The RICS minimum wording is not a policy — it is a floor. Most firms only realise the difference when their claim hits an endorsement RICS did not write.
The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors publishes a Minimum Approved Professional Indemnity Insurance Wording that every RICS-regulated firm must hold from a qualifying insurer. The wording sets the structural rules: claims-made trigger, each-and-every-claim limit, defence costs treatment, the run-off requirement on closure, and a specific aggregation clause. It deliberately does not write the whole policy. Around the minimum sits a layer of insurer-specific drafting — most importantly the fire safety and cladding endorsements that have reshaped the market since 2021. This guide explains what RICS actually mandates, what it leaves to the insurer, and where the practical exposures sit for a buyer in 2026.
The RICS Minimum Approved Wording works as a regulatory contract layer. Every policy issued by a qualifying insurer to a regulated firm has to incorporate the minimum terms; insurers can offer broader cover but cannot offer narrower. The current edition (issued in its post-2021 form following the cladding crisis revisions) prescribes:
What RICS does not write is the schedule of exclusions, the fire safety position, the conditions precedent, or the dispute resolution clause. Those sit with the qualifying insurer. The result is a market where two firms with apparently identical policies — both “RICS minimum wording with £2m limit” — can carry materially different cover once the schedule is read alongside the wording.
The list of qualifying insurers is published and updated by RICS. Firms must check it before binding; cover bought from a non-listed insurer does not satisfy the regulatory requirement, regardless of how good the wording looks.
For most claims the minimum wording does the heavy lifting. The insuring clause responds to civil liability for breach of professional duty in connection with the firm’s surveying services. Defence costs are in addition to the limit, so the limit available to satisfy a settlement is not eroded by legal spend on the primary layer. The aggregation clause — “one claim or series of claims arising from one originating cause or source” — is the language the courts have considered in the AIG Europe Ltd v Woodman line and which insurers will rely on to treat multiple instructions from a single root cause as a single claim against a single limit.
The post-2021 revisions introduced or formalised a fire safety endorsement position for many qualifying insurers. There is not one RICS-mandated fire safety exclusion — instead, RICS permits insurers to attach a fire safety endorsement, and the published guidance sets out what such an endorsement may and may not exclude. Most exclude liability for claims directly arising from fire safety issues on relevant buildings (broadly, those within the Higher-Risk Buildings regime or within scope of the cladding remediation programmes). The drafting varies materially between insurers. Reading the endorsement against the practice’s actual exposure is now the single most consequential renewal task.
The Insurance Act 2015 applies in full above the minimum terms. Section 3’s duty of fair presentation sits alongside the RICS minimum wording’s own disclosure conditions, and section 11 prevents an insurer from refusing a claim on the basis of a breach of term that could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually happened. Contracting out of the Insurance Act is in principle possible under section 17, but qualifying insurers do not as a matter of practice contract out of the consumer-protective sections in the prescribed layer.
A four-partner surveying firm with £800,000 of annual fee income buys £2m each-and-every limit on the RICS minimum wording with a £10,000 excess. The book is roughly 60% commercial valuation, 30% building survey, and 10% expert witness work. A historic project monitoring instruction from 2018 — on a residential block now within scope of the post-Grenfell remediation programme — generates a claim by the building owner for £3.5m in cladding remediation costs.
The insurer accepts notification but reserves under the fire safety endorsement, which excludes “claims directly arising from external wall systems on relevant buildings”. The firm’s project monitoring duty was not limited to the wall system, and after exchanges of expert evidence the insurer agrees that 40% of the pleaded loss falls within the endorsement and 60% within cover. The claim settles at £2.4m: £1.4m paid by insurers, £960,000 picked up by the firm and its excess layer, and a contribution from the developer’s construction policy. The firm’s lesson at renewal is to negotiate the endorsement wording explicitly, not accept the renewing insurer’s standard form.
Apex’s view: The post-2021 revisions to the RICS minimum framework made the wording itself more uniform and the endorsements that hang off it more variable. The headline cover looks similar across the market; the negotiation is in the fine print of the fire safety endorsement and the aggregation language. We routinely see firms accept the renewing insurer’s default endorsement when a few hours of broker time would have narrowed it materially. If the practice does any residential project monitoring, employer’s agent, or contract administration work, the fire safety wording is the single most important paragraph in the policy.
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