Category: Blog

Britain’s clean-energy construction pipeline is creating new work for general contractors, groundworks firms and mechanical and electrical contractors across Essex, Kent and London. Utility-scale solar farms, rooftop photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage systems are no longer specialist projects carried out only by a small group of energy contractors.

Many established construction businesses are now being asked to install cable routes, foundations, fencing, plant, inverters, panels, battery containers and grid infrastructure. That creates a commercial opportunity, but it also creates an insurance problem when a contractor accepts work that falls outside the basis on which its policies were written.

The market is moving quickly. Government and Ofgem reporting on connections reform shows that 221 gigawatts of projects have been removed from the main connection queue, while battery projects progressing through the process still exceed the Government’s 2030 range by 14.8 gigawatts. The scale of the pipeline is considerable, but it is not yet clear whether every project will be commercially viable or whether the insurance market can provide capacity at the speed required.

At the same time, insurers are becoming more selective. Allianz UK has expanded its battery-storage underwriting proposition, while Howden has expanded its renewable-energy facility across its UK network. These developments show that specialist capacity is being built, but they do not mean every solar or BESS project will receive broad, unrestricted cover.

In my experience, the biggest problem is often not that a contractor has no insurance. It is that the contractor has the wrong insurance for the work being undertaken.

1. Battery fire and thermal runaway may be restricted under standard policies

Standard contractors’ all risks and public liability policies are not automatically designed for lithium-ion battery storage.

Battery energy storage systems present a different fire risk from ordinary construction materials or electrical plant. A damaged, defective or overheated cell can enter thermal runaway, causing heat and fire to spread through adjacent cells. Fires can be difficult to control, may reignite and can require significant emergency-response planning.

Some standard policies may exclude battery storage altogether. Others may restrict cover for fire, explosion, thermal runaway, commissioning, testing or the storage of high-energy battery units. The wording can also distinguish between damage to the battery system itself and damage that the system causes to surrounding property.

That means a contractor may assume that its contract works policy covers a BESS installation, only to discover that the key battery-related loss is excluded or subject to a low sub-limit.

The same concern applies to rooftop solar. Research reported by Insurance Business, based on QBE information from UK fire services, found that fires involving solar panels increased from 91 in 2022 to 212 in 2025. DC cabling and connectors were the leading recorded source in 2025, while battery banks and inverters were also significant causes.

Insurers are therefore asking more questions about fire engineering, equipment separation, thermal monitoring, detection, suppression, emergency access and maintenance. A well-designed BESS with clear documentation may still be insurable, but the risk needs to be presented properly from the start.

2. Contractual liability and design responsibility can fall between two policies

Renewable-energy contracts frequently use EPC or design-and-build structures. A general contractor may be responsible not only for installing equipment but also for selecting components, preparing layouts, coordinating suppliers, producing calculations or warranting that the completed system will perform.

That creates a boundary between construction work and professional design.

Public liability insurance generally responds to legal liability for injury or property damage. It is not usually intended to cover every contractual obligation a contractor accepts. If the contract imposes a wider liability than would exist under ordinary law, the policy may not respond to that assumption of responsibility.

Professional indemnity insurance may be needed where the contractor designs, specifies, surveys, advises, certifies or provides engineering input. But a contractor’s existing PI policy may have been written for ordinary building work, not for electrical design, battery integration, grid compliance or energy-performance guarantees.

There is also a common misunderstanding around contract works cover. Construction policies may cover accidental physical damage during the project, but design defects and the cost of correcting defective work are often restricted. This is where LEG clauses, or defects clauses dealing with design and workmanship, become relevant. The exact wording matters and should not be reduced to the simple assumption that “all risks” means everything is covered.

Before signing an EPC-style contract, a contractor should ask:

• Who is responsible for the system design?
• Who selects the battery, inverter and control equipment?
• Is the contractor giving a performance guarantee?
• Does the contract require fitness for purpose rather than reasonable skill and care?
• Does the PI policy cover the relevant engineering or electrical design?
• Does the construction policy respond to resulting damage caused by a defect, and under what LEG wording?

These questions should be resolved before the work starts, not after a loss has occurred.

3. Delay in start-up can be more expensive than the construction loss

A fire or defect on a grid-connected project can cause a loss far greater than the cost of replacing damaged equipment.

Solar farms and BESS projects often depend on a particular grid-connection date, subsidy arrangement, power purchase agreement or revenue start date. If commissioning is delayed, the project may lose expected income, incur additional borrowing costs and face contractual penalties.

This is where delay in start-up, also known as advance loss of profits in some arrangements, becomes important. The cover can protect anticipated revenue and additional expenditure following insured physical damage that delays the project’s planned start of operations.

It is not an automatic extension of ordinary contract works insurance, and it is rarely bought by smaller contractors unless the developer, funder or main contract requires it. That can leave a significant gap in the project insurance programme.

The cause of the delay also needs careful attention. A policy may respond to an insured fire, machinery breakdown or transit loss, but not to every delay caused by the grid operator, planning process, connection queue or commercial dispute. Waiting periods, maximum indemnity periods, assumptions about the commissioning date and the calculation of expected revenue all need to be agreed.

Imported batteries create another issue. Damage during overseas transport may fall outside a standard construction policy, requiring marine cargo or transit cover. If the damaged equipment delays commissioning, the transit policy and DSU section need to work together.

Howden’s renewable-energy facility is an example of the specialist market developing around these combined exposures, with renewable construction, operational, transit, business interruption and delay-related covers considered within a wider programme.

4. The subcontractor and competence chain can decide who carries the claim

A main contractor may not install the panels or battery units itself. It may appoint an electrical contractor, specialist PV installer, battery integrator or commissioning engineer.

That is normal, but subcontracting does not automatically transfer the main contractor’s exposure.

If an uninsured subcontractor connects DC cabling incorrectly and a fire follows, the property owner may still pursue the main contractor under the contract. The main contractor may then need to recover from the subcontractor, which is difficult if the subcontractor has inadequate insurance, has ceased trading or has accepted a liability limit that does not match the project.

Competence evidence is becoming increasingly important. For solar installations, clients and insurers may ask for MCS certification and installer details. They may also want evidence of electrical testing, inspection, commissioning, maintenance and handover procedures.

For battery projects, the questions are more detailed. The contractor should understand who is responsible for:

• Battery cell and container specifications.
• Fire detection and suppression.
• Thermal monitoring and alarm signalling.
• Emergency isolation and first-responder access.
• Site security and protection from impact.
• Commissioning and testing.
• Ongoing inspection and maintenance.

A certificate of insurance alone does not demonstrate competence. Main contractors should check that subcontractors are insured for the actual work, that their limits are adequate, and that their policy wording does not exclude battery storage, high-voltage work or design responsibility.

5. Declared values and building warranties may no longer reflect the real risk

Solar panels, inverters, transformers and battery units can have volatile prices and long replacement lead times. A declared project value prepared six months ago may no longer reflect the cost of replacing equipment, importing it or completing specialist commissioning.

Underinsurance can affect more than the physical damage section. It may reduce the amount available for debris removal, professional fees, expediting expenses, business interruption or delay in start-up.

Contractors and developers should review values when:

• Equipment specifications change.
• Battery capacity increases.
• Imported components are substituted.
• The project is delayed.
• Replacement costs or lead times rise.
• The scope expands from installation into design and commissioning.

There is also a property-insurance issue when a solar array is retrofitted onto an existing warehouse, office, school or industrial building. The building owner’s policy may contain occupancy, alteration, electrical installation, roof-loading or fire-protection warranties. Adding solar equipment or battery storage without notifying the property insurer can create a separate coverage dispute.

The contractor should not assume that the building owner has dealt with this. The contract should clearly allocate responsibility for notifying insurers, obtaining surveys and confirming that the existing property policy remains suitable.

What contractors in Essex, Kent and London should do now

The clean-energy pipeline will continue to create opportunities for general contractors and M&E firms, but insurance needs to be included in the project design rather than treated as paperwork at the end.

Before accepting solar or battery-storage work, contractors should:

1. Review the full policy wording, not only the insurance certificate.
2. Confirm whether BESS, lithium-ion batteries, thermal runaway and commissioning are covered.
3. Check whether the contract creates design, performance or fitness-for-purpose obligations.
4. Arrange professional indemnity cover where design or engineering responsibility is accepted.
5. Review LEG clauses and defective-workmanship exclusions under the construction policy.
6. Check subcontractor insurance, MCS evidence, competence and responsibility for testing.
7. Consider marine transit and delay-in-start-up cover for imported equipment.
8. Recalculate project values and replacement-cost assumptions before binding cover.
9. Confirm that the building owner’s property insurer has accepted any rooftop solar or battery alterations.
10. Engage with a broker early, particularly where the project involves BESS, shared grid infrastructure or unusual contractual terms.

Allianz’s expanded BESS underwriting and Howden’s renewable-energy facility are positive developments, but the market is clearly selective and fire-mitigation dependent. The projects most likely to secure workable terms will be those with clear designs, competent installers, documented emergency procedures and early insurer involvement.

If you need Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance, Business Insurance Essex or Business Insurance London for renewable-energy work, speak to Moyak Insurance Services before signing the contract. We can review the work you are taking on, identify where liability sits and approach suitable insurance markets for your business and budget.

Call 01375 392087, email info@moyakinsurance.co.uk or visit Moyak Insurance Services. You can also request a review through our commercial combined insurance service.

Further reading:

• Allianz UK strengthens battery-storage underwriting proposition
• Howden renewable-energy solutions
• Government and Ofgem connections-reform update
• Solar fires and installation-quality reporting

A reported £14.3bn has been lost to rogue builders in the UK over the past five years, according to research from the Federation of Master Builders. That is not simply a consumer rights story. It is also an insurance and risk-management problem for homeowners, main contractors, subcontractors and the insurers supporting the construction sector.

The issue has come into sharper focus today after the reported case of Adele Greshon, a self-employed hairdresser in Milton Keynes. She paid a contractor £22,500 for building work and now faces a repair bill of around £35,000 after experts identified serious defects, including inadequate foundations, an unsafe roof and building work carried out over a live gas pipe. The case was also featured on BBC Breakfast.

The contractor disputes responsibility and says the loss could have been avoided if the correct consents and inspections had been obtained. That disagreement is important because it shows how quickly a building problem becomes a dispute about contracts, competence, responsibility and insurance.

The wider concern is that the contractor was reported to have operated through several companies, highlighting the problem often described as “phoenixing”. A business accumulates liabilities, closes or enters liquidation, then restarts under another name, sometimes with the same people, tools and client base. The customer may be left with a judgment but no realistic route to recover the money.

As an insurance broker, I think the debate needs to move beyond whether builders should be licensed in principle. The more practical question is what a licensing regime would mean for legitimate contractors across Essex, Kent and London, and where insurance would sit within that system.

1. Insurance could become a licence condition

At present, insurance is often treated as a commercial requirement. A main contractor may ask a subcontractor for a public liability certificate before allowing them on site. A client may request evidence of cover before signing a contract. A lender, property owner or managing agent may also require particular limits.

But these checks are not the same as a national system that verifies whether a builder is permitted to trade.

The FMB’s proposed Licence to Build model includes minimum competence standards, mandatory indemnity insurance and a compensation fund. Under that approach, insurance would not merely be something a main contractor asks to see. It would become part of a formal licensing condition that a regulator or licensing body verifies.

That would create a clearer baseline for customers. A homeowner would have more than a company name, a recommendation and a certificate that may no longer be current. They would be able to check whether the business meets defined standards and whether its insurance arrangements are part of an active licence.

For legitimate builders, this could improve the market rather than restrict it. Good contractors already invest in training, documentation, risk controls and appropriate insurance. A statutory scheme could prevent them being undercut by operators who have lower costs because they ignore those responsibilities.

There would need to be care around how the rules are designed. Insurance requirements must reflect the work being undertaken, rather than forcing every small trade into cover that is unsuitable or unaffordable. A domestic decorator, a general builder carrying out structural work and a contractor designing a complex extension do not present identical risks.

Even so, making insurance part of a properly managed licensing process would be a significant change.

2. The gap is currently carried by customers and insurers

When a building project goes wrong, many customers naturally look first to their home insurance. Unfortunately, standard home insurance is not usually designed to pay for defective workmanship or a dispute about the quality of work.

There may be cover for resulting damage in some circumstances, but that is different from paying to remove and rebuild work that was badly designed or poorly installed in the first place. Policy wording, exclusions and the circumstances of the damage all matter.

This leaves the customer carrying the immediate financial pressure. They may need to pay for temporary accommodation, surveys, legal advice, remedial work and a second contractor while the dispute continues. If the original builder has disappeared or closed the company, pursuing a claim can become even more difficult.

Insurers also feel the effects of this gap. Claims arising from defective roofing, water ingress, unsafe alterations and poorly completed work can become complex and expensive. Even where a policy does respond to part of the damage, the insurer may have limited ability to recover its costs from the contractor who caused the problem.

That is one reason the idea of a compensation fund matters. A properly designed fund could provide a route to redress when a licensed builder becomes insolvent, abandons a project or cannot meet a valid claim. It would not remove the need for suitable insurance, but it could deal with the specific problem of a customer being left without a practical recovery route.

The Government’s measures announced on 28 August 2026, including an approved voluntary code and a milestone-linked Trusted Payments system, may help reduce some consumer losses. However, they are not the same as a compulsory licensing system. The Government announcement confirms that the initial approach is based on voluntary participation.

That means firms willing to join may be easier to identify, but a rogue operator can still remain outside the scheme. This is the concern raised by the FMB and other consumer representatives.

3. Compulsory insurance alone would not stop phoenixing

This is the point that is often missed in public discussions.

Insurance is linked to a business, its activities, its policy period and the terms agreed with the insurer. If a company closes and a new company starts trading, the new business does not automatically inherit the old company’s insurance obligations. A new policy may be arranged, but that does not necessarily provide cover for previous work or earlier liabilities.

There can be complicated legal and policy issues around claims-made cover, notification, insolvency and historic work. The important practical point is that compulsory insurance by itself does not guarantee that a customer will be protected when a company disappears.

A contractor could hold the required policy, complete poor work, allow the company to fail and then start again. The existence of a certificate would not, on its own, answer the questions of competence, accountability or recovery.

This is why the FMB model links insurance with a compensation fund and stronger action around director disqualification. It also shows why company identity checks, while useful, are not enough. The FMB has warned that Companies House reforms may verify who directors are without verifying what a business can do, whether it has suitable insurance or what its trading history looks like. Its March 2026 statement makes that distinction clearly.

A strong licensing scheme would need to follow the responsible people, not only the company name. It would also need meaningful enforcement when a business repeatedly fails customers.

4. The unregulated tail is priced into everyone’s premium

Construction insurance is priced on risk. Insurers look at the type of work, turnover, contract values, claims history, locations, subcontracting arrangements, experience and the controls a business has in place.

They also look at the wider claims environment.

If the market contains a significant number of unverified contractors carrying out poor work, the resulting claims do not stay isolated. Defective workmanship can lead to escape of water, damage to adjoining property, injury, fire, structural movement and long-running legal disputes. The frequency and cost of those claims feed into underwriting decisions.

That does not mean every legitimate builder is being charged directly for every rogue operator. It does mean the wider perception of construction risk can affect the availability and pricing of cover.

Over time, a licensing regime that raises the minimum standard should be positive for Construction Contractor Insurance and General Contractor Liability Insurance. Fewer unsafe jobs should mean fewer avoidable claims. Better records and clearer accountability should also make risks easier for insurers to assess.

There may be an initial cost for compliance, training, accreditation and administration. That is understandable. But responsible contractors are already paying for much of this through their insurance, professional standards and operating procedures. The unfairness comes when businesses that do not meet those standards compete for the same work without carrying the same cost.

5. Good contractors should prepare before legislation arrives

There is no need for a responsible contractor to wait for a licensing law before reviewing their insurance programme.

The first step is to check the policy properly, not just the certificate. A certificate may show a public liability limit, but it will not explain every exclusion or restriction. Contractors should review:

• Public liability limits and whether they reflect the size and type of work undertaken.
• Workmanship exclusions and the distinction between damage caused by defective work and the cost of correcting the work itself.
• Contract works cover for materials, temporary works and the project while it is under construction.
• Employers’ liability insurance where required.
• Professional indemnity insurance if the business designs, specifies, surveys, advises or project manages work.
• Tools, plant, hired-in plant and equipment cover.
• The treatment of subcontractors and whether their activities are properly declared.
• Policy notification requirements where a complaint, defect or potential claim arises.

Contractors should also keep certificates, training records, inspection documents, photographs, contracts and subcontractor checks in an organised file. Accreditation schemes already ask for evidence of insurance and competence, and future licensing arrangements are likely to require more rather than less documentation.

The chain of responsibility deserves particular attention. Main contractors should know who is carrying out specialist work, whether subcontractors are insured, what qualifications they hold and whether their work is being supervised appropriately. This is not about creating unnecessary paperwork. It is about being able to show that reasonable checks were made if something later goes wrong.

Practical next steps for contractors and clients

Mandatory builder licensing is not currently in force across the UK, but the direction of travel is clear. The FMB continues to campaign for a statutory scheme, while the Government’s voluntary measures are intended to improve consumer protection in the meantime.

For contractors, now is the time to review the insurance programme, close any gaps and keep evidence ready. For homeowners and commercial clients, ask for current certificates, confirm that the insured business name matches the contracting entity and understand what the policy does and does not cover. Insurance should support a sound contract and proper competence checks, not replace them.

If you are reviewing Business Insurance Essex, Business Insurance London or cover for a construction business operating across Essex, Kent or London, Moyak Insurance Services can help you examine the risks in practical terms.

Call 01375 392087, email info@moyakinsurance.co.uk or visit https://www.moyakinsurance.org.uk. We provide a personal business insurance brokerage service and work with leading UK insurance markets to help contractors secure suitable cover for their work and budget.

The British Insurance Brokers’ Association has appointed Acrisure UK as the new provider of its latent defects insurance scheme, replacing GBW. The announcement on 7 October 2026 is significant because it comes at a difficult point for structural warranty insurance, with placements becoming more technical, lender scrutiny increasing and available capacity remaining restricted.

For contractors, housebuilders and developers across Essex, Kent and London, the change is more than a market announcement. It is a useful reminder that latent defects insurance, often called structural warranty insurance, is now central to how many developments are funded, sold and protected after completion.

It is also important to understand what this cover does not do. A structural warranty is not a substitute for your own Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance or professional indemnity arrangements. It protects a different interest and creates a different claims route.

1. Latent defects insurance protects the completed building, not the contractor

Latent defects are structural problems that are not visible or apparent when a project is completed. They can involve foundations, load-bearing walls, structural frames, roofs or other qualifying parts of the building. The underlying cause may be a design error, defective materials or poor workmanship, but the problem may only become obvious several years later.

A typical policy runs for 10 or 12 years from practical completion. It is generally arranged for the developer, building owner, funder or future owner, and policies are often assignable if the property is sold.

The cover is usually first-party insurance. That means the policyholder can make a claim against the insurer for qualifying physical damage without first proving negligence against the contractor or designer. This is one of the reasons it is valuable where a contractor has ceased trading, where responsibility is disputed or where several parties were involved in the project.

Acrisure’s latent defects insurance service describes the cover as protection against qualifying structural defects arising from problems in design, workmanship or materials. It also highlights the importance of protection for residential and commercial developments, refurbishments, conversions, owners and funders.

However, the policy wording remains critical. Not every defect is automatically covered, and most warranties contain exclusions, technical requirements, financial limits and conditions relating to the construction process.

2. The hard market is being driven by long-tail risk and restricted capacity

Structural warranty insurance has not softened in the same way as some other commercial insurance lines. The market remains hard, with higher premiums, tighter underwriting and fewer providers willing to take substantial long-term exposure.

The reasons are familiar to anyone working in construction. Contractor insolvencies have remained high, and insurers are concerned about the cost of defects emerging after the original contractor, subcontractor or consultant has disappeared. A-rated capacity is also limited, while some providers have withdrawn from the sector or reduced their participation during the last 12 to 24 months.

The Acrisure and BIBA scheme announcement notes that the structural warranty market continues to operate in a hard cycle, unlike several other areas of insurance that are beginning to experience softer conditions. It also reports that premiums have risen as a result of provider withdrawals and the shortage of A-rated capacity.

This is an important distinction for developers. A competitive quote is not necessarily a suitable quote if the provider is not acceptable to the lender, the policy is badly structured or the insurer’s financial strength is not appropriate for a 10 or 12-year obligation.

The current market rewards preparation. A clear specification, strong quality-control records, experienced contractors and early engagement with a specialist broker can all make a difference. Leaving the warranty until the project is already under construction can reduce the available options and lead to an uncomfortable premium or additional technical requirements.

3. Lender acceptance matters at funding stage, not only when a claim arises

It is easy to think of a structural warranty as something that becomes important when a defect appears. In practice, lender acceptance may matter much earlier.

For most new-build residential sales involving a mortgage, a lender will expect an acceptable 10-year structural warranty or equivalent protection. This is not simply a matter of preference. UK Finance lender requirements and individual lender policies mean that a warranty from an unsuitable or unrecognised provider can create problems with mortgage approval, completion or future sale.

Many commercial lenders, investors and institutional funders apply a similar approach even where the project is not covered by a standard residential mortgage. The requirement may appear in the development finance agreement, investment conditions, sale contract or funding due diligence.

The result is that a poorly structured policy can cause a funding problem before it causes a claims problem. The cover might appear to exist, but if the policy does not meet the lender’s requirements, has the wrong beneficiary, contains unacceptable limitations or is issued by a provider the lender will not accept, the development may not proceed as planned.

This is why the structural warranty should be discussed with the developer’s solicitor, funder, lender and technical team at the start. The question is not only, “Is there a policy?” It is, “Will this policy be accepted by the people who need to rely on it?”

For a developer in Chelmsford, Maidstone or London, this can affect the whole project timetable. It may influence funding drawdowns, practical completion, sales and refinancing. Specialist advice is therefore needed before construction starts, rather than after the building has reached the final stages.

4. The Building Safety Act has created a much longer liability tail

The standard structural warranty period is normally 10 or 12 years, but the potential liability period for defective dwellings can now extend much further.

The Building Safety Act 2022 extended the limitation period for claims under the Defective Premises Act 1972 from six years to 15 years for claims accruing after June 2022. For certain claims relating to work completed before that change, the period was extended retrospectively from six years to 30 years.

This does not mean that every structural warranty automatically provides 15 or 30 years of insurance. It does not. The warranty period and the statutory liability period are separate issues.

The practical concern for contractors, designers and insurers is that a project can create potential exposure long after the normal warranty has expired. A defect that emerges in year 13, 18 or even later may lead to a claim against parties in the original design and construction chain, depending on the facts and the applicable legal route.

That makes record keeping more important. Contractors should retain design decisions, approvals, inspection records, material information, variations, subcontractor details and completion documentation for an appropriate period. It is frustrating when a claim is investigated years later and nobody can establish who made a decision or what information was available at the time, but that is exactly the kind of uncertainty that increases legal and insurance costs.

The extended limitation periods also reinforce the need to review professional indemnity and liability arrangements carefully. A policy that looks adequate for the current contract may not respond in the way the business expects when a claim is notified years later.

5. A structural warranty does not replace the contractor’s own insurance

This is the point contractors should keep in front of them.

Latent defects insurance generally sits with the developer, building owner or another party with a financial interest in the completed building. It is intended to provide a route to repair qualifying damage without the owner first having to establish fault.

It does not normally defend the contractor when the contractor is accused of causing the defect. In fact, after paying a claim, the warranty insurer may investigate recovery against the original design and construction chain. The developer may also pursue the contractor directly, particularly where the defect is outside the warranty, excluded by the policy or falls within a separate contractual or statutory claim.

That is why the contractor’s wider insurance programme still matters:

• Public liability should be reviewed for the type of work being undertaken and the possible consequences of construction activity.
• Professional indemnity insurance is important where the contractor designs, specifies, certifies or provides advice.
• Contract works insurance protects the project during construction, but it is not generally designed to deal with every defect discovered after completion.
• Defective workmanship exclusions need to be understood, particularly where the alleged damage is limited to the cost of correcting the contractor’s own work.
• The basis of cover matters. Public liability is commonly written on an occurrence basis, while professional indemnity is usually claims-made, but the precise wording and retroactive provisions must be checked.

A contractor may therefore need both suitable General Contractor Liability Insurance and properly arranged professional indemnity cover. The right structure depends on the work, the contract, the design responsibility and the way the business operates.

What contractors and developers should do now

The appointment of Acrisure UK to BIBA’s scheme should improve access to specialist expertise for BIBA members, but it does not remove the wider market challenges. Structural warranties remain technical, capacity remains selective and lenders are paying close attention to the quality of the protection behind a project.

For a new development or major conversion in Essex, Kent or London, the sensible approach is to:

1. Engage a specialist before construction starts, allowing time for technical audits and insurer approval.
2. Confirm lender and funder requirements before selecting the warranty provider.
3. Check the insurer’s financial strength, scheme structure and claims arrangements.
4. Keep detailed records of design decisions, inspections, materials, variations and completion.
5. Review public liability, professional indemnity and contract works insurance together.
6. Ask specifically how defective workmanship, design responsibility and long-tail notifications are treated.
7. Confirm whether the policy responds on a claims-made or occurrence basis where relevant to the risk.

The construction market is unlikely to return to easy structural warranty placements simply because capacity improves in other insurance lines. The combination of long policy periods, contractor insolvencies, limited A-rated capacity and extended legal liability means that this is still a specialist area.

If you are arranging Construction Contractor Insurance, Business Insurance Essex or Business Insurance London for a development or contracting business, speak to Moyak Insurance Services early. A properly coordinated programme should address both the building owner’s structural warranty requirements and the contractor’s own exposure when a defect is alleged years after completion.

The Health and Safety Executive’s crackdown on engineered stone has moved silica dust from a specialist health and safety issue into a clear employers’ liability concern for fabricators, installers, main contractors and refurbishment businesses.

In May 2026, HSE published its first COSHH guidance sheet specifically for engineered stone. It states that dry cutting is unacceptable unless a business can demonstrate an equally effective or better control, and confirms that water suppression is the expected method for meeting the legal requirement. HSE has also announced more than 1,000 inspection visits to fabricators across Great Britain over a 12-month period.

This is not a new law or a formal prohibition in itself, but the practical message is difficult to misunderstand. Businesses that continue cutting engineered stone dry, rely on basic dust masks or cannot demonstrate effective controls are likely to face enforcement action, difficult insurance conversations and potentially serious long-tail liability.

The issue is not limited to worktop fabricators. Concrete, mortar, brick, granite, sandstone, gritstone and quartzite can all contain significant amounts of crystalline silica. For contractors in Essex, Kent, London and across the UK, particularly those working in occupied buildings and enclosed refurbishment sites, the insurance implications deserve attention now.

Reality 1: Silicosis is not only a disease of old claims

The traditional assumption has been that silica-related disease develops after several decades of exposure. That remains relevant for many construction workers, but engineered stone has changed the risk profile.

HSE says engineered stone can contain up to 95% crystalline silica and that recent cases indicate silicosis can develop in months or years rather than decades. The first eight UK cases of artificial stone silicosis, reported in Thorax in 2024, involved men with a median age of 34. Four had been exposed for only four to eight years. One patient died and two were referred for lung transplantation.

That matters to employers because a worker may be young, may have worked for several businesses and may not show symptoms while employed. Silicosis can continue to worsen after exposure stops, so a claim may appear long after a project has finished, a subcontractor has moved on or a business has changed insurer.

The wider figures are also uncomfortable. HSE’s construction dust guidance, CIS36, states that more than 500 construction workers are believed to die each year from silica exposure. HSE’s updated cancer tables attribute approximately 700 lung cancer deaths each year in Great Britain to past silica exposure across all industries. Its 2025 statistics estimate that around 5,000 construction workers suffer from a work-related breathing or lung problem, with a prevalence of 0.23% compared with 0.11% across all industries.

This is why employers’ liability insurance should not be treated as a simple annual purchase. The policy may be renewed every year, but the exposure created by today’s work can remain relevant for decades.

Reality 2: The policy responding to a future claim may not be the policy you remember

Employers’ liability insurance is the main policy that responds to an employee’s silicosis claim, assuming the claim arises from insured employment and the policy terms apply. It is a long-tail exposure, and the policy year connected to the claim may not be obvious when the allegation arrives.

A worker exposed today may not bring a claim for 10, 20 or 30 years. By then, the employer may have changed insurers several times, changed legal structure or ceased trading altogether. The insurer on risk when the claim is notified may not be the insurer connected with the relevant period of exposure.

In practice, tracing the correct policy and establishing responsibility can depend on evidence. That includes the employer’s risk assessments, COSHH assessments, records of the work undertaken, employee and subcontractor details, exposure dates, training records, equipment maintenance records and health surveillance records.

HSE guidance says that workers regularly exposed to RCS, where there is a reasonable likelihood that silicosis may develop, must be provided with health surveillance. Construction is identified as a high-risk occupation. A baseline assessment should be completed before exposure or within six weeks, with a questionnaire, lung function testing and, where appropriate, chest X-rays. Individual and group results should be interpreted properly, and the health record for each worker should be kept securely for at least 40 years from the last entry.

That 40-year record is not an administrative detail. It may become important evidence when an employee, former employee or their solicitor asks what controls were in place and which employer or insurer should respond.

Reality 3: HSE will look beyond engineered stone

Engineered stone is the current focus because of the severity and speed of recent cases, but ordinary construction materials remain a significant source of RCS exposure.

Concrete and mortar can contain around 25% to 70% crystalline silica. Brick and granite can contain up to 30%, while sandstone, gritstone and quartzite can contain more than 70%. The main exposure route is often the high-energy tool: cut-off saws, grinders, scabblers, breakers and grit blasters.

Outdoor work is not automatically safe. HSE warns against assuming that dust levels will be low simply because a job is outside, especially when high-energy tools are being used. Enclosed spaces are more obvious risk areas because dust can build up quickly, but the same poor control can create exposure around a wider site and affect other trades.

This is particularly relevant to retrofit, PAS 2035-related work and refurbishment projects across Essex, Kent and London. Chasing walls, scabbling floors and cutting concrete or masonry inside occupied buildings can create a difficult combination of dust, limited ventilation, residents, neighbouring businesses and multiple subcontractors.

The UK workplace exposure limit for RCS is 0.1 mg/m3 as an eight-hour time-weighted average. Employers must assess and control exposure under COSHH, but the exposure limit is not a target to work towards casually. The objective is to prevent exposure where reasonably practicable and reduce it to the lowest level that can be achieved.

For the wider site, employers’ liability may respond to an affected employee, but public liability can also become relevant if silica dust drifts onto neighbours, passers-by, adjacent occupiers or another trade’s workers. A nuisance or negligence allegation from a neighbouring business or resident is not an employers’ liability claim.

Reality 4: “We issue dust masks” is not a credible insurance answer

Underwriters are increasingly asking direct questions about silica, dust controls, respiratory protective equipment and health surveillance. The answer “we rely on dust masks” is unlikely to reassure an insurer, particularly where the business cuts engineered stone or carries out regular high-energy work on concrete and masonry.

The control hierarchy matters. Employers should first eliminate or reduce dust by design. That may mean choosing lower-silica materials, right-sizing components, using a block splitter instead of a cut-off saw, arranging off-site cutting, using direct fastening or reducing the number of cuts at the design and layout stage.

Where cutting is unavoidable, water suppression should provide enough water for the whole cut. Pre-wetting the material is not an adequate substitute. On-tool extraction must be suitable for the task, with the correct H, M or L class filter. A general commercial vacuum is not automatically suitable for silica dust.

Respiratory protective equipment is the last line of protection, not the main control. HSE’s requirements include RPE with an assigned protection factor of 20, such as an FFP3 disposable mask or half mask with a P3 filter, subject to the task and risk assessment. Face-fit testing is required, and workers must be clean-shaven where the mask seals. Powered RPE should be considered where the work lasts more than an hour without a break.

Extraction systems also need proper maintenance and thorough examination and testing at least every 14 months. If work remains dusty after controls are introduced, exposure monitoring may be necessary.

These measures affect underwriting because they demonstrate whether the business understands and manages the risk. A documented, working system can help keep Employers’ Liability, Construction Contractor Insurance and General Contractor Liability Insurance on sensible terms. A blank renewal form, inconsistent records or a history of ignoring defects can lead to higher premiums, exclusions, increased excesses or referral to a specialist underwriter.

Reality 5: Contractors must control the subcontracting chain

A main contractor cannot assume that silica responsibility disappears when cutting or grinding is subcontracted.

The people carrying out the work may be employees, labour-only subcontractors, agency workers or subcontractors operating under their own insurance. Each arrangement can affect who controls the work, who provides health surveillance, who checks the RPE and who keeps the records.

This is a familiar practical gap. Everyone assumes someone else has completed the health surveillance, checked the face fit testing or retained the exposure information. When a worker later develops disease, that uncertainty becomes much more serious.

Subcontracts should clearly address dust controls, responsibility for COSHH assessments, equipment standards, health surveillance, training, reporting and document retention. The main contractor should also check that the subcontractor’s insurance is appropriate and that the contractual arrangements do not create an uninsured responsibility.

An HSE improvement or prohibition notice on a live project may also sit alongside a contractual requirement to notify insurers. Contract works and Contractors All Risks policies may not pay simply because a project is delayed by an enforcement action, but the surrounding circumstances can affect claims, obligations and future underwriting.

Professional indemnity is a secondary consideration, but it should not be ignored where a contractor, designer or specialist has specified a material or design detail that unnecessarily increases cutting and dust exposure. Reducing cuts at design stage is therefore a safety decision, a project-management decision and potentially a claims argument.

Practical next steps for employers

The HSE guidance should be treated as the starting point for a documented review, not as something to revisit only after an inspection or claim.

First, identify every task and material that may create RCS, including ordinary concrete, brick and mortar work. Then record where the work takes place, who controls it, whether it is inside an occupied building and which subcontractors are involved.

Second, answer the health surveillance question in writing. Confirm who provides it, which workers are covered, when baseline assessments are completed and where the records are held. Make sure the risk assessment is reviewed if surveillance identifies silica-related disease or adverse health effects.

Third, check the history of your employers’ liability cover. Do not assume the current policy is the only relevant policy, and ask your broker to explain how claims-occurring wording, policy records and historic exposure interact. A legacy policy schedule and a clear record of previous insurers may become valuable evidence many years from now.

Fourth, tell your broker and insurer what controls are genuinely in place. Explain whether you use off-site cutting, lower-silica materials, water suppression, suitable extraction, face-fit-tested RPE, exposure monitoring and regular equipment testing. Leaving the renewal question blank is not the same as having a low-risk operation.

Finally, review dust clauses and health surveillance responsibilities in subcontract agreements. For a contractor in Essex, Kent or London, investing in design-stage cut reduction and off-site fabrication can support compliance, reduce disruption on occupied sites and strengthen the argument that the business is actively managing its liability exposure.

Moyak Insurance Services provides tailored business insurance for contractors and growing businesses across Essex, Kent and London. We can help review your Employers’ Liability, public liability, Construction Contractor Insurance and General Contractor Liability Insurance requirements, with an individual approach rather than a one-size-fits-all quote.

For advice, contact Moyak Insurance Services at info@moyakinsurance.co.uk, call 01375 392087 or visit www.moyakinsurance.co.uk. You can also explore General Contractors insurance and our guidance on general contractor liability insurance.

The construction market is sending a fairly clear warning to contractors across Essex, Kent and London. Between 1 and 3 October 2026, The London Gazette recorded insolvency activity involving 72 construction companies, including 59 liquidations and 39 winding-up orders. The notice categories can overlap, but the underlying message is difficult to ignore: financial failure is moving quickly through the supply chain.

The names being discussed include AK Build Services, Groundform RC Frames and Kingston Roofing. At the same time, the BBC has reported that South Coast Construction (Sussex) Ltd is under police investigation following allegations that customers paid almost £500,000 in deposits for building work that was not completed. The company’s director denies intentionally defrauding customers, and the allegations remain under investigation.

This is happening while construction professionals expect further increases in materials and labour costs. The BCIS construction outlook survey found that 88% of respondents expected materials costs to rise over the following year, while 62% expected labour costs to increase. Energy costs are also prompting contractors to reconsider whether owning heavy equipment is still sensible, particularly where plant is not being used consistently.

There is still opportunity in the sector, including the reported £5 billion YPO/Pagabo major works framework, but opportunity does not remove counterparty risk. Before taking on the next client, main contractor or subcontractor, these are the five insurance questions I think every construction business should ask.

1. What happens to contract works if the client or main contractor becomes insolvent?

A client’s insolvency does not automatically mean that your contract works insurance has stopped. However, it can change the risk very quickly.

If work is suspended, the site may be left incomplete, unsecured or exposed to theft, vandalism, escape of water, storm damage and deterioration. Materials may be stored in places that were not originally declared to insurers. Temporary works may remain in place for longer than expected, and machinery or tools may be left on site.

Contract works cover is generally intended to respond to physical loss or damage to the works, materials and sometimes temporary works. It is not normally designed to pay for a client’s failure to pay, the loss of expected profit or the cost of simply completing an abandoned project.

The key issue is what happens after the site stops operating. Many policies contain conditions relating to unoccupied or unattended premises, site security, inspections, fire protection and notification of material changes. If a site is suddenly mothballed, your insurer may need to know immediately.

A contractor should record the position carefully. Photograph the site, secure materials, check temporary works, arrange regular inspections and confirm who is responsible for security, utilities and essential maintenance. Do not assume that the original project arrangements continue automatically after an insolvency event.

This is also where underinsurance becomes a serious concern. Materials, labour and reinstatement costs have continued to rise, so the sum insured agreed months earlier may no longer reflect the cost of replacing or completing damaged works. Our guide to underinsurance mistakes and General Contractor Liability Insurance explains why the original contract value is not always the same as the amount needed for a proper insurance settlement.

2. Do employers’ liability and public liability still apply when workers are laid off or a site is mothballed?

Employers’ liability insurance is not only relevant when a full workforce is active. If employees remain employed, attend site to secure equipment, inspect the works, remove materials or carry out limited maintenance, the employer’s liability exposure continues.

Equally, laying workers off does not automatically remove every responsibility. You still need to consider employees who are retained, workers attending meetings or inspections, and anyone carrying out work during the wind-down period. Changes to employee numbers, wage roll, duties and the use of subcontractors should be discussed with your broker and, where necessary, notified to insurers.

Employers’ liability will not usually pay redundancy costs, unpaid wages or amounts owed under an employment contract. It is there to respond to liability for injury or illness arising from employment, subject to the policy terms.

Public liability is also still relevant when a site is quiet. A member of the public could be injured by unsecured hoarding, falling materials, an open excavation, damaged paving or poorly maintained access. Another contractor could suffer damage because plant, scaffolding or temporary works have been left in an unsafe condition.

One point that is often missed is control. After a main contractor or client becomes insolvent, there can be confusion about who controls the premises and who has responsibility for making the site safe. That uncertainty should not be allowed to continue. Your contract, appointment documents and insurance policy should be checked together so that the party responsible for site safety is clear.

Public liability cover is not a substitute for proper site management, and a policy condition may require reasonable precautions. A mothballed site still needs inspections, security and maintenance.

3. If the client disappears, will professional indemnity cover future design or latent defect claims?

Design-and-build contractors can remain exposed long after the client’s company has entered liquidation or been dissolved. The disappearance of the client does not necessarily remove liability for negligent design, specification or workmanship.

Professional indemnity insurance is usually written on a claims-made basis. This means the timing of the claim and the policy in force when it is notified are important. If a contractor receives a complaint, a request for information, a defect allegation or any circumstance that might reasonably lead to a claim, early notification matters.

A common mistake is to assume that a claim can wait until a defect becomes serious. If the policy requires notification of circumstances, delaying until the client has formally issued proceedings could create an avoidable coverage problem.

There is also an important distinction between professional indemnity and latent defects insurance. Professional indemnity may respond to a negligent design or professional service, subject to the wording, exclusions, excess and retroactive date. It is not a guarantee that every defective building element will be repaired. Separate latent defects insurance may be relevant for certain developments, but the availability and scope of that cover depends on the project and policy.

If your client is struggling financially, ask your broker whether you should notify insurers of circumstances now, review your retroactive date and consider run-off cover. If your business later ceases trading, professional indemnity protection may still be needed for historic work.

4. Is plant, equipment and hired-in plant insured for the way it is actually being used?

The recent rise in energy costs is making many contractors question whether to own equipment, hire it only when needed or use leasing arrangements. Each choice creates a different insurance exposure.

Owned plant should be insured for its current value and location, including equipment that has been moved from an active site to a storage yard. Hired-in plant needs careful attention to the hire agreement. The contractor may be responsible for loss or damage from the moment the equipment is collected until it is returned, even where the machine is not being used.

A standard construction policy may include a hired-in plant extension, but limits, excesses and exclusions vary. Some equipment may need to be specifically noted, particularly higher-value plant, lifting equipment or items subject to finance or hire conditions.

You should also check whether the policy covers theft from an unattended site, malicious damage, breakdown, recovery costs and continuing hire charges. A machine damaged during a project can create two losses: the physical repair or replacement cost and the contractual cost of continuing to pay the owner while the machine is unavailable.

If a client or main contractor becomes insolvent, plant may be trapped on site or access may be restricted. Establish who owns it, who hired it, who is responsible for returning it and whether you have the right to remove it. Insurance cannot resolve an unclear ownership or possession dispute, so the hire contract is just as important as the policy schedule.

5. What protection is available for unpaid invoices, retention and an insolvent supply chain?

Construction insurance does not normally guarantee payment simply because a client or main contractor has failed. Unpaid applications, retention money, disputed variations and deposits are primarily contractual and credit risks.

Trade credit insurance may be worth considering where a contractor has significant exposure to a small number of customers. It can sometimes protect against non-payment following insolvency, but eligibility, credit limits, notification requirements and exclusions need to be understood before work starts.

Your contracts should also deal clearly with payment timing, suspension rights, retention, ownership of materials and the consequences of insolvency. Retention of title may help in some circumstances, but it must be drafted correctly and may be difficult to enforce once materials have been incorporated into a building.

Performance bonds, advance payment bonds and parent company guarantees can also provide additional protection on the right projects. They are not interchangeable, and they do not remove the need for suitable Construction Contractor Insurance.

The first practical step is due diligence. Check Companies House filings, recent accounts, County Court Judgments, payment history, existing charges and the financial standing of the business behind the contract. The Government’s company financial trouble guidance is a useful starting point, although it cannot replace proper commercial advice.

What contractors should do now

When a counterparty shows signs of financial difficulty, do not wait for a formal winding-up order before speaking to your broker. Notify insurers early where the policy requires it, especially for professional indemnity, contract works and circumstances that may lead to a claim.

Review which projects are open, which sites are unattended, what plant is on hire and how much money is tied up in applications or retention. Confirm that sums insured, turnover, wage roll, subcontractor arrangements and declared activities remain accurate.

Contractors in Essex, Kent and London also need to remember that a local relationship does not remove the need for proper financial checks. Good clients can fail quickly when margins are squeezed by labour, materials and energy costs, and a well-known main contractor can still create a substantial exposure if your business is carrying the unpaid costs.

At Moyak Insurance Services, we take an individual approach because the right cover depends on how your business actually operates, not simply on the trade description shown on a proposal form. We work with leading master insurance brokers to help businesses find suitable cover for their budget, property and contractual responsibilities. You can learn more about our approach to Business Insurance in London or visit Moyak Insurance Services.

The practical lesson is straightforward: check the counterparty before signing, write sensible insolvency protections into the contract, understand what your insurance does and does not cover, and contact your broker as soon as the commercial position changes. Early advice will not prevent every contractor failure, but it can make the difference between managing the damage and absorbing the whole loss.

Retrofit is becoming a serious income stream for contractors across Essex, Kent and London. General builders, roofing contractors, insulation installers, heating engineers, window companies and specialist energy-efficiency trades are all finding opportunities through ECO4, the legacy of the Great British Insulation Scheme, social housing decarbonisation work and local authority-led programmes.

That is positive news, but retrofit is not simply another form of refurbishment. The work is carried out on existing homes, often while people are living in them, and the intended performance of the property may depend on several different people getting their part right. A contractor may be installing insulation, but the wider outcome can also depend on the assessment, design, ventilation strategy, sequencing and handover.

This is why standard construction contractor insurance is not always built for the risk. The policy may provide a useful starting point, but it needs to reflect what the contractor has agreed to do, the role they are taking, the age and condition of the properties, and how long their obligations may continue.

The PAS 2035:2023 specification and guidance published by BSI places the emphasis on whole-dwelling assessment, design, installation, testing, handover and monitoring. In practical terms, that creates five insurance gaps contractors should consider before signing the next job.

1. The policy covers installation, but not the professional role behind it

The first gap appears when a contractor moves beyond physical installation.

A retrofit project may involve a Retrofit Assessor, Retrofit Coordinator, Retrofit Designer, Main Contractor and Retrofit Installer. In smaller businesses, one company or even one individual may take on several of these responsibilities. A general contractor might begin by installing loft insulation or replacement windows, then gradually become responsible for coordinating the wider package or advising on what measures should be used.

That is where the boundary between construction work and professional services becomes important.

Public liability insurance is designed mainly for injury to third parties or damage to third-party property. It is not normally intended to cover a claim alleging that a whole-house plan was unsuitable, a ventilation strategy was inadequate or a design decision caused financial loss without immediate physical damage.

Those exposures are more closely associated with professional indemnity insurance. A Retrofit Coordinator, designer or contractor accepting design-and-build responsibility may need PI cover that specifically recognises retrofit, energy-efficiency measures, moisture risk, ventilation and PAS 2035-related services.

The TrustMark Retrofit Coordinator Scheme Requirements illustrate why role clarity matters. They refer to the coordinator’s responsibility for risk assessment, improvement planning, records and project oversight, with insurance requirements applying to the professional role.

A contractor should not assume that having a standard general contractor liability insurance policy means every technical service is covered. If the contract says the business is responsible for the design, specification, coordination or performance of the retrofit package, the insurer needs to know that before the work starts.

2. An insurance-backed guarantee is not the same as a normal defects period

Retrofit work often comes with guarantees, warranties or insurance-backed guarantees connected to TrustMark, a product system, a funder or a client contract.

This is a very different obligation from promising to return during a short snagging period. A guarantee may require the contractor or a scheme to stand behind the work for 10, 15, 20 or even 25 years, depending on the measure and the terms involved. It may also respond if the contractor stops trading, fails to complete the work or cannot meet the guarantee obligation.

A guarantee is not the same thing as public liability insurance. It is not automatically covered by professional indemnity insurance either. PI generally responds to allegations of professional negligence, subject to the policy wording, while a guarantee may require the contractor to put right defective work even where there has been no separate claim for injury or third-party property damage.

The contractor also needs to check who is actually providing the protection. Is it the contractor, a manufacturer, a warranty provider or an insurance-backed scheme? What happens if the policy changes at renewal? Does the guarantee provider require particular certification, inspection records, installation methods or documentation?

These questions matter because a contractor can complete the work correctly but still have a problem if the guarantee has not been registered properly or the required evidence has not been retained.

Before accepting the contract, the business should identify every guarantee obligation, confirm the financial limits and duration, and ask the broker and relevant scheme provider how that obligation interacts with the insurance programme.

3. Existing Victorian and interwar homes create a building-condition exposure

New-build contractors are usually working from a planned design on a relatively known structure. Retrofit contractors are dealing with buildings that may have been altered, repaired or neglected several times over many decades.

Across Essex, Kent and London, that can mean Victorian terraces, early twentieth-century housing, interwar semis, converted flats and traditional properties with solid walls, suspended timber floors, ageing roofs or inconsistent previous improvements.

A survey may uncover poor pointing, leaking gutters, damp, movement, damaged roof coverings, defective cavity ties, blocked ventilation or historic alterations that are not shown in the original documents. If these issues are not identified before insulation or airtightness measures are installed, the retrofit may trap moisture or conceal a defect rather than resolve it.

PAS 2035 is designed to encourage a whole-dwelling approach, including assessment of the building’s condition, ventilation, construction, occupancy and existing defects. The standard also recognises that traditional buildings require particular care, and that some properties may need input from a structural engineer, building surveyor or conservation specialist.

From an insurance perspective, the key issue is the difference between a new defect caused by the contractor and a pre-existing condition that later becomes part of a dispute. A contractor may face allegations that the work caused damp or mould when the underlying problem was already present. Alternatively, the contractor may have failed to report a visible issue before proceeding.

This is why photographs, pre-start surveys, moisture readings, agreed exclusions, written instructions and records of remedial work are so important. They do not remove the risk, but they create evidence about the condition of the property and the decisions made before installation.

4. Working in occupied homes widens the public liability and care, custody and control risk

Retrofit work is often carried out in homes occupied by tenants, families, elderly residents or vulnerable people. Residents may remain in the property while floors are lifted, lofts are accessed, walls are opened and ventilation or heating systems are changed.

That creates more than a straightforward site safety risk. There may be dust, noise, restricted access, temporary loss of heating, damage to furnishings, contamination of personal belongings or an accident involving a resident who enters the working area.

Public liability insurance should be reviewed carefully for this environment. Contractors should also consider care, custody and control wording, because damage to property that is in the contractor’s possession or under their supervision may be excluded or restricted. The part of the building being worked on can be treated differently from unrelated third-party property.

For example, if an installer damages a client’s furniture while moving through the property, the policy response may not be the same as if a falling object damages a neighbouring home. If a wall, roof or floor being worked on is damaged, defective workmanship exclusions and “property being worked upon” provisions may become relevant.

The contractor should also understand responsibilities for resident communication, dust control, barriers, protection of floors and furniture, temporary works and emergency arrangements. These are operational matters, but they often influence how a liability claim is assessed.

Employers’ liability is also important. Employees may be exposed to respirable crystalline silica when drilling or cutting masonry, as well as dust from mineral wool, insulation boards, plaster and other retrofit materials. Loft work can create awkward access and confined working conditions, particularly in occupied properties where the work area may not be fully separated from the household.

5. The claim may arrive years after the work is hidden

Retrofit creates a long-tail risk because much of the work disappears behind dry lining, insulation, roof coverings, floors or other finishes.

A failure at a junction, an incorrectly installed vapour control layer, inadequate ventilation or a hidden moisture problem may not become obvious until several winters later. By then, the original contractor may have completed hundreds of similar properties, changed insurers or moved to a different business structure.

This creates questions about policy periods, notification, retroactive dates, run-off protection and how the insurer will handle a claim involving historic work. It also makes record retention essential. PAS 2035 includes detailed requirements around assessment information, design, inspection, testing, commissioning, handover and monitoring.

Contractors should not rely on a certificate of insurance alone. They need to understand whether their professional indemnity insurance is written on a claims-made basis, whether previous work is included, and whether cover remains available if the business stops carrying out retrofit work.

Product liability should also be considered where the contractor supplies or installs insulation systems, ventilation equipment, heating products, windows or other energy-efficiency products. Public liability may respond to resulting damage in some circumstances, but defective products and defective workmanship are separate issues and the exact wording matters.

Five checks before signing the next PAS 2035 job

Before agreeing to a retrofit contract in Essex, Kent or London, I recommend that contractors run these five checks:

1. Confirm the role. Are you only installing, or are you also assessing, designing, coordinating, advising or accepting responsibility for the whole package?

2. Map the contract obligations. Identify requirements for PAS 2030 installation, TrustMark registration, inspections, records, handover and insurance-backed guarantees.

3. Review the property risk. Ask how pre-existing damp, structural defects, ventilation problems, traditional construction and resident vulnerability will be assessed and recorded.

4. Test the policy wording. Check public liability, products liability, care, custody and control, pollution, work on existing structures, employers’ liability and professional indemnity.

5. Plan for the long term. Confirm policy continuity, retroactive dates, notification requirements, document retention and the position if a claim emerges years after completion.

The right construction contractor insurance for retrofit should not be structured like cover for a new-build contractor. The work involves existing buildings, professional roles, occupied homes, technical performance and obligations that may continue for decades.

At Moyak Insurance Services, our general contractor insurance brokers take an individual approach because the details matter. A contractor working on insulation in a social housing programme does not face exactly the same risk as a contractor carrying out a one-off domestic refurbishment, even if both describe themselves as general builders.

If you are reviewing your construction contractor insurance before taking on PAS 2035 work, speak to a broker who will examine the actual scope rather than simply issue a standard certificate. The aim is not to buy the broadest policy at any price. It is to make sure the cover reflects the work you have agreed to stand behind.

The aftermath of the Rettendon explosion is becoming a serious lesson in how business insurance claims work in practice. It is not only a story about fire damage, business interruption or the cost of replacing equipment. It is also about policy wording, evidence and the difficult gap between the loss a business experiences and the amount an insurer considers payable.

On 24 July 2026, more than 100 firefighters attended a major fire at Highlands Farm near Rettendon in Essex. The fire spread to a fertiliser store, triggering a blast that damaged nearby businesses and affected the surrounding area.

According to BBC Essex’s report of 30 September, Coral Passion owner Tony Brazao lost several hundred fish, shrimp and coral. He described the cost as well into six figures, while saying that insurer MSIG Europe had been unwilling to pay more than £15,000.

MSIG said it could not comment on an individual claim, but stated that concerns are considered carefully through its established claims and complaints processes, with the option of referring matters to the Financial Ombudsman Service.

This article is not a conclusion on the merits of that particular claim. The full policy, schedule, correspondence and evidence would need to be reviewed before anyone could reach that view. But the reported dispute raises important questions for businesses across Essex, Kent and London.

The difference between a serious loss and an insured loss

Most business owners understandably start from the same position after a disaster: something has happened, the business has suffered, and the insurance should respond.

That is often the right expectation, but insurance does not work only by measuring how bad the event felt or how much money has been lost. The claim is assessed against the precise wording of the policy.

The reported sticking point in the Coral Passion case appears to concern the loss of electricity. The supply had to be switched off so firefighters could work safely. The business says that the livestock died because the power was disconnected. The policy, as reported, appears to treat livestock loss caused by a deliberate power shutdown differently from loss caused directly by the fire or a fault at the substation.

That distinction may feel unfair to a business owner. From a claims perspective, however, the question becomes how the cause of loss is defined under the contract. Was the loss caused by the fire, by the explosion, by a substation failure, by the emergency services’ intervention, or by a deliberate shutdown? The answer can affect whether an exclusion applies.

This is where the quality of the policy wording matters. A headline such as “fire and business interruption included” tells only part of the story. The exclusions, definitions, conditions and extensions may be just as important.

Do not wait until a claim to read the exclusions

Before renewal, business owners should ask their broker to explain any exclusion relating to a deliberate act, forced shutdown, loss of utilities, interruption of electricity, contamination, temperature change or failure of services.

These clauses can be especially important for businesses that depend on continuous power or controlled conditions. That includes aquatics businesses, food producers, refrigeration operations, manufacturers, workshops, server rooms and some medical or specialist trades.

The wording may distinguish between an interruption caused by a fault, an interruption ordered by an authority, and an interruption carried out deliberately for safety reasons. Those may sound like variations of the same event to a client, but they can be treated differently within a policy.

I think this is one of the areas where a broker adds real value. Comparing premiums and policy summaries is not enough. The wording needs to be read line by line, with the actual way the business operates in mind.

Business interruption cover needs current figures

A business can have buildings and contents insurance in place and still face a major financial problem if its business interruption cover is too low.

The limit should reflect the current turnover, gross profit and fixed costs, but it also needs to reflect the realistic period required to get the business trading again. That may be much longer than the period a business owner initially imagines.

After a major fire or blast, the delay can involve investigations, site clearance, planning permissions, structural surveys, specialist machinery, supply-chain problems, replacement stock and access restrictions. A business may also need to operate from temporary premises while the original site is repaired.

Using last year’s figures is risky, particularly after periods of inflation and growth. A company that has increased its turnover, expanded its staff or taken on larger contracts may already be underinsured before an incident occurs.

The same applies to alternative accommodation or temporary premises cover. It is worth checking whether the policy will pay for a temporary unit, storage, relocation costs, additional rent, transport and the practical expenses of keeping staff and customers operating during the recovery.

Our website also covers common underinsurance mistakes in relation to general contractor liability insurance, because underinsurance is not limited to large property claims.

Name the stock, tools and equipment accurately

The schedule should reflect what the business actually owns and uses, not what it owned several years ago.

For one business, that might mean stock and livestock. For another, it could mean tools, plant, machinery, specialist equipment, computers, vehicles or materials held for customers. Each category may have different limits, valuation rules and exclusions.

Contractors and tradespeople working from yards, units and workshops should pay particular attention to equipment kept away from the main premises. Tools may be covered only while in a locked vehicle, or only up to a specified limit. Plant may need to be listed separately. Customer property may require a different form of cover.

Replacement costs have also risen sharply in many areas. A machine, vehicle, building component or specialist tool may cost considerably more to replace than it did at the last renewal. This creates a heightened risk of underinsurance even where the business has not changed significantly.

The schedule should use accurate values and descriptions. If a business owns unusual, high-value or temperature-sensitive stock, it should not rely on a generic “contents” description without confirming that the cover responds as intended.

The first 48 hours can shape the claim

The immediate priority after a fire or explosion is safety. No business owner should enter a damaged site until the fire service or other responsible authority has confirmed that access is safe.

Once access is permitted, the evidence gathered in the first 48 hours can be extremely important. The business should notify the insurer and broker promptly, preserve damaged items where it is safe and practical to do so, and take photographs or video of the damage without disturbing the scene unnecessarily.

A simple evidence pack should include photographs, stock records, purchase invoices, asset registers, recent accounts, utility bills, supplier details, customer orders, payroll information and records showing the normal level of trading. Keep copies of all correspondence and note when access was restricted, when the power was disconnected and when services were restored.

The loss adjuster will need access and cooperation, but the business should not feel that it has to quantify a complex claim alone. Where the loss is substantial, professional help with calculating the property, stock and business interruption elements can make a significant difference.

Evidence is particularly important where the dispute concerns causation. In a case involving power loss, for example, records of the fire service’s instructions, the timing of the shutdown, temperature readings, equipment alarms and the condition of stock may all become relevant.

Contractors need trade-specific wording

Specialist trade cover is not interchangeable. Construction contractor insurance and general contractor liability insurance may be written with different exclusions, conditions and limits depending on the work being carried out.

A contractor working on structural repairs will present a different risk from a shopfitting company, groundworker, roofer, demolition contractor or electrical business. The policy may need to address work at height, hot works, subcontractors, hired-in plant, contract works, temporary works, tools and damage to property being worked upon.

Liability limits also need to be considered alongside the contracts being accepted. A client may require a particular level of public liability, employers’ liability or products liability cover, but the policy still needs to match the actual activities and responsibilities of the contractor.

This is why a line-by-line review with someone who understands the construction and trades market is worthwhile. The cheapest premium may not be the cheapest outcome if an exclusion or low sub-limit becomes relevant after an incident.

What Essex firms should do now

The Rettendon blast affected 42 businesses, many of them small or family-run. Chelmsford City Council provided £281,000 of emergency funding and business support, including advice, workspaces and help with business rates. That support is valuable, but it does not replace a properly structured insurance programme.

Business owners across Essex, Kent and London should use their next renewal as an opportunity to check the deliberate act and forced shutdown exclusions, update turnover and business interruption figures, review rebuilding and replacement costs, and confirm that stock, livestock, tools, plant and equipment are correctly named and valued.

They should also check whether temporary premises, alternative accommodation and increased cost of working are covered at realistic levels.

The wider lesson is straightforward. A business insurance claim is judged by the policy wording and by the evidence supporting the loss. Good cover should not be built around a headline premium. It should be built around the way the business operates, the assets it depends on and the length of time it would realistically take to recover.

For a no-obligation review of your business insurance, contact Moyak Insurance Services today. We provide individual and business insurance advice across Essex, Kent and London, including support for growing businesses, contractors and specialist trades.

The fresh report of Coventry & Warwickshire Development Partnership LLP v Avison Young (UK) Ltd [2026] EWHC 2319 (TCC) should make every project manager, quantity surveyor and contractor involved in major works stop and review how payment certifications are handled.

The Technology and Construction Court enforced an adjudicator’s award of £8,729,179.33 plus interest against Avison Young after finding that the project manager had negligently over-certified payments due to Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd. Avison Young challenged the award on jurisdiction, inadequate reasons and fair-process grounds, but the Court rejected each argument.

This is not a finding that every payment certificate creates a multi-million-pound liability. It is, however, a clear warning that certification is not an administrative formality. When a contractor becomes insolvent and an employer cannot recover overpayments, attention can quickly turn to the professional who approved the figures.

The case is particularly relevant to businesses arranging General Contractor Liability Insurance, Construction Contractor Insurance and Professional Indemnity cover across Essex, Kent and London.

The Gateway South dispute in brief

Gateway South was a 215-acre industrial and logistics park in Coventry, built on the site of a former sewage treatment plant. The earthworks were substantial, involving roughly five million cubic metres of material to create an environmental bund.

Buckingham Group was the contractor. Avison Young acted as project manager and supervisor, with responsibility for assessing and certifying Buckingham’s monthly payment applications.

The employer alleged that Avison Young had accepted reduced baseline volumes without proper investigation, taken Buckingham’s progress claims largely at face value despite conflicting information in its own records, and failed to identify defects and non-compliant work before certifying payments.

Buckingham went into administration in 2023. The employer claimed it had been left with a £25.4m overpayment and no realistic prospect of recovering that money from the insolvent contractor. It therefore pursued Avison Young.

An adjudicator found that Avison Young had failed to exercise the required reasonable skill and care. The award was £8,729,179.33 plus interest. When Avison Young refused to pay, the employer sought enforcement in the TCC.

The Court’s decision was concerned with enforcing the adjudicator’s award. Adjudication is not a final determination, so the underlying decision can still be challenged in later proceedings. Even so, the practical message is hard to miss: the “pay now, argue later” nature of adjudication can create immediate financial pressure.

1. Certification is a professional responsibility, not a paperwork exercise

The first lesson is for project managers, contract administrators and quantity surveyors. A payment certificate is not simply a record of what the contractor says it has done.

A professional certifier is expected to apply independent judgment. That does not mean measuring every cubic metre personally on every occasion, but it does mean asking whether the information provided is consistent with site observations, drawings, programmes, surveys, previous certificates and known defects.

In the Avison Young case, the employer’s complaint was not simply that the final valuation was wrong. It was that the project manager had accepted a changing baseline and progress data without properly reconciling the information available.

That distinction matters. A mistake can happen despite a reasonable process. A claim becomes much more difficult to defend where there is little evidence of a process at all.

Project managers and QSs should keep clear notes explaining what information was reviewed, which figures were challenged, what assumptions were made and why a certificate was approved. The records should show professional judgment rather than a rubber stamp.

2. Keep your own measurement records

The second lesson is straightforward: do not rely solely on the contractor’s numbers.

Contractors and subcontractors need accurate records because their payment applications, variations and progress claims may later become central evidence in a dispute. Employers and certifiers need their own records so they can test those claims rather than simply reproduce them.

This is especially important on earthworks, remediation, demolition and other projects where the measurement is difficult to verify after the work has been covered, moved or altered. Photographs, surveys, daily records, marked-up drawings, delivery tickets and site instructions can all help establish what was actually completed.

Where a baseline volume changes, the reason should be documented and approved through the correct contractual process. A lower baseline can make the percentage of work completed appear higher, which may affect every later payment certificate.

The same principle applies to defects. If work is incomplete or defective, that fact should be recorded before sign-off. It may be necessary to obtain technical advice, issue notices, retain sums or adjust the valuation, depending on the contract.

3. Insolvency changes who carries the practical risk

The third lesson concerns contractor insolvency.

An employer may have contractual rights to recover an overpayment from a contractor, but those rights can be of limited practical value once the contractor enters administration or liquidation. The employer may then look for another party whose actions allegedly caused the loss.

That does not mean project managers automatically become responsible for a contractor’s insolvency. The adjudicator in this case was not treating Avison Young as an insurer of Buckingham Group’s financial health. The issue was the alleged loss caused by negligent over-certification, with the contractor’s insolvency making recovery from the original recipient unrealistic.

This distinction is important for all parties. A general contractor, subcontractor or project manager should understand where responsibility sits under the contract, who has authority to certify payment, and what happens if one party becomes insolvent.

Contract terms should be reviewed before the project begins, not after the first payment dispute. Pay particular attention to liability caps, professional duty wording, reliance on third-party information, payment certification responsibilities, adjudication provisions, collateral warranties and any obligation to maintain insurance.

For contractors and subcontractors, good records also protect against allegations that claims were knowingly exaggerated or inadequately supported. For project managers and QSs, the same records may be essential to defending a professional negligence claim.

4. General Contractor Liability Insurance is only one part of the protection

The fourth lesson is about the difference between insurance covers.

General Contractor Liability Insurance, often arranged as part of wider Construction Contractor Insurance, is primarily designed to respond to third-party injury or property damage arising from the contractor’s work. It may also address certain legal costs and related liabilities, depending on the policy wording.

It is not normally a substitute for Professional Indemnity insurance. A payment certification error, negligent measurement, design mistake or failure to provide professional advice may result in a pure financial loss, without any physical injury or property damage. That is the type of exposure that may need PI cover.

Employers’ liability is a separate legal requirement for most businesses with employees. Contract works insurance protects the physical works, materials and sometimes temporary structures against insured damage. Business interruption may help with lost income after an insured event.

These covers work together, but they do not all respond to the same claim. A project manager who has General Contractor Liability Insurance but no suitable PI policy could still face a serious gap if the allegation is negligent certification.

The same applies to contractors offering design-and-build services, technical advice or project management. The more professional judgment the business provides, the more important it is to review PI requirements alongside public liability and contract works.

5. Check PI exclusions before a dispute starts

The fifth lesson is to read the policy before a problem arises.

Professional Indemnity policies are commonly written on a claims-made basis. This means the timing of notification, the policy in force when a claim or circumstance is first known, and the retroactive date can all be important.

A business should understand how its policy treats insolvency of another party, contractual liabilities assumed under an agreement, defects, rectification costs, adjudication awards and claims arising from guarantees or warranties. Some liabilities may be excluded, restricted or subject to specific extensions. Cover for adjudication-related costs or awards is not automatic and must be considered in the context of the actual wording.

If a project manager or QS becomes aware of a complaint, request for information, threatened adjudication or possible over-certification, the insurer and broker should be notified promptly. Waiting until formal proceedings begin can create avoidable arguments about late notification or a known circumstance.

Contractors should also notify their insurers early if a client alleges overpayment, misrepresentation of progress, defective work or breach of contract. Even where the initial complaint appears manageable, it may develop into a substantial claim once insolvency or recovery problems enter the picture.

Cover should be arranged and reviewed before the dispute, not after it. Once a business knows about a potential claim, it may be too late to purchase a policy that responds to that particular circumstance.

What businesses in Essex, Kent and London should do now

For project managers and QSs, the immediate priority should be a review of certification procedures. Ask whether the business has independent measurement records, documented checks against contractor data, a clear escalation process for changing baselines and a consistent method for recording defects.

For contractors and subcontractors, review payment applications, variation records and evidence supporting progress claims. Make sure the policy reflects the actual work being carried out, including any design, supervision, hot works, excavation, height or depth exposures.

For all construction businesses, review the relationship between General Contractor Liability Insurance, Professional Indemnity, employers’ liability and contract works insurance. Check the limits, excesses, territorial scope, contractual liability provisions and notification requirements.

At Moyak Insurance Services, we take an individual approach because no two construction businesses carry exactly the same risk. A growing contractor in Essex, a specialist subcontractor in Kent and a project management consultancy in London may all need very different combinations of cover.

The Construction Contractor Insurance guidance on our website explains why a standard policy is not always enough. We can also review General Contractor Liability Insurance and wider commercial combined business insurance with the realities of your contracts and projects in mind.

The Avison Young ruling is a reminder that insurance cannot repair poor records or replace sound contract administration. But the right cover, arranged early and understood properly, can make the difference between managing a serious allegation and facing an uninsured financial loss.

Sources and further reading

Brodies case note on professional negligence, over-certification and adjudication enforcement

Insurance Business UK report, 30 September 2026

The ruling was also reported by Estates Gazette on 29 September 2026 and Devon Shires on 23 September 2026.

As of today, 30 September 2026, the amended Approved Document B guidance takes effect in England for new residential buildings where the top storey is 18 metres or more above ground level. These buildings must be served by more than one common staircase.

This is not simply a fire strategy update. For developers, architects, main contractors and specialist subcontractors, the second staircase affects net-to-gross efficiency, structural coordination, Gateway 2 approval, procurement, programme risk and the way insurance responsibilities need to be agreed.

The change also arrives at a difficult point for many schemes. Some London projects have already faced a practical design freeze deadline well before today because adding a core can affect the viability of the whole development. Others are being reworked, delayed or shelved while the design team assesses the commercial impact.

Why the threshold is 18 metres

The original government consultation focused on a second staircase for new residential buildings above 30 metres. That proposal was subsequently reduced to 18 metres following consultation responses and industry debate.

The reason is that 18 metres aligns more closely with the Building Safety Act definition of a higher-risk building. It also provides a common reference point for the more demanding building safety and fire safety controls that apply to taller residential buildings.

The final position is therefore not just an arbitrary height limit. It brings the second staircase requirement into the same broad risk area as the higher-risk building regime, where the Building Safety Regulator and Gateway process become central to design and construction approval.

The government’s Approved Document B circular and amendment information confirms that the 2026 amendments apply in England and introduce updated guidance for second staircases in residential buildings with a storey 18 metres or more in height.

The rule is also more specific than simply drawing two lines on a plan. Interlocked stairs, scissor stairs and stacked stairs do not count as compliant alternatives to the required provision of more than one common staircase. The design must provide a genuine, workable escape strategy that can be understood, built, inspected and maintained.

The commercial consequence is larger than the core

A second staircase takes up more than the physical area of the stair itself. It brings additional corridors, protected lobbies, risers, smoke control requirements, fire doors and structural coordination. On a tight urban site, particularly in London, that can remove saleable or lettable floor area from every level.

This affects the net-to-gross ratio and can change whether a scheme meets its financial model. A design that appeared viable with one core may need a different apartment mix, a revised structural grid, altered façade geometry or a different servicing strategy once the second staircase is introduced.

That is why many schemes are facing what is effectively a design freeze deadline earlier than the legal compliance date. Developers cannot wait until construction documents are nearly complete to discover that an extra core will reduce value or require a significant planning amendment.

In practice, the decision can move quickly from “we need to coordinate one more stair” to “we need to reconsider the whole building”. That creates a commercial risk for every contractor pricing the work, particularly where the design appears mature but key fire and access decisions remain unresolved.

Gateway 2 makes late redesign especially disruptive

For a higher-risk building, Gateway 2 is not a paperwork exercise that can be separated from the design. The Building Safety Regulator expects a detailed building control approval application before the relevant construction work begins, and the submission needs to demonstrate that the design is sufficiently developed and coordinated.

The staircase strategy sits within the same approval chain as the fire strategy, structural grid, MEP routes, façade logic, evacuation arrangements and buildability evidence. Changing the stair after these matters have been coordinated can require much more than updating a floor plan.

A second core may conflict with transfer structures, plant rooms, drainage routes or façade openings. It may affect fire-fighting access, smoke ventilation and the location of evacuation lifts. It can also change the sequencing and temporary works required on site.

From an insurance perspective, late redesign is a warning sign because it can create uncertainty about who designed what, who reviewed the change and whether the contractor has accepted any design responsibility by pricing or proposing a solution.

The Building Safety Regulator planning guidance is a useful reference point, but contractors should also obtain project-specific advice from the design team, the client and the relevant building control authority.

The site risk is in the details

A second staircase creates new compartmentation lines. The associated corridors, lobbies and risers must be correctly designed and constructed so that the escape routes retain their intended fire performance.

This is where projects often become vulnerable. Fire doors, frames, ironmongery, cavity barriers, service penetrations and fire stopping can be treated as late-stage details, specified under time pressure after the main layout has already been agreed. That approach is risky.

A fire door that is the wrong type, badly fitted or installed without the correct certification can undermine the compartment. The same applies to fire stopping around cable trays, pipes and ductwork. The physical work may look complete while the evidence needed to demonstrate compliance is missing.

For contractors, this is both a quality risk and a liability risk. A defect may later be described as a design failure, a workmanship failure, a coordination failure or a failure to follow the specification. Those descriptions can lead to very different insurance responses.

Where construction insurance becomes relevant

Construction Contractor Insurance needs to reflect the actual role being undertaken, not just the trade description on a proposal form. A contractor involved in a higher-risk residential project may be carrying responsibilities for temporary works, design coordination, installation details, fire-stopping interfaces or design development that are not obvious from the contract title.

General Contractor Liability Insurance is important, but public liability is not a substitute for professional indemnity. Public liability is generally concerned with injury or damage caused by an accident, while professional indemnity is more likely to respond to allegations arising from negligent design, specification, advice or professional services.

The difficulty is that fire-related disputes often sit between the two. If a fire door fails because it was incorrectly designed or specified, the issue may be treated as design liability. If the door was correctly specified but installed incorrectly, the argument may move towards workmanship and public liability. If the details were changed during construction without clear approval, the position can become more complicated still.

Professional indemnity policies also frequently contain fire-related sub-limits or exclusions. A policy with a large headline limit may have a much smaller amount available for fire safety, cladding or certain residential building risks. That sub-limit may not be remotely adequate for remediation costs across a multi-storey building.

Contractors should also remember that compliance with Building Regulations is not the same as having broad insurance protection. Failure to comply with Building Regulations can be a criminal offence, and insurers may apply their own underwriting standards even where a design team believes the minimum regulatory position has been met.

Insurers are often concerned with property protection and loss severity as well as life safety. They may look to guidance from organisations such as RISCAuthority, or ask for additional controls that go beyond the minimum route described in Approved Document B. A contractor can therefore be technically compliant and still find that the insurer, lender, warranty provider or client expects a higher standard of evidence and protection.

What contractors should check now

Contractors in Essex, Kent and London should first establish whether the core strategy on each relevant scheme is genuinely frozen. If the stair arrangement, fire strategy or major service routes are still moving, the project may not be as ready for procurement as it appears.

The biggest warning sign is unresolved design pretending to be mature enough for procurement. Pricing a package before design responsibility and coordination risk are properly allocated can leave a contractor carrying an uninsured or underinsured exposure.

Before pricing or signing, confirm who is responsible for the staircase design, fire strategy, fire-stopping details, temporary works and design changes. The contract should identify whether design liability remains with the architect, engineer, specialist designer or main contractor, and the required insurance limits should be agreed at the same time.

Check the professional indemnity wording carefully, including any fire-related sub-limits, exclusions for higher-risk residential buildings and restrictions on design-and-build services. Do not rely on the policy schedule alone. The operative policy terms and endorsements matter.

Contractors should also review Contractors All Risks cover, including the treatment of defective work, resulting damage, testing and commissioning. Contractual warranties, collateral warranties and fitness-for-purpose obligations can materially increase exposure beyond ordinary negligence, so they should be reviewed before acceptance.

Finally, keep the golden thread evidence complete. This should include approved drawings, design changes, product information, fire door and fire-stopping records, inspection photographs, installation certificates, test results, approvals and clear responsibility records. Good documentation will not correct defective work, but missing documentation can make a defensible position much harder to establish.

A practical insurance review for today’s projects

The second staircase rule is a fire safety requirement, but its effects run through the entire construction risk profile. It can affect the value of the development, the design programme, Gateway 2 approval, procurement, workmanship controls and the allocation of professional responsibility.

For contractors, the immediate priority is to identify projects where the design is still changing and then make sure the contract and insurance arrangements reflect that uncertainty. A lower premium is not useful if a fire-related sub-limit, design exclusion or contractual warranty leaves the business exposed to a major claim.

Moyak Insurance Services provides an individual approach to business insurance for growing and established companies. As a business insurance broker in Essex, Kent and London, we can review your Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance, professional indemnity requirements and wider business protection before you commit to a project.

For a practical discussion, contact Moyak Insurance Services at info@moyakinsurance.co.uk or 01375 392087. You can also visit Moyak Insurance Services and read our guide to underinsurance mistakes in general contractor liability insurance.

Category: Blog

Joomla alias: two-staircases-30-september-2026-rule-gateway-2-construction-contractor-insurance

As of today, 30 September 2026, the amended Approved Document B guidance takes effect in England for new residential buildings where the top storey is 18 metres or more above ground level. These buildings must be served by more than one common staircase.

This is not simply a fire strategy update. For developers, architects, main contractors and specialist subcontractors, the second staircase affects net-to-gross efficiency, structural coordination, Gateway 2 approval, procurement, programme risk and the way insurance responsibilities need to be agreed.

The change also arrives at a difficult point for many schemes. Some London projects have already faced a practical design freeze deadline well before today because adding a core can affect the viability of the whole development. Others are being reworked, delayed or shelved while the design team assesses the commercial impact.

Why the threshold is 18 metres

The original government consultation focused on a second staircase for new residential buildings above 30 metres. That proposal was subsequently reduced to 18 metres following consultation responses and industry debate.

The reason is that 18 metres aligns more closely with the Building Safety Act definition of a higher-risk building. It also provides a common reference point for the more demanding building safety and fire safety controls that apply to taller residential buildings.

The final position is therefore not just an arbitrary height limit. It brings the second staircase requirement into the same broad risk area as the higher-risk building regime, where the Building Safety Regulator and Gateway process become central to design and construction approval.

The government’s Approved Document B circular and amendment information confirms that the 2026 amendments apply in England and introduce updated guidance for second staircases in residential buildings with a storey 18 metres or more in height.

The rule is also more specific than simply drawing two lines on a plan. Interlocked stairs, scissor stairs and stacked stairs do not count as compliant alternatives to the required provision of more than one common staircase. The design must provide a genuine, workable escape strategy that can be understood, built, inspected and maintained.

The commercial consequence is larger than the core

A second staircase takes up more than the physical area of the stair itself. It brings additional corridors, protected lobbies, risers, smoke control requirements, fire doors and structural coordination. On a tight urban site, particularly in London, that can remove saleable or lettable floor area from every level.

This affects the net-to-gross ratio and can change whether a scheme meets its financial model. A design that appeared viable with one core may need a different apartment mix, a revised structural grid, altered façade geometry or a different servicing strategy once the second staircase is introduced.

That is why many schemes are facing what is effectively a design freeze deadline earlier than the legal compliance date. Developers cannot wait until construction documents are nearly complete to discover that an extra core will reduce value or require a significant planning amendment.

In practice, the decision can move quickly from “we need to coordinate one more stair” to “we need to reconsider the whole building”. That creates a commercial risk for every contractor pricing the work, particularly where the design appears mature but key fire and access decisions remain unresolved.

Gateway 2 makes late redesign especially disruptive

For a higher-risk building, Gateway 2 is not a paperwork exercise that can be separated from the design. The Building Safety Regulator expects a detailed building control approval application before the relevant construction work begins, and the submission needs to demonstrate that the design is sufficiently developed and coordinated.

The staircase strategy sits within the same approval chain as the fire strategy, structural grid, MEP routes, façade logic, evacuation arrangements and buildability evidence. Changing the stair after these matters have been coordinated can require much more than updating a floor plan.

A second core may conflict with transfer structures, plant rooms, drainage routes or façade openings. It may affect fire-fighting access, smoke ventilation and the location of evacuation lifts. It can also change the sequencing and temporary works required on site.

From an insurance perspective, late redesign is a warning sign because it can create uncertainty about who designed what, who reviewed the change and whether the contractor has accepted any design responsibility by pricing or proposing a solution.

The Building Safety Regulator planning guidance is a useful reference point, but contractors should also obtain project-specific advice from the design team, the client and the relevant building control authority.

The site risk is in the details

A second staircase creates new compartmentation lines. The associated corridors, lobbies and risers must be correctly designed and constructed so that the escape routes retain their intended fire performance.

This is where projects often become vulnerable. Fire doors, frames, ironmongery, cavity barriers, service penetrations and fire stopping can be treated as late-stage details, specified under time pressure after the main layout has already been agreed. That approach is risky.

A fire door that is the wrong type, badly fitted or installed without the correct certification can undermine the compartment. The same applies to fire stopping around cable trays, pipes and ductwork. The physical work may look complete while the evidence needed to demonstrate compliance is missing.

For contractors, this is both a quality risk and a liability risk. A defect may later be described as a design failure, a workmanship failure, a coordination failure or a failure to follow the specification. Those descriptions can lead to very different insurance responses.

Where construction insurance becomes relevant

Construction Contractor Insurance needs to reflect the actual role being undertaken, not just the trade description on a proposal form. A contractor involved in a higher-risk residential project may be carrying responsibilities for temporary works, design coordination, installation details, fire-stopping interfaces or design development that are not obvious from the contract title.

General Contractor Liability Insurance is important, but public liability is not a substitute for professional indemnity. Public liability is generally concerned with injury or damage caused by an accident, while professional indemnity is more likely to respond to allegations arising from negligent design, specification, advice or professional services.

The difficulty is that fire-related disputes often sit between the two. If a fire door fails because it was incorrectly designed or specified, the issue may be treated as design liability. If the door was correctly specified but installed incorrectly, the argument may move towards workmanship and public liability. If the details were changed during construction without clear approval, the position can become more complicated still.

Professional indemnity policies also frequently contain fire-related sub-limits or exclusions. A policy with a large headline limit may have a much smaller amount available for fire safety, cladding or certain residential building risks. That sub-limit may not be remotely adequate for remediation costs across a multi-storey building.

Contractors should also remember that compliance with Building Regulations is not the same as having broad insurance protection. Failure to comply with Building Regulations can be a criminal offence, and insurers may apply their own underwriting standards even where a design team believes the minimum regulatory position has been met.

Insurers are often concerned with property protection and loss severity as well as life safety. They may look to guidance from organisations such as RISCAuthority, or ask for additional controls that go beyond the minimum route described in Approved Document B. A contractor can therefore be technically compliant and still find that the insurer, lender, warranty provider or client expects a higher standard of evidence and protection.

What contractors should check now

Contractors in Essex, Kent and London should first establish whether the core strategy on each relevant scheme is genuinely frozen. If the stair arrangement, fire strategy or major service routes are still moving, the project may not be as ready for procurement as it appears.

The biggest warning sign is unresolved design pretending to be mature enough for procurement. Pricing a package before design responsibility and coordination risk are properly allocated can leave a contractor carrying an uninsured or underinsured exposure.

Before pricing or signing, confirm who is responsible for the staircase design, fire strategy, fire-stopping details, temporary works and design changes. The contract should identify whether design liability remains with the architect, engineer, specialist designer or main contractor, and the required insurance limits should be agreed at the same time.

Check the professional indemnity wording carefully, including any fire-related sub-limits, exclusions for higher-risk residential buildings and restrictions on design-and-build services. Do not rely on the policy schedule alone. The operative policy terms and endorsements matter.

Contractors should also review Contractors All Risks cover, including the treatment of defective work, resulting damage, testing and commissioning. Contractual warranties, collateral warranties and fitness-for-purpose obligations can materially increase exposure beyond ordinary negligence, so they should be reviewed before acceptance.

Finally, keep the golden thread evidence complete. This should include approved drawings, design changes, product information, fire door and fire-stopping records, inspection photographs, installation certificates, test results, approvals and clear responsibility records. Good documentation will not correct defective work, but missing documentation can make a defensible position much harder to establish.

A practical insurance review for today’s projects

The second staircase rule is a fire safety requirement, but its effects run through the entire construction risk profile. It can affect the value of the development, the design programme, Gateway 2 approval, procurement, workmanship controls and the allocation of professional responsibility.

For contractors, the immediate priority is to identify projects where the design is still changing and then make sure the contract and insurance arrangements reflect that uncertainty. A lower premium is not useful if a fire-related sub-limit, design exclusion or contractual warranty leaves the business exposed to a major claim.

Moyak Insurance Services provides an individual approach to business insurance for growing and established companies. As a business insurance broker in Essex, Kent and London, we can review your Construction Contractor Insurance, General Contractor Liability Insurance, professional indemnity requirements and wider business protection before you commit to a project.

For a practical discussion, contact Moyak Insurance Services at info@moyakinsurance.co.uk or 01375 392087. You can also visit Moyak Insurance Services and read our guide to underinsurance mistakes in general contractor liability insurance.

Category: Blog

Joomla alias: two-staircases-30-september-2026-rule-gateway-2-construction-contractor-insurance