Category: Insurance definitions · Reviewed by Jake Leat, Associate Director · Last reviewed May 2026
Joint and several liability is the default English-law rule for concurrent wrongdoers: each defendant can be required to pay the claimant the full loss, leaving the defendants to sort contribution between themselves. It is the rule that PI insurers, professional firms, and claimants live with on virtually every multi-party claim — and the rule that net contribution clauses are drafted to displace.
Where two or more parties have each caused, or each materially contributed to, a single indivisible loss, English law treats them as concurrent wrongdoers. The claimant may sue any one of them, several of them, or all of them. Each defendant proved to be at fault is liable to the claimant for the whole loss, not merely the share attributable to that defendant’s own fault. The claimant does not have to allocate fault between defendants; the claimant only has to prove that each defendant breached a duty and that the breach caused the loss.
Once the claimant has been paid in full by one defendant (or some defendants), that defendant may seek a contribution from any co-wrongdoer under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The contribution claim asks the court to set what is “just and equitable having regard to the extent of that person’s responsibility for the damage in question”. Contribution is the way the English system reallocates the burden internally between wrongdoers; the claimant takes no part in that allocation.
For PI claims, joint and several liability has three practical consequences:
In a typical multi-party PI dispute — say, a defective basement on a commercial property — the claimant might join the architect, the structural engineer, the contractor, and the basement-waterproofing subcontractor. Each is a potential concurrent wrongdoer for the indivisible loss (the cost of remedial works plus consequential losses).
The procedural sequence is broadly:
PI insurers and their defendant firms tend to settle multi-party claims through joint settlements with apportionment side-agreements. Those agreements record the contribution split agreed between insurers, so each insurer pays its share into the joint settlement pot without subsequent contribution litigation.
Consider a UK commercial development. A specialist contractor and a structural engineer are both found to have contributed to a structural defect that costs the building owner £2.4m to remediate. Liability is apportioned 40% to the engineer and 60% to the contractor.
Under joint and several liability, the building owner can pursue either party for the whole £2.4m. If the contractor has gone into administration with no PI cover responding, the engineer is liable to the building owner for the full £2.4m, even though only 40% of the fault is attributable to it. The engineer’s PI insurer pays £2.4m to the claimant, then attempts to recover the contractor’s 60% share (£1.44m) via the contractor’s insurer or administrator. If recovery fails, the engineer’s PI insurer absorbs the loss.
By contrast, under a properly drafted net contribution clause in the engineer’s appointment, the engineer would have been liable to the building owner only for its 40% share (£960,000). The shortfall — the contractor’s £1.44m — would have fallen on the building owner instead of the engineer.
The numbers are illustrative. The structural point is that joint and several liability shifts the risk of an insolvent co-defendant from the claimant to the solvent co-defendants and their insurers.
Three situations bring the rule into sharpest focus on PI claims:
Construction and multi-disciplinary professional teams. Almost every substantial construction or engineering claim involves multiple consultants and contractors. Without a net contribution clause, every consultant on the team is fully exposed to the full loss attributable to the team’s combined fault.
Claims involving insolvent co-wrongdoers. A claim where the contractor has gone bust, or the original designer has wound up without run-off cover, leaves the remaining defendants holding the bill. Insurers test their insureds’ contract terms hard on these matters.
Subrogated recovery actions. When a PI insurer pays out, it stands in the insured’s shoes to pursue contribution from co-wrongdoers’ insurers. Joint and several liability gives the insurer the right to chase the full share owed by any solvent co-wrongdoer.
The rule also matters in non-construction PI claims: solicitors and counsel involved in the same transaction; accountants and tax advisers giving overlapping advice; surveyors and valuers reporting on the same asset.
English law’s default position can be modified by contract. The most common modifications appearing on UK appointments are:
Joint-and-several liability also operates differently across other UK jurisdictions in some narrow respects. Scotland has its own equivalent in joint and several liability for delict, but the contribution mechanism is governed separately by Scottish statute and case law.
What is joint and several liability in plain English?
It means each party found at fault can be required to pay the whole loss, not just its own share. The claimant gets paid in full by whoever is easiest to recover from; the defendants then sort out shares between themselves under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. It is the default rule for concurrent wrongdoers in England and Wales.
Is joint and several liability the same in Scotland and Northern Ireland?
The substantive principle is broadly similar across the UK jurisdictions — any one defendant proved at fault can be liable for the whole loss to the claimant — but the contribution machinery operates under different statutes (the 1978 Act in England and Wales and Northern Ireland; the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940 in Scotland). PI cover with UK-wide jurisdiction picks up all three.
Does PI insurance respond to a claim made on a joint and several basis?
Yes. A PI policy responding to a claim against the insured pays the loss the insured is legally liable for, up to the limit and subject to terms. If the insured is jointly and severally liable for the whole loss, the policy responds to the whole loss; the insurer then pursues contribution from co-wrongdoers’ insurers under its subrogated rights.
How does a net contribution clause change the position?
A net contribution clause displaces the default. It limits the consultant’s liability to a fair share assuming co-defendants pay their own shares, which means the claimant — not the consultant — bears the risk of an insolvent or untraced co-defendant. NCCs are enforceable in principle if clearly drafted; they have been tested in English case law.
What is the difference between joint, several, and joint and several liability?
In short: “joint” means the defendants are jointly responsible and must be sued together; “several” means each is responsible for its own act and is sued separately; “joint and several” means the claimant can sue any one defendant for the whole loss or all of them together. English law applies joint and several liability to concurrent wrongdoers as the default.
Can my PI insurer refuse to pay because a co-defendant should also be on cover?
No. The insurer’s contract is with the insured, and it pays what the insured is legally liable for. If a co-defendant is uninsured or insolvent, that is a contribution problem for the insurer to manage — it does not reduce the cover available to the insured. Some indemnity provisions in inter-insurer agreements may, however, allow rateable contribution between insurers covering the same loss.
Where can I find the law on contribution between defendants?
The principal statute in England and Wales is the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. Section 1 establishes the right to contribution from “any other person liable in respect of the same damage”; section 2 sets the “just and equitable” basis for assessing share. Detailed analysis is set out in case law including Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond and subsequent authorities.
Does joint and several liability apply to limited liability partnerships and limited companies?
Yes. The rule attaches to the legal person liable, not to its form. An LLP or limited company can be jointly and severally liable to a claimant. The corporate veil protects partners and shareholders personally, but the LLP or company itself remains exposed for the whole loss, which is precisely what its PI cover responds to.
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "Article",
"headline": "Joint and several liability in PI: what it means in English law",
"description": "Joint and several liability is the default English-law rule for concurrent wrongdoers in PI claims. How the rule works, contribution rights under the 1978 Act, and net contribution clauses.",
"author": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd",
"url": "https://www.apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/"
},
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd"
},
"datePublished": "2026-05-29",
"dateModified": "2026-05-29",
"inLanguage": "en-GB"
}
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"name": "Joint and several liability (PI insurance)",
"description": "The default English-law rule under which each of two or more concurrent wrongdoers can be required to pay the claimant the full loss, with contribution between wrongdoers allocated separately under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.",
"inDefinedTermSet": {
"@type": "DefinedTermSet",
"name": "Apex Insurance Brokers Glossary",
"url": "https://www.apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk/glossary/"
}
}
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "FAQPage",
"mainEntity": [
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is joint and several liability in plain English?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Each party found at fault can be required to pay the claimant the whole loss, not just its own share. Defendants then allocate shares between themselves under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. It is the default rule for concurrent wrongdoers in England and Wales."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Is joint and several liability the same across the UK?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "The substantive principle is broadly similar across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but contribution operates under different statutes. UK-wide PI policies cover all three jurisdictions."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does PI insurance respond to a joint and several claim?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Yes. A PI policy pays the loss the insured is legally liable for. If the insured is jointly and severally liable for the whole loss, the policy responds to the whole loss; the insurer then pursues contribution from co-wrongdoers' insurers."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "How does a net contribution clause change the position?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "A net contribution clause displaces the default joint-and-several rule. It limits the consultant's liability to a fair share, with the claimant bearing the risk of an insolvent or untraced co-defendant. NCCs are enforceable in principle if clearly drafted."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "What is the difference between joint, several, and joint and several liability?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Joint means jointly responsible and sued together. Several means responsible for own acts and sued separately. Joint and several means the claimant can sue any one defendant for the whole loss or all together. The default for concurrent wrongdoers in England and Wales is joint and several."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Can my PI insurer refuse to pay because a co-defendant should also be on cover?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "No. The insurer pays what its insured is legally liable for. If a co-defendant is uninsured or insolvent, that is a contribution problem for the insurer to manage afterwards, not a reason to reduce cover available to the insured."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Where can I find the law on contribution between defendants?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 governs contribution between defendants in England and Wales. Section 1 establishes the right; section 2 sets the just-and-equitable basis for assessing share. Case law including Royal Brompton Hospital v Hammond develops the principles."
}
},
{
"@type": "Question",
"name": "Does joint and several liability apply to LLPs and limited companies?",
"acceptedAnswer": {
"@type": "Answer",
"text": "Yes. The rule attaches to the legal person liable. An LLP or limited company can be jointly and severally liable for the whole loss. Corporate form protects members or shareholders personally, but the entity itself remains exposed, which is what its PI cover responds to."
}
}
]
}
Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd is a Bristol-based insurance broker authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (firm reference number 724952). The company is registered in England and Wales under Companies House number 07014570. Contact: info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk | 0117 325 0027.
Last reviewed: May 2026 by Apex Insurance Brokers Ltd.
Important: this article is general information, not advice on your specific circumstances. For advice on PI insurance for your firm, contact us on 0117 325 0027 or info@apexinsurancebrokers.co.uk.
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