Reviewed by Matthew Bartlett, Director · Last reviewed 8 July 2026
The renewal invitation has landed and something is not right. The premium has climbed sharply without a matching change in the workload, the wording review did not engage with your residential exposure post-Building Safety Act, or the broker never asked about the two schools you took on last year. Architects change broker at renewal for reasons like these, and the mechanics are well established. This entry sets out what to expect, what your current broker has to release, and the ARB and BSA 2022 continuity points that must not slip in the handover.
The signals are observable rather than emotional. The renewal premium moved and the underwriting rationale is missing from the file. The wording review was a covering paragraph, not a written analysis of the fitness-for-purpose exclusion, the design-and-build carve-out or the net contribution clause. The broker did not ask about the shift in project mix — more residential, more mixed-use, more work on higher-risk buildings under the BSA 2022 regime. The renewal presentation went to a single insurer’s facility rather than an open-market submission across an architects’ panel. Terms landed on the eve of expiry. Any one of these on its own may be explicable. A cluster of them usually means the file has not been actively broked.
Under ICOBS 2 information duties and the wider FCA client-service framework, the current broker is required to give you the information you need to make an informed decision at renewal. That includes the current wording in full, the schedule, the claims record, the renewal invitation and any change of terms since inception. Consumer Duty (PRIN 2A) applies where the principal is treated as a consumer of the broking service — the “consumer understanding” and “consumer support” outcomes are the practical hooks. A written request for the file is sufficient. You do not owe an explanation for leaving.
The Architects Registration Board’s Standard 8 requires adequate and appropriate PI insurance in place at all times. “Adequate” is not quantified in a formula; it is judged against the practice’s work, exposure and past claims record, which puts real weight on the wording review at every broker change. The Building Safety Act 2022 section 135 extended the Defective Premises Act limitation period to thirty years for pre-2022 dwellings and fifteen years for post-2022 dwellings, and any residential exposure — past or current — needs disclosure at re-broking so the incoming insurer prices the retroactive tail correctly. Run-off availability for a practice ceasing to trade should be confirmed with the incoming insurer at inception, not deferred to a future date. Net contribution clauses in your appointments and collateral warranties interact with the PI wording; the incoming broker should read both sides.
The mechanics are ordered.
First, do not cancel the current policy until the new one is bound and effective from renewal date. A claims-made policy needs an unbroken chain. Second, give the incoming broker access to the current wording, schedule and claims record so the submission is built on the same factual base. Third, the fair-presentation duty under section 3 of the Insurance Act 2015 applies at renewal and at every material variation — do not soften the residential-exposure disclosure to make the risk look leaner. Fourth, any circumstance already notified to the outgoing insurer stays with that insurer; the new policy responds to claims made during its own period. Fifth, confirm the retroactive date on the new policy matches the outgoing inception so historic projects remain within cover. Sixth, read the aggregation clause and the fitness-for-purpose exclusion on the new wording against the outgoing one, and ask for the net contribution position in writing.
A broker doing the work properly on an architects’ file looks like this. A named broker reads the wording and puts the analysis in writing. The submission engages with ARB Standard 8, the practice’s residential exposure, the BSA 2022 section 135 tail, and the collateral-warranty portfolio. It goes to an open-market panel, not a facility. Material changes are picked up when they happen. When architects move to Apex Insurance Brokers from another broker, they say the difference is the same broker on the phone and a wording review that engages with the actual work rather than reciting the ARB rulebook. That is the working model, and it is why the retention rate on the architects’ book runs at 95%.
Renewal at hand?
Send us your current renewal terms and we’ll take a look. A named broker will read every submission and come back within one working day with a proper comparison.