Architects’ PI proposal form: a section-by-section walkthrough

Reviewed by the Apex broking team · Last reviewed 2026-08-22 · Position stated as at August 2026

Before you start: the form is the presentation

The proposal form is not an administrative formality. For a non-consumer insurance contract it is the principal vehicle for the duty of fair presentation under Part 2 of the Insurance Act 2015 — and the duty is not discharged simply by answering the questions asked. Section 3 requires disclosure of every material circumstance the insured knows or ought to know, or enough to put a prudent insurer on notice to ask more, presented in a manner that is reasonably clear and accessible.

Two practical consequences follow. First, a truthful but narrow answer to a narrow question is not necessarily a fair presentation; if something material does not fit any box, it goes in a covering note. Second, “knows or ought to know” extends beyond the person filling in the form, so a reasonable search of the practice is part of the job. Our page on why the proposal form matters covers the general principle.

Keep the completed form, the covering note and the attachments. If a dispute about disclosure arises years later, the file is the defence.

Section 1 — the practice and its people

Expect questions on the legal entity and its structure, trading names, predecessor practices, the number of principals, qualified architects, technicians and other staff, and the registration status of the individuals.

What the underwriter is establishing: who exactly is being insured, and whether the entity on the schedule matches the entity that signs the appointments. Mismatches between the insured entity and the contracting entity are a genuine and avoidable source of uninsured claims, particularly after an incorporation or a restructure.

The predecessor-practice question exists because professional indemnity is claims-made: liabilities follow the work, and a new company does not shed the exposure of the partnership it grew out of unless someone has dealt with it deliberately.

Section 2 — fee income, split by discipline and territory

Forms ask for fee income for the last completed year and an estimate for the coming year, then ask you to break it down: by type of service (full service, design only, contract administration, principal designer, expert witness, project management, feasibility), and by territory.

The split matters more than the total. Two practices with identical turnover can present very differently if one is doing new-build residential and the other is doing surveys and contract administration. Territory matters because work in jurisdictions with a different litigation and limitation regime is priced differently, and because some wordings exclude claims brought in particular courts.

Common problems: guessing the split rather than taking it from the practice accounts; forgetting income from work subcontracted out where the practice retains professional responsibility; and treating an estimate as a throwaway number when it is a representation of expectation, which section 3 requires to be made in good faith.

Section 3 — the project profile

Expect a list of the largest projects by construction value over recent years, the sectors worked in, and questions about the largest single project the practice has ever been involved with.

The underwriter is sizing the tail. Fee income tells them how busy you are; construction value tells them how large a claim could be. A small practice with one very large project carries an exposure the fee income does not reveal, which is exactly why the question is asked.

Sector questions are looking for the categories that have driven claims: residential above a certain height, cladding and facade work, schools, healthcare, listed buildings and conversions, basements and underpinning, and anything involving refurbishment of an existing structure whose condition is not fully known.

Section 4 — contracts, appointments and design-and-build

This section asks how you are engaged: standard forms of appointment, bespoke client documents, collateral warranties, novation, and whether you accept amendments to standard terms.

Two answers carry disproportionate weight.

• Novation and design-and-build. Being novated to a contractor changes who your client is mid-project and changes the practical dynamics of a claim. Underwriters ask because novated work has its own claims pattern.
• Net contribution clauses. Whether the practice uses them, and whether clients strike them out, tells the underwriter how much of a multi-party loss could land on the practice alone.

Forms also ask whether you sign collateral warranties without review, whether you accept fitness-for-purpose obligations, and whether you cap liability. An obligation to achieve a particular result, rather than to exercise reasonable skill and care, is typically outside the cover; answering “yes” to accepting it without qualification invites either a restriction or a difficult conversation at claim stage.

Section 5 — higher-risk work: fire safety, cladding and the Building Safety Act

Since the post-Grenfell hardening of the architects’ PI market, every form asks about external wall systems, cladding, insulation, buildings above defined heights, and involvement in remediation work. Many also ask about the practice’s role under the Building Safety Act 2022 regime, including whether it acts as principal designer.

Answer these precisely and narrowly. Say what the practice did, on which buildings, in which years, and in what role. The vaguer the answer, the wider the exclusion you are likely to be offered.

The Act also changed the limitation landscape for claims relating to dwellings, which is why forms now ask about work going back much further than they used to. Our pages on the Building Safety Act and architects’ PI and proposal form disclosure for HRB and cladding work go into the detail.

Section 6 — claims, circumstances and prior knowledge

Every form asks for a claims history, usually over the last five to ten years, and then asks the harder question: is any principal aware, after enquiry, of any circumstance that might give rise to a claim?

That second question is the one that most often causes trouble. It is not limited to formal complaints. It captures the project where the client has stopped paying and started asking pointed questions, the defect that has been raised on site, the contractor’s letter about a discrepancy in the information, and the consultant who has been asked to comment on your work.

The safe approach is a documented enquiry of every principal and project lead before the form is signed, with the answers recorded. Something disclosed and declined is a problem you know about; something not disclosed is a problem you find out about when you need the policy. If a circumstance exists, it usually belongs with the current insurer as a notification before renewal, not as a disclosure to the new one.

Section 7 — risk management and quality systems

Questions cover quality management certification, standard appointment documents, document control and drawing issue procedures, checking and review of designs, subconsultant selection and their insurance, and how site inspection is recorded.

These questions are partly underwriting and partly pricing. A practice that can describe its design review process and produce evidence of subconsultant PI is an easier risk than one that cannot, and the difference shows up in terms rather than in a yes or no answer.

The subconsultant question is worth taking seriously in its own right. Where a practice engages others and retains professional responsibility, the practice’s own policy is the one facing the claim if the subconsultant is uninsured.

Section 8 — the limit, the excess and the declaration

Finally the form asks what you want to buy: the limit of indemnity, whether it is any one claim or in the aggregate, the excess, and whether defence costs are inside or outside the limit.

The ARB expects architects to hold adequate and appropriate insurance for their work, and ARB has set a minimum figure of £250,000 for each claim, with the position framed by reference to availability in the market. Treat that as a floor rather than a target: it is unrelated to the construction value of the projects most practices work on. Our pages on the ARB minimum limit and ARB minimum terms deal with the requirement itself.

Then the declaration. Read it. It usually confirms that the answers are true, that nothing material has been withheld, and that you will tell the insurer if anything changes before cover incepts. That last obligation is real, and the gap between completing a form and inception is exactly when awkward letters tend to arrive.

A checklist before you sign

• Does the named insured match every entity that signs appointments, including dormant and predecessor practices?
• Is the fee split taken from the accounts rather than estimated?
• Has every principal been asked, in writing, about circumstances — and has the answer been recorded?
• Is the cladding, external wall and higher-risk building answer specific enough to defend?
• Is there anything material that no question asked about? If so, it goes in a covering note.
• Have you kept a complete copy of what was submitted, including attachments?

See also

• Proposal form guides — the guide index this page sits under
• Why the proposal form matters — the general principle
• Architects PI insurance guide — the sector pillar for architects
• The architects' annual renewal — how the renewal runs in practice

References

• Insurance Act 2015, sections 3, 4, 5 and 7
• Building Safety Act 2022

Frequently asked questions

Does answering every question on the proposal form discharge the duty of fair presentation?

Not necessarily. Section 3 of the Insurance Act 2015 requires disclosure of every material circumstance the insured knows or ought to know, or enough information to put a prudent insurer on notice to make further enquiries, presented clearly and accessibly. If something material does not fit any question on the form, it still needs to be disclosed, usually in a covering note.

What should we do about a circumstance we discover while completing the form?

Deal with it as a notification to your current insurer before the policy expires, not merely as a disclosure to the next one. Professional indemnity is claims-made, and a circumstance validly notified under the expiring policy is generally dealt with under that policy. Then disclose it on the proposal form as well.

Why does the form ask about the largest project rather than just fee income?

Because fee income measures how busy the practice is, while construction value measures how large a claim could be. A small practice involved in one very large scheme carries an exposure its turnover does not reveal, and underwriters price the tail rather than the workload.

Is this page a copy of an insurer's proposal form?

No. It is a general walkthrough of the kinds of question architects' professional indemnity proposal forms ask and the reasons underwriters ask them. No insurer's form is reproduced here, and your own insurer's form will differ in wording, order and definitions.

This page is insurance information for UK businesses, not legal advice. It is a general summary and cannot take account of your own facts, your policy wording or your regulator’s current rules; take advice before acting on it. Position stated as at August 2026.

Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FRN 724952). This page is general information, not advice on a specific policy.