An Apex Insurance Brokers publication — 2026 Edition
The Professional Indemnity insurance market for architects in 2026 looks almost nothing like the market of 2016. The decade since Grenfell, the introduction of the Building Safety Act, the extension of limitation periods to thirty years for some claims, and the underwriting market’s response to that risk have together rewritten the rules. Cover has become narrower, more conditional, and more expensive — particularly for any practice with exposure to high-rise residential, cladding, or fire-safety-critical work.
We wrote this guide because the conversations we have most often with principals of architectural practices are now harder than they used to be. The simple questions — how much cover do I need, what does it cost, what does it exclude — no longer have simple answers. The wrong policy, taken in the wrong year, on the wrong wording, can put a long-tail liability on the personal balance sheet of a sole practitioner twenty years after they thought a project was closed.
This guide is structured around the decisions principals actually face: limit, wording, retroactive date, run-off, claim response and broker selection. It is sector-specific. It quotes the ARB, the Building Safety Act, and RIBA where they matter, and it tells you where to go for primary sources rather than relying on this document alone. It is not legal, regulatory or compliance advice. For those, speak to your professional body, your own legal advisors, and where appropriate the Building Safety Regulator.
If by the end of this guide you feel more confident going into your next renewal conversation, we have done our job.
— The team at Apex Insurance Brokers, Bristol
Why this chapter matters. PI is not optional for ARB-registered architects in any meaningful sense. Why the rules look the way they do shapes what cover you actually need.
The Architects Registration Board (ARB) is the statutory regulator of architects in the UK. The ARB Code of Conduct and Practice for Architects, particularly Standard 8 (current at the time of writing), requires that registered architects have adequate and appropriate Professional Indemnity insurance.
ARB does not set a specific monetary minimum in the way that the SRA does for solicitors or ICAEW does for accountants. “Adequate and appropriate” is the standard. ARB publishes guidance on what it considers when assessing adequacy — and the burden is on the architect to maintain cover that meets the standard for the work they do.
In practical terms, this means a sole practitioner doing residential extensions has a different sensible limit from a five-partner practice working on commercial schemes. Both must hold cover. Only one of them is reasonable in saying £250,000 of cover is “adequate”.
Royal Institute of British Architects Chartered Practices face a further set of requirements as a condition of Chartered Practice status. These include holding PI cover at a level appropriate to the practice’s work mix, with detailed expectations set out in the RIBA Chartered Practice rules and the RIBA Code of Professional Conduct.
RIBA is not a statutory regulator (ARB is), but Chartered Practice status carries reputational and commercial weight. If you advertise as a RIBA Chartered Practice, the RIBA requirements apply to you in addition to ARB’s.
[Diagram: “The architect’s regulatory landscape” — four stacked layers. Bottom: ARB (statutory). Above: RIBA (professional body, for Chartered Practices). Above: Building Safety Regulator (for Higher-Risk Building work). Top: contractual obligations to clients (PII clauses in appointments).]
The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) is the most significant change to the legal landscape for UK architects in a generation. Key consequences for PI:
Limitation periods extended. For claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 relating to dwellings, the limitation period has been extended retrospectively to 30 years for claims accruing before the Act came into force, and prospectively to 15 years for claims accruing on or after the relevant commencement date. Compare to the pre-Act position of 6 years (contract) or 12 years (under deed). This is a transformational change to long-tail risk.
Higher-Risk Buildings. Buildings of 18 metres or more, or seven or more storeys, containing two or more residential units, are subject to a new regulatory regime including the Building Safety Regulator (BSR), the gateway approvals process, the duty-holder framework, and the golden thread requirements.
Cladding and fire safety scope. The Act expanded the scope of remediation obligations and clarified routes for claimants. Insurers have responded by tightening cover for any practice with cladding, fire safety, or HRB work in its history.
[“Building Safety Act watch” callout box — “The BSA has materially changed PII underwriting for architects. Practices with HRB, cladding or fire safety exposure should expect: (1) tighter exclusions or sub-limits, (2) higher excesses on fire-safety-related claims, (3) more detailed underwriting questions, (4) higher run-off pricing. This is not going away.”]
PI does three things for an architectural practice that nothing else does. First, it pays for defence — and architectural disputes are document-heavy, expert-witness-intensive, and expensive to defend even when ultimately won. Second, it pays the indemnity where defence fails. Third, it preserves the firm’s ability to continue trading while a claim plays out.
A single uninsured fire-safety claim on a historic residential scheme can put a small practice into a forced wind-up. The point of PI is not to prove the architect was wrong; it is to ensure the practice survives the process of finding out.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “The single most useful question at limit-setting time is not ‘how much do you pay yourself?’ but ‘what is the construction value of the largest project on which your name appears, and what is its current building safety status?’ For some practices the answer to the first question is £80,000 and the answer to the second is £30 million. That gap is the gap you are insuring.”]
ARB is the statutory regulator. Its Code, particularly Standard 8, governs PII obligations.
RIBA is the professional body for Chartered Practices, with its own Code and Chartered Practice requirements.
The Building Safety Regulator (BSR), sitting within the Health and Safety Executive, oversees compliance with the BSA’s HRB regime.
The FCA regulates insurance brokers, including Apex (firm reference 724952). It does not regulate architectural practices.
Why this chapter matters. Architect PI has more variable wording than any other professional sector we work in. Two policies in the same size class can have meaningfully different scope.
Architect PI is a claims-made policy. It responds to claims first made against you, and notified to insurers, during the period of insurance. The act giving rise to the claim could have been twenty or more years earlier. Provided your retroactive date covers it and the act post-dates that date, you should be covered.
The insuring clause typically covers “civil liability” — a broader concept than “negligence” — arising out of the conduct of the practice in the provision of professional services. Civil liability catches breach of contract, breach of duty, breach of statutory duty, breach of fiduciary duty, and a range of associated heads.
Unlike solicitor PI (where the MTC requires defence costs in addition to the limit), architect PI wordings vary. Many provide defence costs within the limit — meaning a £2 million limit firm facing a £2 million claim has the same pot to fund both defence and any settlement.
Architectural defences are expensive. Expert evidence — structural engineers, fire engineers, costs experts, programme experts — runs to six-figure budgets quickly. A costs-in-addition wording is materially better cover. A costs-inclusive limit needs to be sized with the defence cost in mind.
A standard architect PI policy will exclude:
Beyond these, expect to see wording-specific exclusions or restrictions around:
[Broker’s view sidebar — “The single most-asked question we get from architectural practices in 2026 is whether their fire-safety cover is adequate. The honest answer is: it depends on the specific endorsement, the wording, and what work you have actually done. A blanket assurance that ‘fire safety is covered’ is rarely accurate. Read the endorsement.”]
A specifically architectural concern: net contribution clauses (NCCs) in appointments. An NCC limits the architect’s liability to the share of the loss attributable to the architect, rather than the architect being jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. NCCs are common in modern appointments — but they only protect you to the extent the appointment contains one, and to the extent the claim engages it.
PI policies do not require NCCs and do not exclude work without them. But the absence of an NCC in your appointments is itself a risk factor that underwriters and you should know about.
Architects routinely give collateral warranties to lenders, tenants, funders and (latterly) leaseholders. Each warranty extends your potential liability to a new claimant. Most PI policies cover warranties given in the ordinary course of business subject to the warranty being on broadly the same terms as the underlying appointment.
Where warranties depart from the appointment — wider duties, longer durations, fewer carve-outs — the PI position may be different. Read the relevant endorsement, and have appointments and warranties reviewed by a legal advisor familiar with construction practice.
Cyber. Architect PI does not provide first-party cyber cover. Ransomware, business interruption, breach response, regulatory notification — all live in a separate cyber policy.
Crime / fidelity. Architect PI covers third-party loss from employee dishonesty. It does not cover the practice’s own losses from internal fraud.
BI and property. Damage to studio premises and the resulting interruption are in your Commercial Combined or office insurance, not PI.
The most important feature of any claims-made policy after the limit is the right and obligation to notify a circumstance — facts that might give rise to a claim — before a claim is made. This locks the matter to the current policy year. We come back to it in Chapter 7. For architects with long-tail BSA exposure, the circumstance mechanism is more valuable than for any other professional sector.
Why this chapter matters. Architect limit sizing is the hardest of any professional sector. There is no fixed regulator number to anchor against, and the project values you are signing into are often orders of magnitude larger than your fee.
The traditional starting point for sizing PI — “x times annual turnover” — is the wrong starting point for architects. Architectural fees are tiny relative to construction values. A £25,000 architect fee can sit inside a £25 million construction contract. Claims arise from project losses, not from fees.
The first question is not “what is our turnover?” but “what is the largest project value on which our name appears as designer, and what is the worst plausible loss that project could generate?”
Lens 1: Largest project value. Look at the highest-value project the practice has been involved in over the last five years. For a high-end commercial scheme, that figure is the relevant exposure. A defect in the design — fire safety, structural, water ingress — can put the architect’s liability at a meaningful proportion of project value.
Lens 2: Worst-case heads of claim. What is the worst plausible single claim the practice could generate? For a residential mixed-use practice, this often includes fire safety remediation costs (which can run to multiples of the original construction cost for cladding-related works), latent defect remediation, and consequential losses including loss of rental income or sale value.
Lens 3: Appointment cap, where one exists. Some appointments contain a contractual cap on the architect’s liability. Where present, the cap (often expressed as a multiple of fees, or a specific monetary amount) provides a useful upper anchor on exposure — but the cap is only effective if it survives challenge, if it is properly drafted, and if the claim engages it. Treat caps as helpful but not determinative.
The table below sets out tiers we commonly see in the architect PI market. These are illustrative — not recommendations for any specific practice.
| Practice profile | Common limit range we see |
|---|---|
| Sole practitioner, small residential extensions only | £500k–£1m |
| Sole practitioner, mixed small residential and small commercial | £1m–£2m |
| 2–5 staff practice, residential extensions and small commercial | £1m–£5m |
| 2–5 staff practice with any HRB or cladding exposure | £5m–£10m+ |
| Mid-sized practice (6–25 staff), mixed work, no HRB | £2m–£10m |
| Mid-sized practice with material HRB or fire safety exposure | £10m–£25m+ |
| Larger practice with multi-disciplinary services | £10m–£50m+ |
[Chart: stacked-bar visualisation of the table above. Strap-line: “Illustrative ranges only. Your appropriate limit depends on work mix, project values, claim history and risk appetite. Not a recommendation.”]
Almost all architect PI policies are written on an aggregate basis — the limit is the maximum the insurer will pay across all claims in the year. A “two-claim year” can erode an aggregate limit much faster than a single large claim. Some insurers offer a reinstatement (typically one additional reinstatement, for a premium uplift). For practices with high claim frequency exposure, reinstatement is worth considering.
A specifically architectural concern in 2026: many policies write the headline limit on a “normal” basis and then apply an inner limit to fire-safety-related claims or to HRB-related claims. Common inner limits sit at £1 million, £2 million or £5 million regardless of the headline.
This matters because the inner limit defines the maximum the insurer will pay on the very type of claim most likely to be made against architects in 2026. A practice carrying a £10 million headline limit and a £2 million fire safety inner limit is, on a fire-safety claim, an £2 million-cover practice.
[Building Safety Act watch callout — “Read the fire-safety endorsement and any HRB endorsement carefully. The figure that matters on those claims is the inner limit, not the headline limit. We have seen practices surprised at this.”]
If a claim exceeds the limit, the practice’s principals are exposed for the excess. In a limited company, this is usually the company; in an LLP or partnership, the partners’ personal exposure depends on structure, the partnership agreement, and the underlying legal basis. Either way, the limit decision is a personal-asset decision as well as a client-protection decision.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “At limit-setting time, ask each principal to write down — anonymously — the single project they are most worried about, and the worst-case financial outcome if a claim arises. Compare to the current limit and to any inner limits. The conversation that follows is more useful than any broker spreadsheet.”]
Most practices carry an excess (self-insured retention) of £2,500 to £25,000. Higher excesses reduce premium materially. They also expose the practice to real cash outflows. Choose an excess you could absorb on two or three concurrent claims, not one in isolation. Some practices opt for differential excesses — a lower excess on small claims, a higher excess specifically on fire-safety claims as part of premium negotiation.
Why this chapter matters. Architect PI quotes contain more sector-specific endorsements than almost any other professional class. Skipping them is the single most expensive mistake we see.
A standard architect PI quote will usually have these sections:
[Chart: annotated mock-quote with arrows pointing to limit, excess, retroactive date, fire safety endorsement, asbestos endorsement, subjectivities, premium breakdown.]
Limit. Confirm whether the limit is “aggregate” or “each and every claim”. Architects almost always have aggregate. Confirm whether costs are inclusive or in addition.
Inner limits. This is where architects need the most care. Look explicitly for: - Fire safety inner limit - Cladding-specific inner limit (sometimes separate from fire safety) - HRB inner limit - Asbestos sub-limit - Pollution sub-limit - Loss of documents sub-limit
Excess. “Each and every claim” or “in the aggregate”? Each-and-every is far more common. Does the excess apply to defence costs?
Retroactive date. This is the date back to which the policy will pay claims arising from acts committed. With BSA-extended limitation periods now reaching up to 30 years, an architect practice with historic residential work should be especially vigilant about retroactive date preservation.
Subjectivities. Common subjectivities include “subject to satisfactory completion of fire safety questionnaire”, “subject to MGA approval”, or “subject to confirmation of no claims notified since proposal”. Subjectivities must be cleared for the cover to be binding.
Endorsements. Read every one. Architect endorsements in 2026 commonly include:
- Cladding exclusion or sub-limit
- HRB exclusion or sub-limit
- Fire safety exclusion or sub-limit
- Asbestos exclusion or sub-limit
- Approved Inspector activity exclusion (if you provide AI services)
- Net contribution requirements
- Specific project exclusions for problem projects flagged in the proposal
If any endorsement excludes work you do, the quote is not fit for your practice in its current form.
Read at least these sections of the wording in full:
[Common mistake call-out — “Treating the quote summary as the policy. The summary sells the cover; the wording — and the endorsements — determine whether you have it. Architects have been surprised mid-claim to find their cover responds only up to a £1m inner limit on the very type of claim that has been made.”]
Why this chapter matters. Run-off is the single most expensive line item in many architects’ insurance lives. The Building Safety Act has made it longer, more expensive, and harder to plan.
PI is a claims-made policy. It responds while it is in force. Two things determine whether a future claim is covered: the retroactive date (how far back the policy will look for the underlying act) and run-off (how long the policy continues after cessation).
[Timeline diagram: a horizontal line from “Practice founded” to “Practice ceases” and beyond. Annotation: “For dwellings under the Defective Premises Act, the limitation period now extends up to 30 years retrospectively / 15 years prospectively. Run-off cover needs to be planned with this in mind.”]
At each renewal, your broker should confirm that the retroactive date has not moved. Most architects want “full retroactive cover” — the policy responding to claims about acts committed at any point in the practice’s history, provided the act was not already a known notifiable circumstance.
A retroactive date that creeps forward — quietly, at a renewal — is the single most expensive policy error we see in architect PI. It can happen when a new insurer treats their first year as the retroactive date by default rather than preserving the original.
For a 25-year-old residential practice with extended-limitation BSA exposure, a five-year retroactive gap is a massive uninsured zone.
ARB requires registered architects to maintain PII cover for six years following cessation of practice, with the specific provisions set out in ARB’s guidance under the Code. Some practices voluntarily go longer.
The reasons for going longer are stronger than ever. Claims under the Defective Premises Act on residential work now have limitation periods of up to 30 years retrospectively or 15 years prospectively. A 6-year run-off, while regulator-compliant, leaves long-tail BSA-exposed work uninsured for the back half of those extended limitation periods.
We discuss with practices nearing cessation whether longer-tail run-off — 10 years, 15 years, sometimes longer — is available and at what cost. It usually is, for a one-off run-off premium that is now meaningfully larger than it was pre-BSA.
[Building Safety Act watch callout — “The 30-year limitation period for retrospective DPA claims is, in our view, the single most important change to architect run-off planning in living memory. If you have residential work in your back catalogue and you are 5+ years from retirement, this is the conversation to have now, not later.”]
Six years of run-off for a typical architect practice is commonly priced at 250%–500% of the final annual premium — but this varies sharply by insurer, work mix, claim history and BSA exposure. Practices with material HRB or cladding work in their history pay materially more.
Some run-off providers require a single up-front payment; others negotiate stage payments. Plan for the cash outflow at least two years before cessation; ideally, build it into your succession or sale modelling much earlier.
If your practice is acquired by another regulated practice that assumes liability for historic acts, the acquirer’s PI policy may pick up the historic exposure — folding run-off risk into a live policy.
Successor practice arrangements in architecture are highly contract-sensitive. Acquirer and acquiree both need legal advice (typically from construction-experienced solicitors) and broking advice. We work alongside the construction solicitors at this point — we do not replace them.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “If you are five years from a planned retirement and your practice has any meaningful residential history, this is the chapter to read three times. The combination of extended limitation periods, harder run-off market, and rising run-off premiums has made the cost of exit materially higher than principals retiring today were budgeting for ten years ago. Talk to a broker now.”]
Two categories deserve specific run-off attention:
Residential work — particularly large or complex dwellings, mixed-use schemes with residential units, and any building with a fire safety design role — carries the full weight of the BSA’s extended limitation period.
Higher-Risk Buildings — buildings of 18m+/seven storeys+ containing two or more residential units — carry the most onerous limitation, the highest claim values, and the tightest insurance markets. Architect practices with HRB exposure should treat run-off planning as a board-level priority, not a renewal-week conversation.
In the months before a planned cessation, work through every project in the last six years (at minimum — ideally further back for residential / HRB work) and identify anything that is, or might become, a notifiable circumstance. Notify everything that meets the bar to the current policy before cessation. Once notified, the matter attaches to that policy year forever — and the run-off cover sits clean above it. For architects, this exercise is more important than for any other profession.
Why this chapter matters. The architect PI market in 2026 is harder, more selective and more procedural than it was a decade ago. Late starts get punished.
[Visual: 90-day timeline with marker points.]
Ninety days out, renewal begins. Your broker should be sitting with you to refresh the practice’s risk picture: work mix changes, project value movements, headcount, large or unusual projects, any HRB or fire safety work, any circumstances or potential circumstances. If your broker is not asking, ask them.
The output is a draft presentation for insurers. For architects in 2026, the presentation matters more than ever — underwriters are price-takers on poor presentations and price-makers on good ones.
Sixty days out, the presentation should be locked, signed off, and out to selected insurers. The broker should approach an explicit, defined list — you should know who is being asked to quote and why. For architects, the active insurer set has narrowed; approaching every insurer in the market is not a strategy.
Thirty days out, initial quotes should be in. Almost no architect quote is final on first issue — most have subjectivities, endorsements (especially around fire safety, HRB and cladding) or pricing that benefit from negotiation. Your broker should produce a comparison summary covering: limit, inner limits, excess, retroactive date, premium and key endorsements. Read the inner limits column most carefully.
Two weeks out, down to one or two candidates and clearing subjectivities. Architect-specific subjectivities (fire safety questionnaires, HRB questionnaires) often take longer to clear than general subjectivities; if they are open at D-14, escalate.
A week out, decision made, cover bound in principle, wording locked, final declaration signed. The wording is the contract — make sure you have the actual wording, not just the certificate.
On renewal day, certificates and policy documentation arrive. Forward for premium settlement. Update the practice’s PI evidence file — ARB requires confirmation of cover at renewal of registration. Save the wording somewhere everyone can find it.
[Common mistake call-out — “Treating the renewal date as the deadline for decisions, not paperwork. Architects negotiating in panic in the final fortnight have, in 2024–25, sometimes found themselves accepting fire safety inner limits or HRB exclusions they would not otherwise have taken.”]
The 2024–25 architect PI market saw cases of quotes being unexpectedly withdrawn or terms hardening late in the process — particularly for practices with HRB or cladding exposure. Be prepared. Have a backup plan. The earlier you start, the more options you have.
Why this chapter matters. The first 72 hours after a claim or letter of claim lands set the tone for everything that follows.
[Flow diagram: three columns — Do now (24h) / Do soon (7 days) / Do never.]
[Broker’s view sidebar — “The instinct of every good architect on receipt of a complaint is to fix it — to redraw, to re-detail, to find a remediation route. The policy is written to prevent that instinct from causing harm to the practice. Stop. Notify. Then act through the proper channels.”]
You do not need a formal claim or court proceedings to notify. The wording allows — and requires — notification of circumstances that might give rise to a claim. For architects in 2026, this mechanism is more valuable than for any other profession. A client complaint, a fire safety re-investigation of an existing building, a building control concern, an HRB gateway issue, a discovered drawing error — anything that might give rise to a claim is notifiable.
The advantage is that the matter locks to the current policy year. Given the harder market and the BSA extended limitation periods, locking a long-tail risk into a known policy with a known wording is enormously valuable.
Your broker is your representative between you and insurers. A good broker will:
Your broker is not your defence solicitor. The panel firm is. Keep the lanes clear.
Why this chapter matters. Architect PI is bought through brokers. Choosing the broker shapes the cover.
A broker is your representative in the market — not the insurer’s. The broker takes your information, prepares a presentation, approaches insurers, negotiates terms, presents you with a recommendation, places the cover, and supports you through claims. They are paid either by commission (from the insurer, out of the premium), by fee (from you), or by a combination.
For architects in 2026’s market, broker expertise matters more than at any time in the last twenty years. A broker who understands the BSA, the HRB regime, fire safety endorsements, the active insurer set, and the practical realities of architect claim handling will produce materially different results from a generalist broker treating architect PI as just another commercial line.
Under the Insurance Distribution Directive, your broker must disclose in writing:
You are entitled to ask for the specific commission percentage on your policy. A confident broker will tell you.
Some practices use a specialist construction PI broker; some use a generalist commercial broker. In the current market, sector knowledge matters. The detail of fire safety endorsements, the variation in HRB wordings between insurers, and the practical reality of which insurers are actually binding architect business in 2026 versus which are nominally on the market — that knowledge is not generic.
[Common mistake call-out — “Treating broker selection as a price exercise. Brokers do not control insurer pricing materially. They control presentation quality, market access, sector knowledge, and claims advocacy — all of which are worth more in the long term than 5% off year one.”]
Why this chapter matters. A short tour of the wrong assumptions we hear most often.
Myth 1: “ARB will tell us if our cover is wrong.” ARB checks that you hold cover at registration renewal. It does not audit the adequacy of the cover relative to your work, beyond what its Code requires.
Myth 2: “We’re a small practice — £250k of cover is enough.” Possibly true for a sole practitioner doing only the smallest residential extensions. Almost never true for anyone with mixed work or any building over a certain scale. The “adequate” test is contextual.
Myth 3: “Fire safety is in our standard PI.” Sometimes. Sometimes only up to a small inner limit. Sometimes excluded entirely. The honest answer requires reading the endorsement.
Myth 4: “Run-off is the next firm’s problem.” It is not. ARB requires six years of run-off from cessation. BSA extended limitation periods mean six years is often too short. Plan the cost years before cessation.
Myth 5: “We’ve never had a claim, so we should pay less.” A clean record helps with price. It does not change limit need, and underwriters price your forward risk, not your back-book.
Myth 6: “Cyber is in our PI.” Some consequences are. First-party cyber response, BI, ransom, regulatory fines — not. Separate cyber policy.
Myth 7: “If we notify a circumstance, our premium goes up.” It might. What materially hurts your premium and cover is not notifying something you should have. Late notification is a defence point for insurers.
Myth 8: “Switching insurer means losing the back-book.” Only if your retroactive date is not preserved. Check the retroactive date on every renewal.
Myth 9: “Net contribution clauses fully solve the problem.” NCCs are useful. They are not a substitute for adequate cover. They limit your liability if properly drafted, if present in every relevant appointment, and if the claim engages them. Plenty of “ifs”.
Myth 10: “The Building Safety Act only affects HRB work.” No. The DPA-related limitation extensions apply to dwellings generally, not only HRBs. Practices with any residential history should treat the BSA changes as material to their long-tail risk profile.
If after reading this guide you do one thing, do this: pull out your current policy schedule, your wording, your fire safety endorsement (if any), your HRB endorsement (if any), and your most recent renewal report. Sit with them for an hour. Check the limit, the inner limits, the excess, the retroactive date, the endorsements and the subjectivities. Ask whether the picture still matches the practice you run.
If you find gaps — between what you have and what you think you should have — your broker should be your first conversation. If you do not have a broker you trust, or would like a second opinion as part of next year’s renewal cycle, we are happy to talk. No fee for a conversation, no obligation, and we will tell you honestly if your current arrangements look sensible.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is a UK insurance broker, Bristol-based. We work with professional services firms across England and Wales — architects, surveyors, engineers, solicitors, accountants, consultants. We are an independent firm and have been authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority since 2014.
Contact us: - Telephone: 0117 325 0027 - Email: info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk - Web: apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk
Trading address: QCS, 53 Queen Charlotte Street, Bristol BS1 4HQ Registered office: c/o Westcan, 5 Anglo Office Park, Bristol BS15 1NT
This guide is published by Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd, Companies House registration 07014570, authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority under firm reference 724952. You can verify our regulatory status on the FCA register at register.fca.org.uk.
This guide is general information based on our experience as an insurance broker. It is not legal, regulatory, building, compliance or design advice, and it is not a personal recommendation as to any specific insurance product. Any decision about insurance cover should be taken having regard to your practice’s individual circumstances, your professional obligations under the ARB Code and (where applicable) RIBA Chartered Practice rules, your obligations under the Building Safety Act and related regulations, and advice from your own legal advisors. The Building Safety Act and related legislation referenced in this guide are subject to ongoing regulatory commentary and secondary legislation; readers should consult primary legal sources and qualified legal advisors before relying on any specific characterisation. We do not undertake to update this guide to reflect changes in regulation, market practice or law after the version date above. Examples of claims and figures are illustrative; we have not used the details of any individual practice or matter.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd accepts no liability for any loss arising from reliance on the contents of this guide.
Last reviewed: May 2026
— End of guide —
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