D&B 2024, NEC4 ECC with Option X15, FIDIC Yellow or Silver Book, or bespoke D&B forms. It runs longer than most online explainers because the detail genuinely matters. A claim under the extended Defective Premises Act limitation, against a contractor whose subconsultant chain has weakened over the intervening years, is the single most dangerous file pattern in UK construction PI in 2026, and the renewal handled on autopilot is the renewal least likely to respond when one arrives.
What PI covers for a D&B contractor
At its core, Professional Indemnity Insurance pays the legal costs of defending a civil claim made against the contractor by a developer, employer, funder, purchaser, tenant or other third party who says they have suffered financial loss as a result of design work the contractor was responsible for, and pays any damages or settlement up to the policy limit. For a D&B main contractor the cover is structured around the fact that the contractor has taken on design responsibility — either by performing the design itself, or by taking responsibility for designs delegated to architects, engineers and specialist subconsultants under the head contract and the subconsultant appointments beneath it.
A modern D&B contractor PI wording typically responds to claims arising from the contractor's design or design management on the project — drawing errors, specification errors, calculation errors, coordination failures between disciplines, fire safety and cladding design errors, structural inadequacy, weather-tightness failures, mechanical and electrical performance shortfalls, and breaches of the Building Regulations or relevant British Standards. Cover responds whether the alleged failure was the contractor's own work or the work of a subconsultant for whom the contractor is contractually responsible.
The cover is almost always claims-made, meaning the policy in force when a claim is first notified is the policy that responds, not the policy in force when the work was done. That single point sits behind nearly every coverage dispute in the sector and behind the whole logic of run-off, which we come back to below.
What D&B contractor PI does not cover is worth knowing up front. It does not cover defects in workmanship that are not design-related — those sit on the contract works policy or fall on the contractor's own balance sheet. It does not cover liquidated damages for late completion, which are a contractual matter. It does not cover regulatory fines or penalties against the contractor, including those under the Building Safety Regulator's enforcement regime. It does not respond to dishonesty, fraud or deliberate non-compliance. And, importantly, most policies carry a fitness-for-purpose exclusion — the policy will not respond where the claim succeeds only because the contract imposed a fitness-for-purpose obligation that goes beyond reasonable skill and care. That exclusion is the single most important wording question for any D&B contractor in 2026.
The contractual landscape — JCT, NEC4, FIDIC
Three standard-form contracts shape the UK D&B market, with bespoke variants on top. Each treats the contractor's design obligation differently, and each interacts with PI cover differently.
JCT Design and Build 2024. The new edition, published in 2024 and now standard on JCT-procured D&B work, made one change that matters more than any other for PI: clause 2.17.1.2 now expressly limits the contractor's design duty to reasonable skill and care, with the words "under no circumstances will the Contractor be subject to any duty in relation to such design which requires that any such design shall be fit for purpose." That change tracks PI market reality and brings the JCT D&B contract into line with what most PI wordings will respond to. Contractors still working under JCT D&B 2016 or earlier editions should know that the older clause did not contain that limitation, and amended schedules under those earlier editions frequently restored the fitness-for-purpose obligation by amendment. A contractor whose live JCT contracts straddle the 2016 and 2024 editions needs to know which is which.
NEC4 ECC with Option X15. Without Option X15, NEC4 ECC imposes a strict liability on the contractor for its design — closer to fitness for purpose than to reasonable skill and care. Option X15 limits the contractor's liability for design to reasonable skill and care, and Option X18 puts a cap on total liability. Contractors operating under NEC4 should ensure both X15 and a sensibly-set X18 are in the Contract Data. The NEC4 Professional Services Contract (PSC) follows a similar logic for consulting engagements; we cover that in our companion guide on [consulting engineer PI and the NEC4 PSC](https://apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/consulting-engineer-pi-collateral-warranties/).
FIDIC Yellow Book and Silver Book. FIDIC Yellow Book 2017 Sub-Clause 4.1 imposes fitness for purpose on the contractor, with an explicit indemnity in the Second Edition. Silver Book (EPC turnkey) imposes the most onerous design liability available in any standard form, with the contractor taking near-total responsibility for design, performance and outcome. Standard PI wordings carry a fitness-for-purpose exclusion, so a contractor signing unamended FIDIC Yellow or Silver Book is contractually liable for an obligation that the PI policy will not respond to — unless the policy has been specifically extended, at additional premium, to cover express warranties and fitness-for-purpose obligations. That extension is available from some insurers, is expensive, and is one of the most carefully-read wording questions in international D&B work.
The practical position is that the contract sets the contractor's legal liability and the PI policy responds to that liability subject to the wording. Where the two are aligned — reasonable skill and care, with a sensible liability cap, and a PI policy that responds to all design liability arising from the contract — the protection works. Where the contract imposes obligations that the PI policy excludes, the contractor is exposed on its own balance sheet for the gap.
The Building Safety Act 2022 — section 135 and the new tail
If a single legislative provision has reshaped UK D&B contractor PI, it is section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022. Section 135 inserted a new section 4B into the Limitation Act 1980, extending the period during which claims can be brought under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 in respect of dwellings:
- For rights of action arising before 28 June 2022, the limitation period is 30 years retrospectively. This captures dwellings completed back to roughly mid-1992.
- For rights of action arising on or after 28 June 2022, the limitation period is 15 years prospectively.
The Court of Appeal in URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 772 confirmed that the 30-year retrospective period applies even to claims already under way before the Act came into force. The Supreme Court in URS v BDW [2025] UKSC 21, handed down on 21 May 2025, went further: it unanimously held that the developer's voluntarily-incurred repair costs were recoverable, that the developer could sue under section 1(1)(a) of the DPA after disposing of the buildings, and that a contribution claim could be brought without any prior judgment or settlement against the contributing party.
For a D&B contractor that has worked on residential design at any time in the last thirty years, the practical effect is that the firm now sits inside a much longer tail of potential claim notifications than was true before 2022. PI is written claims-made; the policy in force when a claim is notified is the policy that responds. A claim notified today in respect of work completed in 1998 will be handled by the contractor's current PI insurer, subject to the retroactive date on the policy and any policy exclusions. That single shift has been the largest single driver of the construction PI market's hardening over the 2019-2023 cycle and remains the principal underwriting concern in 2026.
Underwriter response to the section 135 tail has not been to absorb it through pricing alone. The standard response in 2026 includes:
- HRB-specific exclusions or aggregate sub-limits. Higher-Risk Buildings, defined as residential, care home or hospital buildings at least 18 metres or seven storeys, attract specific underwriting treatment. Many PI wordings now carry HRB aggregate sub-limits — typically £1m to £5m for fire-safety exposure, £5m to £10m for HRB design generally — sitting inside the overall policy limit.
- Fire safety endorsements. Standard market wordings include fire-safety carve-outs developed by the International Underwriting Association (IUA) and adapted by individual insurers. The wording softened materially through 2024-2025 but outright cladding exclusions remain in some smaller-firm policies.
- Design freeze and competency warranties. Insurers require evidence that the design was frozen at a defined point, that the firm operated a documented competency framework, and that the Gateway 2 and Gateway 3 audit trails (under the HRB regime) are retained.
- Increased excesses. HRB-exposed work commonly carries excesses of £25,000 to £100,000 per case.
The dutyholder regime — Principal Designer and Principal Contractor
The Building Regulations 2010, amended in 2023, introduced a dutyholder regime that runs alongside the long-standing CDM 2015 dutyholder framework. The two are distinct, and contractors often hold one, both, or neither on a given project. The PI underwriting consequences differ.
Under CDM 2015, the Principal Contractor is appointed by the client on projects with more than one contractor and is responsible for health-and-safety coordination during construction. PI exposure under CDM Principal Contractor work is principally for health-and-safety design coordination failures and the consequences that flow from them.
Under the Building Regulations 2010 as amended (in force from 1 October 2023), the Principal Contractor is the dutyholder responsible for designs complying with the Building Regulations on the construction phase. The role applies to all projects requiring Building Regulations approval, with a more onerous regime for Higher-Risk Buildings. PI exposure for the Building Regulations Principal Contractor is for non-compliance with the Building Regulations, including (post-section 135) the long-tail DPA exposure on residential work.
The two roles are frequently held by the same firm on the same project, but they carry different responsibilities. The PI policy responds to both, but the underwriting questions and the renewal documentation are different. Underwriters increasingly ask which roles the firm has taken on, the number of projects in each, and the firm's competency framework for the role.
The contractor as the deep pocket — URS v BDW
The Supreme Court in URS v BDW changed the practical risk position for D&B contractors more than any other recent decision. The Court held that a developer who has remediated defects in residential buildings can recover the cost of remediation from the original design party, even where the developer has sold the buildings. The developer's loss is recoverable subject to the original design party's defences on standard of care, scope of duty, contributory fault and limitation.
The flow-through to D&B contractor PI is direct. The contractor sits between the developer (deep-pocketed, commercially motivated to recoup remediation cost) and a chain of subconsultants whose own PI may have been exhausted, whose firms may have ceased trading, or whose retroactive dates may not respond to the historic work. Following URS v BDW, the contractor is the natural target defendant for residential design claims, and the developer's claim economics increasingly drive litigation strategy.
The contractor's defences in this position are familiar — reasonable skill and care under the contract (JCT D&B 2024 clause 2.17.1.2 or NEC4 Option X15), scope of duty, contributory fault attributable to others in the chain, net contribution (where the clause is in place), and limitation (subject to section 135 BSA). The defences are real, but the contractor is structurally exposed and the renewal conversation reflects that.
Back-to-back subcontracting — the PI interface
Standard contractor practice is to flow design responsibility down to subconsultants via warranty-mirroring appointments — matching duty of care, PI limit and run-off period. The intention is that subconsultant cover responds to subconsultant errors and the contractor's cover responds to coordination, integration and contractor-specific errors.
The PI interface is imperfect. The contractor's PI responds to the contractor's legal liability to the developer regardless of the subconsultant's solvency or cover position. If the subconsultant's PI fails — through insolvency, run-off lapse, aggregate exhaustion, or a fitness for purpose exclusion biting — the contractor's PI is the primary respondent, with subrogated recovery against the subconsultant a separate and often theoretical exercise.
This has three consequences. First, the contractor should verify subconsultant PI cover at appointment and at renewal — not just the policy schedule but the basis of cover, the retroactive date, the run-off provisions and the material exclusions. Second, the contractor's own PI limit must be sufficient to respond to the full integrated loss, not just the contractor's residual share after subrogation. Third, contractor PI underwriters increasingly ask at renewal how the firm verifies subconsultant cover and what governance is in place around appointment.
We deal with the subconsultant verification process in detail in our companion piece on [back-to-back subconsultant appointments and PI verification](https://apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/back-to-back-subconsultant-pi-verification/).
Cladding, the Developer Remediation Contract and remediation orders
The 2018 ban under Approved Document B and Regulation 7(2) of the Building Regulations prohibits combustible materials in external walls of new residential buildings over 18 metres. BSA sections 130 to 132 introduced Building Liability Orders (BLOs) and Remediation Contribution Orders (RCOs), extending liability to associated companies and designed to prevent corporate restructuring being used to evade remediation responsibility.
The Developer Remediation Contract, signed by 54 developers as of 30 June 2025, commits signatories to remediate life-critical fire safety defects in residential buildings of 11 metres or more developed or refurbished in the 30 years to 4 April 2022. The contract is voluntary but materially binding on signatories. Non-signatory developers face the threat of RCOs and BLOs.
For D&B contractors with HRB or cladding-relevant design exposure, the PI consequences include explicit cladding or fire safety exclusions or sub-limits in most construction PI wordings, the open question of whether RCOs and BLOs themselves are insurable under PI cover, and renewal scrutiny on the design freeze and product specification process where the contractor installed or specified cladding falling within the ban.
Collateral warranties post-Abbey Healthcare v Augusta
The Supreme Court decision in Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Ltd v Augusta 2008 LLP [2024] UKSC 23, handed down on 9 July 2024, held that a "standard" collateral warranty merely promising continued performance of the underlying building contract is not a construction contract under section 104(1) of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996. Consequently, the statutory right to adjudication under the Construction Act does not apply to most collateral warranties.
For D&B contractors this is a procedural reprieve — funder, tenant and purchaser collateral warranty claims must now proceed through litigation or contractual adjudication rather than the faster statutory adjudication route. But the substantive liability is unchanged. Collateral warranties to funders, first purchasers and tenants remain a primary route by which third parties access the contractor's PI tower.
The standard market position on contractor collateral warranties in 2026 is two free assignments without consent, beneficiaries limited to the funder/first purchaser/first tenant, a cap on liability aligned to the building contract cap, a net contribution clause included, and an aggregate cap rather than each-and-every where the project carries multiple beneficiaries. Underwriters monitor warranty volumes at renewal.
Defects liability period vs PI tail
The Defects Liability Period (DLP) under JCT D&B 2024 and NEC4 ECC is typically 12 months. Contractors commonly conflate the DLP with the end of their exposure. The two are different.
The DLP is a contractual right to return and rectify. During the DLP the contractor has the right and obligation to rectify defects at its own cost. At the end of the DLP, the contractor's right to return ends.
The PI exposure tail runs to Limitation Act expiry — six years for simple contract claims, twelve years for contracts under deed, or up to thirty years under section 135 BSA for DPA claims on pre-28 June 2022 dwellings. The PI tail is materially longer than the DLP, often by an order of magnitude. The practical implication is that a contractor whose DLP has expired without notification of defects is not thereby protected against subsequent claims. The PI policy must continue to be maintained, and run-off cover must be arranged at cessation.
How much cover do you actually need?
The contractual minimum is not the answer. It is the answer to a different question — the question your largest client and your largest funder are asking — and it is usually set without much reference to what an individual claim against your firm might realistically cost.
A rough proxy: think about your three largest live projects. What is the realistic worst-case remediation cost on each if the design as built turns out to be non-compliant or unsuitable? Your PI limit should comfortably exceed that worst-case number on the most exposed project, with headroom for defence costs, which themselves frequently run into six figures on a contested cladding or fire safety claim and can reach seven on a multi-track High Court matter.
As a working guide for UK D&B contractors, the bands look like this.
£5m is a sensible floor for a smaller D&B contractor doing mid-market commercial fit-out, light industrial, or small-scale residential refurbishment with no HRB exposure and no cladding-relevant design history.
£10m is the level frequently required by mid-market developers and many local-authority residential schemes. Most JCT D&B 2024 contracts on schemes above £5m contract value specify £10m as the contractor PI minimum. Mid-tier contractors typically carry at this level.
£25m is required by larger commercial developers, by most build-to-rent investors, and by virtually all FTSE-100 retail and office occupiers on D&B fit-out work. Contractors with material HRB exposure should consider this level or higher.
£50m and above is required by major residential developers on HRB work, by central-government infrastructure projects, and by large commercial occupiers in financial services. Contractors at this band typically buy a primary policy of £10m to £25m and an excess layer above it from a separate insurer, which improves both pricing and catastrophe cover.
The shape of the limit matters as much as the number. A £25m any-one-claim policy with an aggregate of £25m covers very differently from a £25m any-one-claim policy with a £50m aggregate. HRB-exposed contractors should ensure the aggregate is sized for the realistic prospect of multiple correlated claims arising from a single root cause.
Run-off cover
There is no statutory minimum run-off period for D&B contractors. The practical standard is six years, aligned to the ordinary contractual limitation period under English law, though for contractors with material residential design exposure under JCT contracts executed as deeds the relevant period is twelve years, and (post-section 135 BSA) the residual DPA exposure on residential work runs to thirty years retrospectively.
Most large-corporate building contracts now require the contractor to maintain PI cover for at least six years after Practical Completion. Some residential developers and most build-to-rent investors require twelve years. Some HRB-exposed clients require fifteen years or more.
Run-off is typically priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of the last working-policy premium, often building to 200% to 350% of the last annual premium spread across the run-off period in aggregate. For contractors with material HRB or cladding exposure, run-off pricing can be materially higher and the market materially narrower. Contractors contemplating cessation, sale or wind-down should engage with a broker at least nine months before the cessation date.
Selling rather than winding down does not automatically transfer the run-off obligation to the acquirer. The sale documentation has to deal with the position explicitly — either the acquirer assumes liability for historic design work and provides equivalent cover going forward, or the seller buys run-off as part of the transaction, or some combination.
What underwriters look at
Underwriters look at six things before they price a D&B contractor renewal.
First, contract mix. What proportion of work is under JCT D&B 2024 (the most insurance-aligned), JCT D&B 2016 or earlier (potentially fitness-for-purpose), NEC4 ECC with Option X15 (insurable), NEC4 ECC without X15 (potentially uninsurable), FIDIC Yellow Book (fitness-for-purpose), FIDIC Silver Book (heavily uninsurable on standard terms), or bespoke forms (variable). The contract mix is the single biggest underwriting input.
Second, HRB and cladding exposure. Current HRB projects, historic HRB work, cladding-relevant projects (any building with external wall systems requiring specification and sign-off), and any remediation work on residential buildings of 11m or more. The 2026 underwriter will ask for project lists with sign-off positions and gateway documentation.
Third, claims and notifications history. Five years of claims, formal notifications and notifiable circumstances. The construction PI market remembers — a single significant claim sits on the firm's record for the duration of the underwriting tail.
Fourth, subconsultant management framework. How the firm appoints subconsultants, what PI requirements it imposes, how it verifies cover at appointment and at renewal, and what governance is in place around the subconsultant chain.
Fifth, internal design and quality controls. Design review processes, the role of the firm's technical director or design manager, peer review on major projects, methodology, and increasingly the firm's policy on the use of generative AI in design coordination and documentation.
Sixth, balance sheet and corporate structure. Construction insolvency accounted for approximately 17% of England and Wales corporate insolvencies in the 12 months to September 2024. Underwriters look at financial strength because an insolvent contractor's PI cancels at administration — leaving developer recourse against subconsultants and through the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 against any still-in-force PI cover.
How Apex helps
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is a Bristol-based, FCA-authorised commercial insurance broker (firm reference number 724952). We are not tied to any one insurer, we are not a network, and we do not write our own policies. We act for you, the contractor, under FCA Conduct of Business rules, which means we represent your interests in the negotiation with the insurance market.
In practice that means we take your renewal information, present it to insurers we think will price your particular profile sensibly — including specialist Lloyd's syndicates active in the construction PI market — negotiate terms, explain the differences in wording between the quotes that come back, and document the decision so that it stands up to your own internal compliance review and to your clients' due-diligence questions on insurance. We do not promise a particular price or a particular insurer; those are underwriting decisions that depend on your individual profile.
We spend time on the parts of the policy most contractors do not look at — the fitness-for-purpose exclusion, the treatment of contractual liability and developer indemnities, the subconsultant wording, jurisdictional cover where you work outside England, and the retroactive date. We provide certificates of insurance in the form developers and funders request, and we support contractors through the notification, defence and resolution of any claim or circumstance.
The terms on which we act are set out in our Terms of Business, and the route to raising any concerns is on our Complaints page.
What to do next
If you are within ninety days of your PI renewal, this is the moment to look at the policy you currently hold and decide whether the limit, the wording, the fitness-for-purpose position, and the broker relationship are doing what your firm needs them to. If you are bidding on a new D&B contract or signing a new MSA with a developer of materially larger scale than your usual book, this is the moment to check whether your cover meets the contractual requirement and whether the design liability clause sits inside what your policy will respond to.
To talk through your firm's PI position with an Apex broker, see the design-and-build sector page or contact us. The first conversation costs nothing and does not commit you to anything.
Frequently asked questions
Is PI insurance mandatory for UK D&B contractors?
There is no statutory requirement that obliges a UK D&B contractor to hold PI cover in the way the SRA requires it for solicitors or ICAEW for accountants. In practice almost every UK contractor of any scale holds PI because their clients and frameworks require it. JCT D&B 2024 specifies the PI requirement in the Contract Particulars; NEC4 ECC Option X15 does the same in Contract Data. A contractor without PI is, in effect, a contractor that has chosen to exclude itself from most commercial and public-sector work.
What PI limit do typical UK D&B contractors carry?
£5m is a sensible floor for smaller D&B contractors with no HRB exposure. £10m is the standard mid-market floor and is required by most JCT D&B 2024 contracts above £5m contract value. £25m is common for larger commercial work and HRB-exposed projects. £50m and above is required by major residential developers and central-government infrastructure projects. Most larger contractors run a primary-plus-excess structure with two insurers.
Does my PI policy respond to fitness-for-purpose obligations in my contracts?
Most standard construction PI wordings carry a fitness-for-purpose exclusion. The policy will not respond to claims that succeed only because the contract imposed a fitness-for-purpose obligation going beyond reasonable skill and care. The single most important wording question for any D&B contractor is whether the contracts being signed are aligned to reasonable skill and care (JCT D&B 2024 clause 2.17.1.2 or NEC4 Option X15) — and where they are not, whether the policy has been specifically extended to cover the gap. Extension is available from some insurers, is expensive, and should be discussed with a broker before signing the relevant contract.
How does the Building Safety Act 2022 affect my PI?
Section 135 of the BSA extended the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 to 30 years retrospectively for dwellings completed before 28 June 2022 and 15 years prospectively for those completed after. The Supreme Court in URS v BDW [2025] UKSC 21 confirmed that developers can pursue contractors and designers up to 30 years post-completion even after disposing of the buildings. The practical effect is a much longer claims tail and materially tighter underwriting at renewal, especially for HRB-exposed contractors.
Does the Defects Liability Period end my PI exposure?
No. The DLP under JCT D&B 2024 and NEC4 ECC is typically 12 months and represents a contractual right to return and rectify. The PI exposure tail runs to Limitation Act expiry — six years for simple contract claims, twelve years for deeds, or up to thirty years under section 135 BSA for DPA claims on pre-28 June 2022 dwellings. The PI tail is materially longer than the DLP and the policy must be maintained accordingly.
What is run-off cover and how long should I buy it?
Run-off cover extends the right to notify claims after the contractor ceases trading or sells. Six years is the practical standard, but residential contractors with executed-as-deed contracts need twelve, and HRB-exposed contractors may need fifteen or more. Run-off is normally priced as a single up-front premium calculated as a multiple of your last working-policy premium, sometimes spread across the run-off period. Selling rather than winding down does not automatically transfer the run-off obligation — the sale documents have to deal with it explicitly.
How does my PI policy respond if a subconsultant becomes insolvent?
Your PI responds to your legal liability to the developer regardless of the subconsultant's solvency or PI cover position. If the subconsultant's PI fails, your PI is the primary respondent, with subrogated recovery against the subconsultant a separate and often theoretical exercise. This is why contractor PI limits typically sit materially above subconsultant limits, and why underwriters increasingly ask about subconsultant verification at renewal.
How long do I have to notify a circumstance to my PI insurer?
Claims-made policies require notification of any circumstance that may give rise to a claim as soon as practicable after the contractor becomes aware of it, and at the latest before the end of the current policy period. Late notification, or non-notification carried into a renewed policy, is the single most common reason a claim fails to be covered. If in doubt, notify — it does not commit you to anything but it preserves cover.
Related guides
- Consulting engineer PI — collateral warranties and the NEC4 PSC
- Back-to-back subconsultant appointments and PI verification
- D&B sector page — speak to a broker
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. Last reviewed: June 2026.
This guide is general information about Professional Indemnity Insurance for UK design-and-build contractors and is not advice tailored to any individual firm's circumstances. For advice on your own renewal please speak to a broker — see our contact page.