Spoke 6 of the Apex Insurance Brokers Building Safety Act 2022 hub. This is the honest market briefing: what is available, what is not, what it costs, and what to expect at renewal.

Plain English summary

The professional indemnity market for UK construction professionals has been reshaped fundamentally by the post-Grenfell loss experience and by the BSA 2022. Capacity in the right places is still available — but the wording, the sub-limits, the costs structures and the disclosure expectations have all changed.

The headline picture across the four most exposed work-types:

Fire safety design and advice — most restricted. Severe capacity contraction. Bespoke wordings, sub-limits, often London Market only for the harder risks.
EWS1 sign-off — heavily restricted. Many insurers now exclude EWS1 work entirely. Where covered, sub-limited and costs-inclusive.
Cladding remediation design — restricted. Available with sub-limits typically £1m–£5m in the aggregate, costs-inclusive, with detailed disclosure required.
Cladding remediation contracting — restricted but more accessible than design. Sub-limits common. Combined PI / public liability programmes are sometimes the cleanest answer.

For a "clean" construction professional (no fire/EWS1/cladding exposure), the market remains broadly functional. For a professional with material exposure to any of the above, the market is much harder, and the buyer needs a broker who understands both the technical legal regime and the underwriting realities.

This article describes the practical state of the market as at mid-2026. The picture moves; come back to us for the current position.

How the market got here

The starting point is the Grenfell Tower fire of 14 June 2017. In the years that followed, the construction PI market absorbed an unprecedented volume of cladding and fire-safety related claims. By 2020 — well before the BSA 2022 was passed — several major insurers had withdrawn from construction PI entirely, and most of the remaining markets had imposed some form of fire safety / cladding exclusion or sub-limit on renewal terms.

The BSA 2022 accelerated and entrenched the change. Section 135's retrospective extension meant that liability for historical residential work was suddenly back on the books. The dutyholder regime created new statutory roles attracting personal and corporate liability. The HRB regime created a structurally higher-risk underwriting tier. The cumulative effect was a permanent reshaping — insurers do not expect the market to revert to pre-Grenfell pricing or terms.

By mid-2026, the market has stabilised at a new equilibrium. The most exposed work types remain difficult, but not impossible, to place. The discipline of disclosure has tightened. The role of the specialist broker has become more important.

What is available — work-type by work-type

Fire safety design and advice

This is the most restricted segment of the market. Insurers see fire-engineering claims as the highest-severity, lowest-frequency category — and the long-tail nature of the work under section 1 DPA 1972 makes the reserve calculation particularly hard.

The shape of available cover:

A small number of specialist underwriters (London Market and a handful of company markets) write fire engineering as a primary discipline.
Limits are typically £1m–£5m per claim, with the upper end requiring layered programmes.
Sub-limits and costs-inclusive structures are universal.
"Any one claim" structures (rather than "in the aggregate") are sometimes available for the highest-quality risks but pricing reflects it.
Run-off is the single most difficult problem; multi-year run-off cover for a closing fire engineering practice may not be available at any price from the standard market.

What underwriters look for: documented competence framework; demonstrably qualified staff (IFE membership, chartered status); clean claims history; clear scope of services boundaries; no over-11m HRB exposure or only with strong supervisory governance.

EWS1 sign-off

EWS1 is the most exclusion-prone work type in the market. The reasons are well-known: the EWS1 process has had a chequered history, the documentary basis for sign-offs varies in quality, and the loss frequency has been disproportionate to fee income. Many insurers simply will not write EWS1 cover.

Where cover is available:

Sub-limits of £500k–£2m in the aggregate are typical.
Defence costs are inside the limit.
Disclosure requirements are exhaustive — every EWS1 ever issued, the building, the rating, the basis of the rating, the methodology used (PAS 9980 vs. earlier methodologies), the version of the EWS1 form, and any subsequent revision.
Some underwriters cover EWS1 only on a "going-forward" basis with full exclusion of any historic EWS1 sign-off.

The market has been improving slowly since 2023, as PAS 9980 has bedded down and as the EWS1 form itself has been revised, but the underlying risk profile remains unattractive.

Cladding remediation design

Cladding remediation design — designing replacement external wall systems for existing buildings, often funded by the BSF, CSS or a developer pledge — has a different profile. The work itself is high-value and concentrated; the documentary trail is usually good; the client base (often professional freeholders or developer-pledge signatories) is sophisticated; and the post-completion exposure is mediated by the rigorous Gateway 2 process.

Market reality:

Sub-limits of £1m–£5m in the aggregate are typical.
Costs structures vary; the better-quality risks can negotiate costs-outside-limit positions, at a price.
Aggregation language matters enormously where the same designer is working on multiple buildings — see the aggregation hub.
Disclosure includes BSF / CSS / pledge engagement, project list, scope per project, and any sub-consultant arrangements.

A practice that does only cladding remediation design (rather than mixed-stream consultancy) can sometimes find better terms with a specialist underwriter than a mixed-stream practice with the same exposure.

Cladding remediation contracting

Contractors doing cladding remediation have access to a broader market than consultants — partly because their public liability exposure is partially handled by PL cover, partly because the contractor's risk is partially mitigated by the design responsibility sitting elsewhere (subject to D&B issues).

Market reality:

PI cover available with sub-limits, typically £2m–£5m in the aggregate.
Combined PI/PL programmes are sometimes the cleanest way to handle the boundary between design and workmanship.
Subcontractor PI flow-down is increasingly a focus — the head contractor's insurer wants to see that the cladding subcontractor itself carries adequate cover.
Run-off is difficult but available, at a price.

Sub-limits and costs structures — the technical detail

Aggregate vs. each-and-every

A £5m each-and-every limit responds to every covered claim up to £5m. A £5m aggregate limit responds across all covered claims in the policy year up to a £5m total. A second covered claim after a £4.8m payment on the first leaves only £200k.

Cladding sub-limits are almost always aggregate. A "£2m cladding sub-limit" means £2m total across all cladding claims in the policy year — even if you have ten unrelated cladding claims.

Costs inclusive vs. costs outside the limit

A costs-inclusive structure means that legal defence costs erode the same limit as the damages payment. On a £2m costs-inclusive cladding sub-limit, £800k of defence costs leaves only £1.2m for damages.

A costs-outside structure means defence costs are paid separately and do not erode the indemnity limit. This is much better cover but is increasingly rare on cladding sub-limits.

A proportional structure (sometimes called "Type B" or similar) splits costs between insurer and policyholder in proportion to the indemnity sought above the limit. Rare in standard wordings; sometimes seen on high-value bespoke covers.

Aggregation — series clauses

A series clause aggregates multiple claims that arise from a "common cause", "common source" or "single act, error or omission" into a single claim for the purposes of applying limits and excesses. Where the same design defect appears across multiple plots, the series clause determines whether you face one £5m sub-limit or ten £5m sub-limits.

The case law is evolving; the wording varies; the outcome is fact-sensitive. See aggregation — series clauses explained.

Excess structures

Standard excesses sit "each-and-every" — the policyholder pays the excess on every claim. Aggregate excess structures (where the excess only applies up to a yearly maximum) are available but uncommon on cladding-exposed wordings.

For HRB / cladding programmes, the excess is often higher than the general PI excess. A £100,000 each-and-every excess on cladding claims is not unusual.

Defence costs control and consent

Most PI wordings give the insurer the right to control defence and require the policyholder's consent to settle (subject to the QC clause / waiver of contention provisions). In high-value cladding claims, the policyholder's interests and the insurer's interests can diverge — particularly where the sub-limit will be exhausted. Take advice on the wording before the claim arises.

Run-off implications

The interaction between BSA 2022 retrospective limitation and the claims-made structure of PI cover makes run-off the single most significant strategic issue for any closing or retiring construction professional. The full analysis is in Spoke 8 — Run-off cover and the 30-year horizon.

In summary for this article: the standard 6-year run-off is no longer adequate for designers and engineers with historical residential exposure. The market for extended run-off (10, 15 or theoretically 30 years) is narrow, expensive, and shrinking. The cost of buying 15-year run-off today, before a closure, is a fraction of the cost of facing a section 135 claim with no cover.

What underwriters want to see

For a practice or contractor with HRB / cladding / fire safety exposure seeking PI cover, expect detailed underwriting questions covering:

Project history: residential projects over 11m, over 18m, HRBs, going back at least 15 and increasingly 30 years.
Roles: Principal Designer, Principal Contractor, fire engineer, EWS1 signatory — for each project.
Competence: SKEB framework, PAS 8671/8672 alignment, individual qualifications, training records.
Process: design QA workflow, change control, golden-thread management, supplier diligence.
Claims and circumstances: every notification, every threatened claim, every regulatory enquiry, going back at least 10 years.
Subcontractor arrangements: who you sub to, who subs to you, their insurance position, flow-down terms.
Future intent: what proportion of the next 12 months' workload will be HRB / cladding / fire safety.

A high-quality, well-organised proposal pack — with a project schedule, competence framework summary, QA framework, current claims summary, and a forward-looking work-mix statement — materially affects the terms achievable. See Spoke 7 for the disclosure framework.

Pricing — the honest picture

We are reluctant to publish specific premium figures because the market moves and individual risks vary by orders of magnitude. The shape of pricing as at mid-2026:

Clean construction PI (no HRB, no cladding, no fire safety) — relatively stable, with modest year-on-year increases.
Construction PI with limited HRB exposure — material premium increase since 2022, ongoing pressure.
Construction PI with cladding remediation design exposure — significantly elevated; many practices paying multiples of their pre-2022 premium.
Construction PI with active fire engineering exposure — premium can be the single largest non-payroll expense in a small specialist practice.
Extended run-off cover for closing practices with historical residential exposure — exceptionally expensive where available; sometimes not available.

Pricing is also a function of disclosure quality. Two practices with similar exposure can receive materially different terms based on how well they present the risk.

Worked scenario

Facts: A 30-staff specialist fire engineering practice (turnover £6m, predominantly HRB and over-11m residential design and fire strategy work, no EWS1 sign-off, clean claims record for 10 years). Current PI limit £10m each-and-every, no HRB sub-limit, costs outside the limit, premium £180k.

At renewal in 2026, the incumbent insurer offers:

£10m limit retained, but with a £3m HRB sub-limit, costs inclusive.
Fire safety sub-limit of £2m in the aggregate, costs inclusive.
Aggregation clause tightened to "common cause".
£150k each-and-every excess.
Premium increased to £310k.

The broker takes the risk to market. Two specialist London Market underwriters respond:

Underwriter A: £10m limit retained, £5m HRB sub-limit, costs inclusive but with a costs-outside extension for the first £500k of defence costs. £100k excess. Premium £290k.
Underwriter B: £10m limit retained, £4m HRB sub-limit, costs inclusive throughout. £150k excess. Premium £255k.

The practice accepts Underwriter A's terms — slightly more expensive than B but materially better in real-world claims response because of the costs-outside extension on initial defence.

The point: the cheapest premium is rarely the best risk transfer. The structure of the cover matters as much as the headline limit and the price.

Sector-specific practical takeaways

Architects and multi-disciplinary practices: be explicit about what fire / EWS1 / cladding work you do and do not do. If you do not do fire engineering, say so plainly in the proposal and decline appointments that would put you in that scope. Document the boundary.

Structural engineers: disclose any work that touches structural fire engineering, including fixing design on cladding systems. The structural-fire intersection has been a frequent source of dispute.

Fire engineers: the market is narrow but it exists. Quality of disclosure and quality of internal governance are the difference between a placeable risk and an unplaceable one.

Building surveyors: if you do EWS1 sign-off, be candid with your insurer about the volume, the methodology, and any subsequent revisions. EWS1 cover is the most exclusion-prone segment of the market — expect tight wording.

D&C contractors: consider a combined PI/PL programme where the cladding / fire safety boundary is acute. The integrated programme can close gaps that two separate policies leave open.

Cladding specialist contractors: the highest-risk subsector. Programme design should consider PI, PL, products liability and (where applicable) directors' and officers' cover as a single risk-capital allocation.

Frequently asked questions

1. Why have premiums risen so much since 2022? A combination of factors: post-Grenfell loss experience, section 135's retrospective extension, the BSA 2022 dutyholder regime, capacity contraction in the underwriting market, and the long-tail nature of residential design liability. The combined effect is structural, not cyclical.

2. Can I buy cover with a fire safety exclusion to keep the price down? Yes, and many proposers do — but only if your forward work mix genuinely excludes fire safety. If you ever step into fire safety scope (even informally, even on a single project), you have a gap. The premium saving needs to be weighed against the gap exposure.

3. What is the difference between a "fire safety" exclusion and a "cladding" exclusion? A fire safety exclusion is broader, typically catching any fire-related design, advice or strategy work. A cladding exclusion targets external wall systems specifically. Many wordings carry both; the precise wording matters.

4. We had one EWS1 claim five years ago. Will any insurer cover us? Yes — the market is not absolutist about single historical claims. Disclosure is critical and underwriting will probe the methodology used, the building, the eventual outcome and what your subsequent practice has been.

5. What is the realistic minimum sub-limit insurers will offer? For active fire / EWS1 / cladding work, sub-limits below £500k in the aggregate are unusual; sub-limits of £1m–£5m are typical. The market generally will not offer a £100k or £250k sub-limit on these exposures because it is below the realistic loss threshold and creates more dispute than it resolves.

6. Can we negotiate the costs-inclusive position? Yes, but it is harder than negotiating the headline sub-limit. A costs-outside extension on the first tier of defence costs is sometimes available; full costs-outside is rare on cladding sub-limits.

7. What about clean-history practices with no claims? The clean record is worth a meaningful discount but does not eliminate the structural sub-limits. Insurers are pricing for the regime, not just for the individual.

8. Is run-off cover for fire engineering ever available? Sometimes, from a small number of specialist markets, at significant cost. The economics often do not work for a closing practice; the alternative — folding the practice into a larger acquirer who retains the going-concern PI — is sometimes the only viable answer.

9. Are insurers using AI to underwrite this segment? Some insurers are deploying machine-learning models to triage applications and identify high-risk profiles. Disclosure quality and consistency become more important — inconsistencies between submissions can be flagged automatically.

10. How often should we re-market the PI programme? Every year for any practice with material BSA-related exposure. The market is moving and incumbent insurers do not always offer the best terms at renewal.

Sources

Statute — Building Safety Act 2022 c.30; Defective Premises Act 1972 c.35.

Standards — PAS 8671:2022; PAS 8672:2022; PAS 9980:2022.

Reports — Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report, September 2024; Building a Safer Future, Dame Judith Hackitt, May 2018.

Market data — Apex Insurance Brokers' own market intelligence; aggregate Lloyd's market reports; broker-network published surveys; HSE / BSR statistical publications on Gateway 2 outcomes.

Where this fits

Disclaimer

This is legal and insurance commentary, not advice. The Building Safety Act 2022 regime is technical and fact-sensitive — consult specialist counsel and your broker on your specific position. Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, FRN 724952.

PI availability - fire safety, EWS1 and cladding cover