Professional indemnity cover in the United Kingdom is shaped as much by the appellate courts as it is by the wordings. A handful of Supreme Court and Court of Appeal decisions between 2020 and 2026 have redrawn the scope of duty owed by professionals, tightened limitation analysis, and refined how insurance law applies to PI claims. This entry surveys the authorities Apex Insurance Brokers reads as most important for firms buying and renewing PI cover, grouped by theme. Each case is set out with brief facts, the holding, and the practical implication. Decided appellate authorities only.
Court and citation: Supreme Court, [2021] UKSC 20, judgment handed down 18 June 2021.
Facts: The society sued its auditor for negligent advice on hedge accounting, on which it had entered long-dated interest rate swaps. When the accounting treatment was reversed, the society broke the swaps at a loss of roughly £32.7 million.
Holding: The Supreme Court reformulated the scope of duty question from SAAMCO. The starting point is what risk the duty was intended to guard against; damages are recoverable only for losses within that risk. The society recovered because the auditor had been retained on the accounting treatment that made the swaps viable.
PI implication: Insurers run scope of duty as the first line of analysis on any PN claim. Retainer letters and engagement scoping matter as much as the substantive advice. See our scope of duty explainer and the accountants PI pillar.
Court and citation: Supreme Court, [2021] UKSC 21, handed down alongside Manchester Building Society on 18 June 2021.
Facts: A GP negligently failed to identify that the claimant was a carrier of the haemophilia gene before she conceived. Her son was born with both haemophilia and, unrelatedly, autism. She sought the additional costs of raising a child with both conditions.
Holding: Applying the same scope of duty framework, the majority held that the GP was liable only for costs attributable to haemophilia, not autism. The autism-related loss fell outside the risk the doctor's advice was engaged to address.
PI implication: The reasoning applies across all professions. Advisers giving discrete advice on a specific risk are unlikely to be liable for adjacent losses outside that advice, even where the client would not have suffered them but for the negligence. See our causation vs scope of duty note.
Court and citation: Supreme Court, [2018] UKSC 13. Included here as it remains the leading authority read alongside the 2021 pair.
Facts: A solicitor acting for a borrower emailed the lender a draft discharge that was factually wrong. The lender released security across all its charges rather than a single title. There was no retainer with the lender.
Holding: The Supreme Court declined to impose an assumption of responsibility on a solicitor whose duty ran to her own client. Sophisticated counterparties are expected to check their own paperwork; a unilateral communication does not automatically create a duty to the recipient.
PI implication: Non-client claims remain difficult to sustain against solicitors and other professionals in commercial contexts. See our solicitors PI pillar and assumption of responsibility explainer.
Court and citation: Supreme Court, [2018] UKSC 43. Included as it continues to be cited across 2020 to 2026 in negligent misstatement disputes.
Facts: A casino asked its agent to obtain a banker's reference; the agent, without disclosing the true principal, requested it from BNL. BNL confirmed the customer as good for a stated figure. The cheques bounced.
Holding: No duty of care was owed to the casino. Because the bank did not know its statement would be relied on by the casino, the necessary proximity was absent.
PI implication: Professionals who give references or draft documents for use by an unidentified third party remain reasonably protected. Where the recipient is known, the analysis differs. See Hedley Byrne in modern practice.
Court and citation: Supreme Court, [2023] UKSC 41, judgment handed down 15 November 2023.
Facts: A borrower under a PPI credit agreement claimed the commission on the PPI premium was undisclosed. She sought to rely on section 32(1)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, which postpones limitation where a relevant fact has been deliberately concealed.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that deliberate concealment requires knowledge that the fact is relevant to the right of action, not merely intentional non-disclosure. The threshold is more demanding than lower courts had assumed.
PI implication: Claims turning on section 32 postponement will now be harder to sustain. Welcome for insurers on stale files, but it tightens what advisers must record about disclosures at point of sale. See Limitation Act 1980 in professional negligence.
Court and citation: Court of Appeal, [2022] EWCA Civ 1554.
Facts: A commodities trader claimed under a marine cargo policy after warehouse receipts for grain in Ukraine proved fictitious. The insurer denied cover, arguing no insurable interest and no physical loss.
Holding: The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge. An insurable interest arose from the trader's contractual and possessory rights over the grain that ought to have been in the warehouse. The claim was payable.
PI implication: Fair presentation under the Insurance Act 2015 and insurable interest analysis cut across all lines, not just PI. Professionals arranging cover should record their advice on interest and disclosure. See fair presentation duty explainer.
Court and citation: Court of Appeal, [2024] EWCA Civ 1567.
Facts: Water damage occurred at Sky's campus during construction. Insurers argued that damage manifesting later fell outside the policy period. The dispute turned on the meaning of "occurrence" and the point at which damage crystallises.
Holding: The Court of Appeal held that continuing physical damage during the policy period suffices, even where the full extent only becomes apparent later. The insurers' construction was rejected.
PI implication: Long-tail latent damage claims will continue to test the boundary between manifestation and occurrence. Renewals should be timed and documented accordingly. See our architects PI pillar and surveyors PI pillar.
Court and citation: Court of Appeal, [2023] EWCA Civ 772.
Facts: A developer sued the structural engineer for design defects in residential blocks discovered years after practical completion. The Building Safety Act 2022 had extended limitation for section 1 Defective Premises Act claims to 30 years for accrued claims.
Holding: The Court of Appeal confirmed the retrospective effect of the extended limitation regime and that a developer could recover repair costs incurred voluntarily to discharge duties to leaseholders.
PI implication: Engineers, architects and construction consultants face materially longer exposure windows. Run-off strategies, retirement planning and successor firm PI need to be reviewed. See our engineers PI pillar, the Building Safety Act limitation note and run-off cover explainer.
Court and citation: Supreme Court, [2017] UKSC 18. Included because the aggregation reasoning has been applied repeatedly through 2020 to 2026.
Facts: A solicitors' firm held escrow monies for two connected property developments. When they failed, more than 200 investor claims followed. The PI insurer sought to aggregate.
Holding: The Supreme Court held that claims can be aggregated where they arise from acts or omissions that are in a series of related matters or transactions. "Related" requires a real connection, not merely a similar type of loss.
PI implication: Aggregation clauses remain among the most consequential features of a PI wording, particularly for solicitors under SRA Minimum Terms and for IFAs and management consultants advising on the same product across a client base. See aggregation clauses explainer, our IFAs PI pillar and management consultants PI pillar.
The pattern across the six years is a narrowing of recoverable loss through scope of duty, a firmer approach to limitation, a pragmatic construction of coverage in favour of policyholders where insurable interest is real, and materially longer exposure windows for construction professionals. For PI buyers this means closer attention to retainer scoping, disclosure records, aggregation, and the tail on run-off cover. See also our claims-made basis explainer, notification of circumstances, and the IDD and ICOBS overview.
Apex Insurance Brokers Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Firm reference number 724952. This entry is general information, not advice on any particular policy.