An Apex Insurance Brokers publication — 2026 Edition
Professional Indemnity insurance — PI — is the single largest non-payroll cost most law firms write a cheque for each year. It is also the policy partners understand the least. We see firms with cover limits that have not moved in a decade despite fee income doubling, firms with no run-off plan, and firms who only discover their conveyancing exclusion at renewal — the day after they sign a new development site.
We wrote this guide because the conversations we have most often with managing partners, sole practitioners, COLPs and COFAs are the same conversations, repeated. How much cover do we really need? What does the quote actually say? What happens to our cover when the senior partner retires? What do we do the morning a client sends a letter of claim?
This guide does not — and cannot — tell you the right answer for your firm. PI is highly individual. What it does is give you a structured way to think about the decisions, the questions to ask, and the traps we see firms fall into. It is written from our perspective as an FCA-authorised broker in the UK. It is not legal, regulatory or compliance advice — for those you should speak to your COLP, your professional regulator and, where appropriate, your own legal advisors.
If by the end of it you feel more confident going into your next renewal conversation, we will have done our job. If you would like to talk any of this through, you will find our details on the back cover.
— The team at Apex Insurance Brokers, Bristol
Why this chapter matters. PI cover is not optional for SRA-regulated firms. But the reasons behind the requirement matter — they shape the kind of cover you actually need.
Every firm authorised by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) in England and Wales must hold Professional Indemnity insurance that complies with the SRA’s Minimum Terms and Conditions (MTC). The MTC are non-negotiable. They are baked into the contract between you and any Qualifying Insurer (QI) — the small group of insurers permitted to write SRA-compliant PI. If a policy term and the MTC ever conflict, the MTC win.
This is unusual in commercial insurance. Most professional firms can negotiate the wording of their PI policy. Solicitors largely cannot — the floor is set centrally, and you are buying additional limit, additional features and price on top of a mandatory minimum.
That floor is currently a £2 million any-one-claim limit for unincorporated practices (partnerships and sole practitioners) and £3 million any-one-claim for LLPs and limited companies. Defence costs sit in addition to the limit, not within it. Aggregate caps on defence costs are not permitted under the MTC.
The floor is the regulator’s bare minimum to protect clients. It is not a recommendation. The Legal Services Board’s market reviews, the SRA’s own thematic reviews and the experience of every QI underwriter we deal with all point in the same direction: claim sizes have risen materially over the last decade, particularly in conveyancing, commercial property, wills and probate, and trust work.
A residential conveyance with a misdescribed lease, a missed restrictive covenant, an undisclosed flying freehold — these are no longer £50,000 claims. They can comfortably reach £500,000 to £1 million once defence costs, interest and consequential losses are added. A single development plot transaction can put your firm exposed to seven-figure liability.
Even setting aside the regulator, PI does three things for your firm that nothing else does. First, it pays for defence. Most claims against solicitors are defended — and the costs of defending a complex civil claim through to trial regularly exceed the eventual damages. Second, it pays the damages and costs orders if the defence fails. Third, and most often overlooked, it keeps the firm trading while a claim is live. Without PI, a single substantial claim could put a small firm into insolvency before the merits are ever tested.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “We sometimes hear partners say ‘we’ve never had a claim’. That is good news, but it is not an underwriting argument. Underwriters price for what you might cause, not what you have caused. A clean record buys you a better premium; it does not buy you a lower limit.”]
Three bodies sit behind your PI obligations and you should know what each does.
The SRA sets the MTC and authorises Qualifying Insurers. The current MTC are issued under the SRA Indemnity Insurance Rules and are reviewed periodically. The SRA does not insure you — it sets the floor.
The Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF), historically the supplemental run-off scheme, has been the subject of substantial change in recent years; readers should check the SRA’s current position before relying on any specific past-practice protection.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) authorises and supervises the brokers who place your PI. Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is FCA-authorised under firm reference 724952. The FCA does not regulate solicitor firms directly; it regulates how brokers and insurers behave when arranging your cover.
[Common mistake call-out — “Assuming the SRA approves your specific policy. It does not. It approves the insurer as a QI and sets the MTC. The detail of the wording, the optional extensions and the limit you choose remain your decision.”]
The MTC require Qualifying Insurers to provide cover of at least the prescribed minimum. The SRA Standards and Regulations, however, separately require firms to maintain “adequate and appropriate” insurance for the work they do. That is a higher and more nuanced standard, and one the firm — not the insurer — has to satisfy.
A high-street firm doing residential conveyancing, family work and estate administration sits in a different risk universe from a boutique firm doing AIM listings and cross-border M&A. Both must hold MTC-compliant cover. Only one of them can reasonably argue that MTC is “adequate and appropriate” — and that one is rarely the M&A boutique. The judgment is yours, supported by your broker.
Why this chapter matters. Most disputes between firms and their PI insurer are not about whether a claim is large enough; they are about whether it falls within the policy in the first place.
A solicitors’ PI policy is a claims-made contract. It responds to claims first made against you, and notified to insurers, during the period of insurance — not to acts you committed during the period of insurance. The act could have been ten years ago. The claim could land tomorrow. Provided your retroactive date stretches back far enough and the act post-dates that retroactive date, you should be covered.
The insuring clause typically promises to indemnify the firm against civil liability arising out of the conduct of the firm’s practice as a solicitor. The MTC widens this further to include legal defence costs and various claimant costs awards. The key phrase is “civil liability” — broader than “negligence” alone. It catches breach of contract, breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and certain dishonesty-related liabilities (though not your own dishonesty).
For many firms, the defence costs cover is worth more than the indemnity itself. Under the MTC, defence costs are paid in addition to the limit. So a £3 million limit firm facing a £3 million claim can have a further substantial budget for defence without eroding the indemnity.
This is not how PI works in many other professions, where defence costs sit within the limit. The MTC protection is meaningful. Where firms get caught out is in the excess. Although defence costs are payable in addition to the limit, the excess (deductible) typically still applies — and on a complex defended matter, an excess of £25,000–£100,000 can be spent quickly on initial counsel’s opinions and disclosure work.
Even within an SRA-compliant policy, certain exclusions are permitted. The MTC sets out exactly which exclusions are allowed and prohibits others. Permitted exclusions broadly include:
Three areas now sit awkwardly at the edge of standard PI cover and deserve specific attention.
Cyber. Most solicitor PI policies provide limited cover for a consequence of a cyber event (a fraudulent transfer of client funds triggered by a phishing-induced compromise, for example, can be a civil liability of the firm). They do not provide first-party cyber cover — incident response, forensic IT, ransom payments, business interruption, regulatory fines or data subject notification. That is a separate standalone cyber policy.
Crime / fidelity. The MTC requires cover for the consequences of the dishonesty of an employee (where the firm is liable to clients), subject to careful exceptions. It does not cover the firm’s own losses from internal fraud — money stolen from the office account, for example. That is a Commercial Crime policy.
Office property and BI. Damage to your premises and the resulting business interruption are in your Commercial Combined or office insurance. They are not in PI.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “We have seen at least one firm pay for an MTC PI policy and assume that ‘covers everything’. It does not. PI sits in a wider stack: PI, Cyber, Crime, Commercial Combined, D&O, and EL/PL. Each does something different. A good broker will sense-check the whole stack, not just present the PI.”]
One of the most important features of any claims-made policy is the right — and obligation — to notify a circumstance that might give rise to a claim, even before a claim is actually made. Notifying a circumstance under your current policy fixes the claim (whenever it eventually arrives) to that policy year. This matters enormously at renewal, especially if you are changing insurer. We cover this in detail in Chapter 7.
Why this chapter matters. Limit selection is the single biggest decision in PI buying. The MTC floor is rarely the right answer. Working through this chapter gives you a defensible thought-process — not a number we can promise is correct.
Your starting position is fixed by regulation: £2 million any-one-claim for unincorporated practices, £3 million for LLPs and limited companies. The right question is not “what is the minimum?” but “what is the largest single claim my work could plausibly generate?”
We find it useful to look at limit through three lenses, then triangulate.
Lens 1: Largest transaction value. What is the biggest single transaction your firm has handled in the last three years, by client exposure? For a conveyancing firm this might be the value of the property plus the lender’s exposure. For a commercial firm, it might be a property development site value, a corporate consideration, or a sum held in client account. A claim arising from that transaction could, in principle, reach that value.
Lens 2: Aggregated annual fee multiple. Some underwriters and brokers use heuristics such as “fee income x 3” or “fee income x 5” as a sanity-check on minimum sensible limits. These are crude — a small firm with one large transaction can dwarf its annual fee in single-claim exposure. We use these as a floor, not a ceiling.
Lens 3: Comparable claims data. The ABI, the SRA’s own thematic reports and FOS published decisions all give a sense of typical claim ranges in your work-type. Conveyancing and commercial property dominate the largest claims; family and litigation tend toward more frequent but smaller claims; trust and probate work is volatile.
The table below sets out tiers we commonly see in the market. These are illustrative — not a recommendation for any specific firm, and not promises about what cover you can or should buy. Premium ranges are stripped out deliberately; the relationship between limit and premium is non-linear and depends on claim history, work mix and insurer.
| Firm profile | Common limit range we see |
|---|---|
| Sole practitioner, mixed private client, no conveyancing | £2m–£3m any-one-claim |
| 2–5 partner high-street, conveyancing under 30% of fees | £2m–£5m |
| 2–5 partner high-street, conveyancing over 30% of fees | £3m–£10m |
| 6–15 partner mid-market firm, mixed | £3m–£10m |
| Specialist commercial property / development | £5m–£25m+ |
| Mid-sized firm with corporate or AIM work | £10m+ |
[Chart: “Indicative limit tiers by gross fee income” — stacked bars by category. Annotate with: “Illustrative ranges only. Your appropriate limit depends on work mix, transaction values, claims history and risk appetite. Not a recommendation.”]
The MTC requires “any one claim” cover. This is more generous than the aggregate basis common in other professional indemnity markets. On an “any one claim” basis, the full limit is available for each separate claim in the year — not split across the year.
In practice, on top of MTC cover, insurers will normally provide an aggregate limit for non-MTC extensions (such as defence of regulatory investigations). Read your schedule carefully: it should be obvious which limits are any-one-claim and which are aggregate. If it is not obvious, ask.
[Diagram: “Single claim vs aggregate” — two horizontal bars. Top bar: MTC any-one-claim, three separate £3m claims fully covered. Bottom bar: a £3m aggregate (NOT MTC), three claims of £1.5m / £1m / £1m exhaust the limit.]
The cost of being under-insured is not, usually, that the insurer turns the claim down. It is that the indemnity stops at the limit and the partners pick up the rest personally — limited liability or no limited liability, the SRA’s MTC contains specific provisions about how an LLP’s members may be drawn into making good a shortfall to clients. This is where the limit decision becomes a partnership-protection decision as well as a client-protection decision.
Excess matters too. Most firms carry an excess (also called the firm’s “self-insured retention”) between £2,500 and £50,000 per claim. The excess applies to indemnity, not — under the MTC — to defence costs. Higher excesses can reduce premium materially. They also expose the firm to a real cash outflow on every claim. Choose the excess you could comfortably absorb on two or three concurrent claims, not one in isolation.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “A useful exercise: at your next partners’ meeting, ask each partner to write down, anonymously, the largest single mistake the firm could plausibly make, and the worst-case financial outcome of that mistake. Compare to your current limit. The conversation that follows is more useful than any broker spreadsheet.”]
Once you have decided your desired total limit, you have two ways to buy it. Either as a single “primary” policy at the full amount, or as a primary policy at, say, £3m with an “excess layer” of, say, £7m sitting above it from a different insurer (or the same one). Excess layers are often cheaper per million than primary cover. They do not respond until the layer below is exhausted. Most firms over £5m total limit buy in layers; below £5m, a single primary policy is common.
Why this chapter matters. A PI quote is not a price list. It is a contractual offer with terms that will, if you accept them, bind your firm for a year. The single most useful skill in PI buying is reading the quote properly.
A standard PI quote from a Qualifying Insurer will usually have these sections, in roughly this order:
[Chart: annotated mock-quote, redacted, with call-out arrows pointing to “limit”, “excess”, “retroactive date”, “subjectivities”, “endorsements”, “premium breakdown”. Use a friendly yellow-highlighter visual style.]
Limit. Confirm it is “any one claim” (it must be, for MTC sections). Confirm whether it is inclusive of defence costs (under MTC it cannot be inclusive for SRA work). Confirm whether the quote is for a single insurer or a layered programme.
Excess. Read carefully whether the excess is “each and every claim” or “in the aggregate”. Each-and-every is far more common. Confirm whether the excess applies to defence costs (under MTC, it cannot).
Retroactive date. This is the date back to which the policy will pay claims arising from acts committed. If your firm started in 2003 and the retroactive date on the quote is 2018, you have a fifteen-year gap. Press the broker on it; this is rarely intentional.
Subjectivities. Common subjectivities include “subject to satisfactory completion of supplementary conveyancing questionnaire”, “subject to confirmation of no claims notified since proposal” or “subject to MGA approval”. If you cannot meet a subjectivity, you do not have a binding quote.
Endorsements. This is where you look for surprises. Common endorsements include exclusions of specific work types (often a particular kind of high-value SPV or trust structure), inner limits on certain heads of cover, or requirements to notify particular events. Read every endorsement. If one of them excludes work you actually do, the quote is not fit for your firm in its current form.
The wording is the bulk of the contract and the place most firms never look. The MTC will be present (usually as an “MTC schedule” or annexure). You should check:
[Common mistake call-out — “Treating the quote summary as the policy. The summary sells the cover; the wording determines whether you have it. We have seen firms surprised to discover, mid-claim, that their cyber-triggered loss falls into an endorsed-out section they never read.”]
A useful checklist to put to your broker before saying yes:
A broker who answers these clearly is one you want to work with.
Why this chapter matters. The end of a firm’s life is when PI gets most expensive, most contentious, and most badly handled. Plan it years in advance, not at retirement.
PI is a claims-made policy. It only 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 act giving rise to the claim) and run-off (how long the policy stays alive after the firm stops trading).
[Timeline diagram: a horizontal line from “Firm founded 2005” to “Firm ceases 2030”. A blue shaded zone shows the policy in force each year. Two arrows: one stretching left labelled “Retroactive cover — claims about past acts”, one stretching right labelled “Run-off — claims that arrive in the future”.]
Every renewal, your broker should be confirming with you that the retroactive date has not moved. Most firms want “full retroactive cover” — meaning the policy will respond to a claim arising from an act committed at any point in the firm’s history, provided that act was not known about and notifiable under an earlier policy.
A retroactive date that creeps forward in time is a serious problem. Each year it moves, a chunk of historic work becomes uninsured. This can happen quietly: a new insurer offers a fresh retroactive date as a “starting point” and the previous date is not specifically preserved.
When a solicitor firm ceases practice (closes, retires, sells, or is acquired in a way that does not provide successor practice cover), the Qualifying Insurer in force at the time of cessation must, under the MTC, provide a six-year run-off period. This is non-negotiable for QIs.
Six years is the SRA-required minimum. Some firms — particularly those with long-tail work in wills, probate, trusts, or commercial property where defects emerge decades later — will want longer than six years. We discuss with such firms whether longer-tail private market run-off is available and at what cost. It typically is, for a one-off run-off premium that can be substantial.
The six-year run-off premium is generally between 200% and 300% of the firm’s final annual premium — but this varies by insurer, work mix and claims history. Some firms pay six years’ run-off up-front in a single payment at cessation; others negotiate stage payments. Plan for this.
If a firm is acquired by another SRA-regulated firm and the acquirer assumes “successor practice” liability for the historic acts of the acquired firm, the acquirer’s PI policy may pick up the historic exposure. This avoids the need for run-off in the traditional sense — the historic risk is folded into a live policy.
Successor practice is a fact-sensitive legal question, not just a contractual one. The SRA Glossary and the Rules contain a specific definition. Acquirers and acquirees need legal advice, not just broking advice, when structuring the deal. We work alongside the firm’s corporate solicitors at this point — we do not replace them.
[Broker’s view sidebar — “If you are five years from a planned retirement, this is the chapter to read twice. The single most expensive PI mistake we see is partners discovering, in the year of retirement, that nobody had budgeted for six years of run-off. It is real money and it is not optional.”]
Two work types deserve specific mention. Private client work — wills, probate, trusts, estate planning — can generate claims decades after the original advice, because the loss only crystallises on death or on a particular trust event. Residential and commercial conveyancing can generate claims years after the transaction, because the defect (a missed easement, a misdescribed lease, a botched insolvency search) only surfaces when the client tries to sell or develop the property.
Firms with significant exposure to either of these areas should consider longer run-off periods than the six-year minimum, and should be especially careful to preserve their retroactive date during annual renewals.
In the months before a planned cessation, work through every open and recently closed matter with your COLP. Anything that is, or might become, a circumstance giving rise to a claim should be notified to the current PI policy before it becomes a run-off policy. Once notified, the matter attaches to that policy year forever — and the run-off cover sits clean above it. This is one of the most useful pre-cessation steps a firm can take, and one of the most often missed.
Why this chapter matters. Renewals fail when firms leave them too late. The market does not punish lateness with refusal; it punishes lateness with worse cover and worse pricing.
[Visual: horizontal timeline running from D-90 to D-0 (renewal day) with five marker points. Light shading shows “broker work” zone and “firm work” zone overlapping in the middle.]
Ninety days out is when serious renewal work begins. Your broker should be sitting down with you (in person or by video) to refresh the firm’s risk profile: work mix changes, headcount changes, fee income, large transactions, any open or potential circumstances. If your broker is not asking for this conversation, ask them for it.
The output of this meeting is a draft presentation — the marketing document that goes to insurers. It is the single most important piece of paper in the renewal. Underwriters price what they read. A weak presentation gets a weak quote.
Sixty days out, your presentation should be locked, signed off by the COLP and partners, and out to selected insurers. The broker should be approaching a defined and explicit list of insurers — you should know who is being asked to quote and why. Approaching every insurer in the market is not a strategy; it is laziness, and it dilutes the broker’s leverage on the ones who matter.
Thirty days out, initial quotes should be in hand. Almost no quote in PI is final on first issue — most have subjectivities, endorsements or terms that benefit from negotiation. Your broker should produce a comparison summary: limit, excess, retroactive date, premium, key endorsements, subjectivities. Read it line-by-line.
Two weeks out, you should be down to one or two candidate insurers and clearing subjectivities. If there are open subjectivities at D-14 you cannot satisfy, the broker should be aware and re-engaging the insurer.
A week out, you should have decided. Cover should be bound in principle, the wording locked, and any final piece of paper completed. The renewal questionnaire confirming “no further circumstances notified” is signed at this point.
On renewal day, certificates and policy documentation should arrive. Forward to the COFA / finance for premium settlement. Update the firm’s PI evidence file — including the SRA-required confirmation of cover. Save the new wording somewhere everyone can find it. The wording is the contract, not the certificate.
[Common mistake call-out — “Treating the renewal date as the deadline for decisions, not paperwork. Decisions need to be made weeks earlier. We see firms negotiate in panic in the final fortnight and accept terms they would not otherwise have taken.”]
Renewals occasionally fail. An insurer pulls out, a quote is withdrawn, a subjectivity cannot be cleared. The SRA’s Extended Indemnity Period (EIP) and Cessation Period (CP) provide a regulatory backstop — a defined window during which an uninsured firm has options before it must stop taking on new instructions. Familiarise yourself with these provisions; you hope never to need them, but a five-minute read is cheap insurance.
Why this chapter matters. The first 72 hours after a claim (or circumstance) lands set the tone for the next two years. Get them right.
[Flow diagram: three columns. Column A “Do now (within 24 hours)”. Column B “Do soon (within 7 days)”. Column C “Do never”. Populated with the bullets below.]
[Broker’s view sidebar — “The instinct of every good solicitor on receipt of a complaint is to fix it. PI policies are written to prevent that instinct from causing harm. Stop. Notify. Then act through the proper channels.”]
You do not need a formal claim, letter of claim or court proceedings to notify. The MTC and standard wordings allow — and require — notification of circumstances that might give rise to a claim. A client complaint, an angry email mentioning loss, a discovered file error, even an internal supervision finding can be notifiable.
The advantage of notifying a circumstance is that it locks the matter to the current policy year. If the claim only materialises three years later, when you have changed insurer, it still attaches to the policy in force when you notified it. This is the single most powerful tool in long-tail risk management. Use it.
Your broker is the conduit 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. PI is bought through brokers, not direct from insurers. Choosing the broker shapes the cover.
A broker is your representative in the insurance 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) or by fee (from you, with the commission rebated), or by a combination.
A good broker for a solicitor firm understands the SRA’s MTC, the QI market, the wordings, and the specific risks of your work mix. A poor broker treats PI like any other commercial policy and trades on price.
Under the Insurance Distribution Directive (IDD), implemented in the UK in 2018, your broker must disclose to you, in writing:
You are entitled to ask for the specific commission percentage on your policy. A confident broker will tell you.
When choosing or reviewing a broker:
Some larger firms run a dual-broker arrangement: one broker incumbent, one challenger, alternating or co-broking each year. This can work well; it can also degrade into churn. There is no single right answer. We tend to think that a single, well-briefed, accountable broker who has built deep relationships with three or four key QIs is worth more than two brokers each maintaining shallow relationships with the whole market.
[Common mistake call-out — “Treating broker selection as a price exercise. Brokers do not control insurer pricing in any material way. They control presentation quality, market access, and claims advocacy — all of which are more valuable 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: “The SRA approves our policy.” It does not. It approves the insurer as a Qualifying Insurer and sets the MTC floor. Your specific wording, limit and extensions are your decision.
Myth 2: “We’re a small firm — the £2m minimum is enough.” Maybe, but rarely. The minimum is the regulator’s floor for client protection. It is not a recommendation. A single conveyancing transaction can put a firm at multi-million-pound exposure.
Myth 3: “Run-off is the next firm’s problem.” It is not. The exiting firm — or the cessation arrangements made by its partners — owns it. Six years of run-off, at 200–300% of annual premium, is a real cash obligation.
Myth 4: “We’ve never had a claim, so we should pay less.” A clean record helps with price. It does not change your limit need, and underwriters are pricing your forward risk, not your back-book.
Myth 5: “Cyber is in our PI.” Some consequences of cyber events are. First-party cyber response, business interruption, and regulatory fine handling are not. They live in a separate Cyber policy.
Myth 6: “If we notify, our premium goes up.” It might. It might not. What does materially hurt your premium — and your cover — is not notifying something you should have. Late notification is a defence point for insurers. Use the circumstance mechanism.
Myth 7: “Switching insurer means losing the back-book.” No, provided your retroactive date is preserved. A new insurer will normally accept “full retroactive cover” subject to no known circumstances. Check the retroactive date on every renewal.
Myth 8: “Our broker shops the market every year.” Maybe. Ask them. “Marketing exercise” can mean a circular to twenty insurers (often a sign of weak relationships), a focused approach to three or four key insurers (typically more productive), or a renewal with the incumbent (sometimes right, sometimes not). The right answer varies by year and by firm.
Myth 9: “Our excess only applies to indemnity, not defence.” True under the MTC for SRA work. But check it. Excesses on non-MTC sections (regulatory cover, for example) sometimes apply to defence too.
Myth 10: “We’re insured under the Master Policy / a group scheme — that covers everything.” Group schemes can be good value. They are not unconditional. Read what they actually cover, especially around sub-limits, work-type exclusions, and run-off provisions.
If after reading this guide you want to do one thing, do this: pull out your current policy schedule, your wording, and your most recent renewal report. Sit with them for thirty minutes. Check the limit, the excess, the retroactive date, the endorsements and the subjectivities (if any). Ask whether the picture they present is still the picture of the firm you run today.
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 if you would like a second opinion as part of next year’s renewal cycle, we are happy to talk. There is no fee for a conversation; there is no obligation; and we will tell you honestly if your current arrangements look sensible to us.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is a UK insurance broker, Bristol-based. We work with professional services firms — solicitors, accountants, surveyors, architects, consultants — across England and Wales. 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, tax, regulatory, accounting or compliance 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 firm’s individual circumstances, your professional obligations, and (where appropriate) advice from your own legal, compliance and accounting advisors. 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 firm 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