Many of our clients join us because we demonstrate that their cover is wrong and needs correcting. This case is study based on a contractor that has grown significantly over the last few years:
Overview:
When we were first invited to quote, the client made it clear that their incumbent broker “knew the business inside out.” But following our initial meeting, a full review of their documents revealed a very different picture. A follow‑up meeting with the new Managing Director — who had an exceptional grasp of day‑to‑day operations — helped us uncover a series of serious gaps in their existing programme. Contract works were insured only to £4m any single contract despite projects reaching £6m; specialist activities such as sprinkler installation had never been declared; their insurer could only accommodate £1m cover for this, leaving them in breach of their insurance contract. Height and depth limits were entirely inaccurate, and a crucial fire‑safety exclusion had been overlooked on their professional indemnity policy. Even their excess layer contained an efficacy exclusion that fundamentally compromised protection.
What we did:
We provided the MD with a comprehensive business overview, which he described as “more detail than we’ve ever had.” Using this as the foundation, we negotiated corrected terms, secured a three‑year long‑term agreement with to provide premium stability and a low‑claims rebate — We provided education and helped with systems and controls particularly around subcontractor vetting conditions they were unknowingly breaching. Working collaboratively with both insurer and client, we rebuilt their processes to ensure complete compliance and genuine protection.
What could have happened?
Had a claim occurred under their previous arrangements, the consequences for the business could have been severe. A contract works loss above £4m would have left them underinsured by millions, forcing the company to absorb the shortfall directly — a liability that could have jeopardised cash flow, project completion and even the firm’s solvency. Any incident involving sprinkler installation would almost certainly have been declined altogether, as the insurer had never been made aware of this activity and could only offer £1m cover when it was later disclosed. A fall from height above 10 metres, or work completed at the depths they routinely operated at, risked breaching policy conditions, providing the insurer with strong grounds to repudiate a claim. The fire‑safety exclusion on their professional indemnity policy could have left them personally exposed to six‑ or seven‑figure losses on a design‑related error, and the efficacy exclusion on the liability excess layer had the potential to leave them carrying the full cost of product or system failure. In short, a single incident in any of these areas could have resulted in a catastrophic financial outcome — highlighting the importance of the detailed, corrective work undertaken.
Conclusion:
In short; their business was massively exposed to failure should a claim have occurred. We corrected this at a fair and reasonable cost, ongoing reviews will form part of our service proposition to ensure that they don’t outgrow their insurance programme again