Category: Specialist underwriting · Reviewed by Taylor Watts, Broker · New Business · Last reviewed May 2026
A three-partner engineering consultancy in the East Midlands began planning the senior partner’s retirement in late 2023. The intention was a clean exit on 31 March 2024, with the remaining two partners continuing under a slightly restructured LLP. The partnership agreement provided for retirement run-off cover to be arranged through the continuing firm’s broker. The senior partner’s exit triggered a discussion that turned out to be substantially more complicated than the partners had anticipated: the firm’s residential work over the previous twenty-five years now sat within the extended thirty-year retrospective limitation window under the Defective Premises Act, the firm’s current insurer was not willing to write extended run-off without a substantial premium uplift and a documented project register, and the alternative markets willing to entertain the placement had specific conditions about project disclosure and reserving. The placement took four months. The senior partner’s exit completed on schedule, but the run-off structure was substantively different from what the partnership agreement had contemplated a decade earlier. This article examines run-off cover in 2026: regulatory minimums, the engineer-specific thirty-year problem, cost progression, market capacity, and the practical structures available.
Professional indemnity is written on a claims-made basis. The policy that responds is the policy in force when the claim is first made or notified, not the policy in force when the underlying work was carried out. A firm that ceases to practise without arranging run-off cover therefore loses cover for past acts at the moment its last working policy expires, even though the underlying work may give rise to claims years afterwards.
Run-off cover bridges this gap. It is a continuation of the firm’s PI cover beyond the cessation of practice, responding to claims notified during the run-off period in respect of work carried out before cessation. The structure typically mirrors the firm’s last working policy in scope, limit and territory, with adjustments to reflect the absence of fresh exposure being added.
The practical question for every firm contemplating cessation, retirement, sale or restructure is how long the run-off period needs to be, how it will be funded, who will arrange and manage it, and what happens if the cover proves inadequate during the run-off period.
Different professional bodies impose different minimum run-off requirements on their regulated populations. The minimums are a floor, not a ceiling, and in most cases the floor is materially shorter than the actual exposure window.
The SRA requires solicitors’ firms ceasing practice to maintain run-off cover for a minimum of six years from cessation, secured through the Minimum Terms and Conditions. The cover continues to respond on the same terms as the last working policy. Where a firm fails to arrange run-off, the SRA’s compensation arrangements provide a limited backstop for protected clients but the firm’s principals retain personal exposure.
ICAEW members are required under the regulatory framework to maintain run-off for a minimum of two years post-cessation, with six years recommended and frequently expected by professional indemnity insurers writing the class. ACCA’s framework is broadly comparable. The two-year minimum is widely regarded as insufficient given typical claim emergence patterns for accounting and audit work.
ARB does not mandate run-off cover beyond requiring that practising architects maintain adequate professional indemnity in force during practice. RIBA guidance recommends six years’ run-off as a minimum, with longer periods recommended where the practice has carried out residential work or work on Higher-Risk Buildings.
RICS requires its regulated firms to maintain run-off cover for six years from cessation, with the cover responding on minimum terms equivalent to those required during active practice. The requirement is set out in the RICS Rules of Conduct and supporting professional indemnity insurance regulations.
The major engineering institutions — including the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Structural Engineers and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers — set professional conduct expectations but do not generally prescribe specific run-off durations. Practical expectation through professional indemnity wordings is six years, but the Defective Premises Act regime now imposes a much longer practical exposure window for engineers working on residential schemes.
CIOB, IFE and CIBSE all expect adequate run-off but do not specify durations. The Approved Inspector regime, replaced by the Registered Building Control Approver regime under the BSA reforms, has its own continuing-cover expectations through the transitional and successor framework.
The six-year benchmark dominant across the regulated professions derives from the standard Limitation Act 1980 limitation period for actions in contract and tort. For most professional work, claims must be brought within six years of the cause of action accruing, and the conventional logic is that six years’ run-off broadly matches the exposure window.
That logic was always approximate. Three categories of exposure substantially exceed the six-year horizon.
Where the firm’s appointment is executed as a deed, the limitation period under the Limitation Act 1980 is twelve years rather than six. Many large commercial and public sector appointments are executed as deeds; many smaller commercial appointments are not. A firm whose contracts include any deeds-executed appointments faces a twelve-year exposure window for those projects regardless of regulatory minimums.
The Latent Damage Act 1986 extends the limitation period in negligence to three years from the date of knowledge of the damage, subject to a fifteen-year long-stop from the negligent act. Latent damage scenarios — particularly in construction and engineering — can extend the practical exposure window well beyond six years.
The most material extension is the regime introduced by BSA s.135, inserting s.4A into the Limitation Act 1980. For relevant building work completed before 28 June 2022, the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 is thirty years. For work completed after that date, the period is fifteen years.
The thirty-year retrospective window has reshaped the run-off conversation for any construction professional with residential work in their history. A six-year run-off period covers only a fraction of the practical exposure. The Court of Appeal’s confirmation of the retrospective effect in URS Corporation Ltd v BDW Trading Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 772 left no room for doubt: residential design work going back to 1992 is potentially within the limitation window for DPA claims as at 2026.
The category of firm most acutely affected by the BSA limitation extension is the structural, mechanical, electrical or fire engineering practice with a portfolio of past residential work. The exposure is asymmetric: the firm earned fees on residential schemes that completed twenty or twenty-five years ago, has long since closed its records on those projects, may have lost contact with the original client, and now faces a live limitation window for DPA claims in respect of that work until 2030 or later.
A six-year run-off purchased on retirement in 2026 covers only a small share of that practical exposure. The firm’s principals — typically partners or directors who would otherwise expect a clean exit — face a structural mismatch between the regulatory and market-standard run-off duration and the underlying claim exposure window.
The practical responses vary. Some engineering firms purchase materially longer run-off cover, accepting the additional premium cost. Others maintain run-off renewals on an annual basis, allowing flexibility to adjust as the exposure ages. Others structure their cessation through a successor practice arrangement that preserves the original entity’s cover continuity. Each approach has trade-offs, and the choice should be made with reference to the firm’s specific exposure profile rather than a default template.
The cost of run-off cover follows a recognised pattern across the market, though specific premiums vary by profession, claims history, exposure and insurer.
The most common starting point is a run-off year-one premium of around the firm’s last working premium, often expressed as a percentage of the most recent twelve-month premium. Some insurers offer a discount to reflect the absence of fresh exposure; others apply a small uplift to reflect the absence of premium income to support reserving.
For multi-year run-off purchased as an annual structure, the conventional pattern is a declining premium schedule reflecting the maturing of the exposure. The decline is typically modest in the early years — five to ten per cent per year — and steeper in the later years as the bulk of the claims would conventionally have emerged.
Some insurers structure run-off as level annual premium for the full run-off period, particularly where the firm has long-tail exposure such as residential design work within the BSA limitation window. The structure trades a higher early premium for a more predictable through-period cost.
Where a firm wants certainty and a clean exit, a lump-sum run-off premium covering the full run-off period at inception is sometimes available. The lump-sum is typically priced at a discount to the sum of the equivalent annual premiums, but requires the firm to fund the full cost up-front. The structure is attractive where the firm has the capital to fund it and wants to remove the administrative burden of annual renewal.
Run-off premiums can step up rather than down where the firm’s exposure profile worsens during the run-off period — for example, where a notified circumstance materialises into a claim, where regulatory developments increase the long-tail exposure, or where the firm’s insurer’s appetite for the class deteriorates. Long-run run-off planning needs to allow for these scenarios.
Not every insurer writing PI is willing to write run-off cover, and within the run-off market, appetite varies materially by profession, exposure and structure.
Insurers writing run-off typically fall into three groups. The first group writes run-off as a continuation of the firm’s existing PI relationship — the same insurer that wrote the firm’s last working policy continues into run-off. This is the most common pattern and is administratively the simplest, but depends on the insurer maintaining appetite for the class.
The second group is the run-off specialist. Several Lloyd’s syndicates and company markets specialise in writing run-off cover, including for firms whose original insurer has withdrawn from the market or from the class. These specialists typically have specific competence in pricing long-tail exposure and managing the run-off process. The role of MGAs is significant: a number of specialist MGAs operate run-off facilities backed by Lloyd’s or company capacity.
The third group is the legacy market, focused on portfolio transfers and commuted run-off arrangements rather than ordinary annual renewal. This market is less relevant to individual firm placements but features in larger M&A and group restructure scenarios.
For most firms, run-off placement involves engaging the existing insurer in the first instance and seeking alternative quotes in the open market where the existing insurer’s terms are unattractive or where the existing insurer declines. A specialist broker with run-off experience is generally well placed to navigate the market.
The mechanics of run-off purchase are typically addressed in the firm’s partnership or LLP agreement, but the provisions are frequently outdated, generic or silent on the practical questions.
Common provisions include: a requirement that the continuing partners arrange run-off cover for the benefit of retiring partners; an allocation of the cost between the firm and the retiring partner; a mechanism for funding the cost, often through a deduction from the retiring partner’s capital account or final drawings; and a provision for the run-off cover to respond to claims against both the firm and the retiring partner personally.
The provisions break down when the firm dissolves entirely, where there are no continuing partners to bear the cost. They break down where the cost of run-off has escalated materially since the agreement was drafted, particularly for construction professional firms now facing the BSA exposure window. They break down where the partnership agreement assumes a short run-off duration that is inadequate to the actual exposure.
Firms approaching a partner exit, a partial dissolution or a full wind-down benefit from a contemporaneous review of the agreement against current market terms and current exposure profiles. Where the agreement is inadequate, the affected partners typically negotiate a side-letter or supplemental agreement addressing the run-off structure specifically.
Where a firm is sold, merges, or transfers its business to a successor practice, the run-off analysis is more complex than a straight wind-down.
The threshold question is whether the successor practice will assume the original firm’s PI continuity through its own policy, or whether the original firm must purchase run-off separately. The successor practice analysis is regulatory as well as commercial. The SRA’s framework for solicitors’ successor practices is the most developed, with specific tests for whether a successor relationship exists and what the cover continuity implications are. Other professional bodies have less prescriptive frameworks but the same underlying question arises.
Where the successor practice assumes continuity, the original firm’s principals typically do not need to purchase separate run-off. The successor’s PI policy responds to claims arising from the predecessor’s work. This is the simpler and usually cheaper structure, but it requires the successor to be willing to assume the predecessor’s liability profile, and the successor’s insurer to be willing to underwrite that combined exposure.
Where the successor practice does not assume continuity — typically because the deal is structured as an asset purchase rather than a share or business purchase, or because the successor’s insurer declines to extend cover — the original firm must purchase run-off in the conventional way. This is the more common outcome for transactions involving construction professionals with material BSA exposure, since the successor’s insurer is rarely willing to absorb that historic exposure.
The structuring choices here interact with the firm’s insurer financial strength assessment. The choice of run-off insurer matters more than the choice of working insurer, since the firm has no opportunity to switch insurer during the run-off period. The considerations are discussed in PI insurer financial strength: a broker’s view.
Where a firm ceases to practise without arranging run-off cover, claimants face a gap risk: the underlying work may be the basis of a valid claim, but there is no insurer to respond.
For solicitors, the SRA Compensation Fund provides a limited backstop for protected clients of defunct firms, but the cover is restricted by statutory caps and is not available to every category of claimant. For other professions, the position is generally weaker. HM Treasury’s broader approach to defunct firm scenarios in the financial services sector does not extend to general professional indemnity.
The practical implication is that firms ceasing practice without adequate run-off leave their former clients exposed to gap risk, and the firm’s principals to personal liability where claims arise. The reputational and ethical considerations are significant, even where the firm’s commercial position would make run-off purchase difficult.
Specialist brokers placing run-off cover work with a range of structural options.
A single lump-sum run-off premium at exit, covering the full intended run-off period, paid up-front. This provides certainty and a clean administrative position but requires the firm to fund the full cost at the moment of cessation, when its income has typically just stopped.
An annual run-off renewal, with premium reviewed each year against the residual exposure and the firm’s continuing risk profile. This provides flexibility and matches premium to exposure over time, but requires ongoing administration and exposes the firm to the risk of premium escalation or insurer withdrawal during the run-off period.
An Extended Reporting Period (ERP), a contractual extension to the current policy’s reporting window without a full run-off arrangement. ERPs are typically shorter than full run-off — often two to three years — and are used as a bridging mechanism rather than a permanent solution.
Tail cover as a bolt-on to an existing policy, used where the firm is restructuring rather than ceasing, and needs to address the run-off exposure of a discontinued line of work without exiting the broader policy.
Commuted run-off, where the insurer pays the firm a lump sum in exchange for being released from future run-off obligations. This is unusual at individual firm level but features in larger M&A and portfolio restructure scenarios.
The choice of structure depends on the firm’s exposure profile, capital position, administrative capacity and the available market appetite. A specialist broker will typically test multiple structures before recommending the appropriate placement.
Run-off cover responds to claims notified during the run-off period in respect of work carried out before cessation. The cover is bounded by the retroactive date of the underlying policy, which determines how far back the cover reaches into the firm’s past work.
A run-off policy with a retroactive date of (say) 1 January 2010 does not respond to claims arising from work completed before that date, even if the run-off period itself extends thirty years forward from cessation. For long-established firms with work pre-dating their current retroactive date, this gap requires explicit attention. The interaction is discussed at length in The retroactive date trap: a broker’s view.
The fire safety and cladding exposure considerations also flow directly into run-off planning. A firm with historic residential design work needs to consider whether the run-off policy preserves cover for that exposure, whether it carries a fire safety exclusion mirroring the current working policy, and whether the cover responds to claims under the extended DPA limitation regime. The relevant analysis is set out in Fire safety exclusions in UK PI insurance and Cladding exposure in PI insurance: the 2026 market position.
The three-partner engineering consultancy referenced at the start of this article ultimately structured the senior partner’s exit through a fifteen-year annual run-off arrangement placed with a Lloyd’s-backed specialist, with a clean retroactive date matching the firm’s original cover inception and a documented project register addressing the firm’s residential schemes. The premium for year one was materially higher than the senior partner had anticipated, reflecting the BSA exposure window, but the structure provided defensible cover through the practical limitation horizon for the firm’s past work.
The wider lesson — that run-off planning needs to start years before the actual exit, with reference to the firm’s specific exposure profile rather than regulatory minimums — applies across the construction professional segment and increasingly across other regulated professional firms with long-tail liability exposure.
Run-off cover is a continuation of a firm’s professional indemnity cover after the firm has ceased to practise. Because PI is written on a claims-made basis, the policy that responds to a claim is the one in force when the claim is made, not when the underlying work was done. Without run-off, a firm that ceases practice loses cover for past acts at the moment its last working policy expires, even though claims may emerge for years afterwards.
The minimum regulatory periods vary by profession — six years is common across solicitors, surveyors and several other regulated professions — but the practical exposure window often exceeds this. Contracts executed as deeds have a twelve-year limitation. Residential building work falls within the thirty-year retrospective limitation period under the Defective Premises Act, as extended by BSA s.135. Run-off duration should be set with reference to actual exposure, not regulatory minimums.
BSA s.135 inserted s.4A into the Limitation Act 1980, extending the limitation period for claims under section 1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 from six to thirty years for relevant building work completed before 28 June 2022. The change is particularly material for structural, mechanical, electrical and fire engineers with past residential work, since the limitation window for DPA claims against that historic work now extends to thirty years from completion.
The first year of run-off is typically priced at around the firm’s last working premium, with subsequent years following either a declining schedule, a level annual structure, or a lump-sum approach covering the full period at inception. Specific pricing varies by profession, claims history, exposure profile and insurer. Construction professional firms with BSA exposure typically face higher run-off premiums than other professional categories.
In some regulated markets, the firm’s existing insurer is required to offer run-off on the same terms as the active policy for a defined period — the SRA’s Minimum Terms and Conditions framework for solicitors is the most developed example. In other markets, the insurer has commercial discretion on whether to write run-off, and the firm may need to seek alternative quotes if the existing insurer’s terms are unattractive.
Claims arising from the firm’s past work after the last working policy expires will not be met by any insurance. The firm’s principals retain personal liability under the underlying claim. Limited statutory or regulatory backstops exist for some professions — the SRA Compensation Fund for solicitors is one example — but these typically cap recovery and do not apply to every claimant or claim type.
Where a successor practice assumes the original firm’s PI continuity through its own policy, the original firm’s principals may not need separate run-off. The structure depends on the regulatory framework for the profession and the willingness of the successor’s insurer to assume the predecessor’s liability profile. For construction professionals with material BSA exposure, the successor’s insurer is rarely willing to absorb the historic exposure without specific terms.
A run-off policy responds only to claims arising from work performed after the retroactive date specified in the policy. For a firm with work pre-dating its current retroactive date — common where the firm has changed insurer or restructured during its working life — the run-off cover will not reach that older work without specific extension. The analysis needs to be done at the time of run-off placement, not in retrospect.
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is an independent UK insurance broker based in Bristol, advising professional services firms on professional indemnity insurance and related covers. The firm is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (firm reference 724952) and registered at Companies House (company number 07014570).
This commentary reflects market conditions as at May 2026 and is provided for general information. Insurance market conditions, policy wordings and regulatory positions change frequently; firms should obtain advice specific to their circumstances rather than rely on general commentary.
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