A decade ago, a contractor fitting a kitchen or renovating a bathroom rarely had much say in how a project was designed. A specification would arrive and their job was simply to build it. According to Alfie Richardson (pictured), underwriting manager at Iprism, that distinction has largely disappeared, along with the long-held assumption about who actually needs professional indemnity (PI) insurance.
Historically, many smaller contractors simply worked from designs produced by others. Today, they are increasingly expected to advise clients on layouts, materials and installation from the earliest planning stages, taking on professional responsibilities that were once left to designers and consultants.
"Where you've got a client making proposals or decisions on how things should be installed, it does present a PI exposure that I don't think many are probably too aware of," Richardson said.
Cladding illustrates the shift most clearly. Contractors who once simply installed specified materials are now increasingly responsible for recommending what should be used.
"If those materials are inadequate, then it could lead to replacement costs or surveying costs and all of the other stuff that goes with it," Richardson said.
The questions contractors, brokers and insurers need to be asking have changed as a result.
"Historically it was probably, did we build it properly? Whereas now it's, did we design it, did we coordinate it, did we specify the products correctly, did we advise on it properly and did we comply with the regulations."
Domestic clients generally have little understanding of building regulations or health and safety requirements, leaving the contractor as the only party positioned to catch a problem before it becomes a claim.
"There's no hiding places," Richardson said, "and there's only one place for that claim to fall."
The risk is often greatest not for individual tradespeople but for principal contractors coordinating multiple trades on a single site, with plumbers, electricians, roofers and subcontractors all turning to one party for day-to-day direction. Seemingly routine decisions made on site can create significant professional liability exposure.
New technologies are creating fresh areas of liability. Richardson pointed to the growing adoption of ground source heat pumps and domestic EV charging points, both of which bring design, infrastructure and regulatory considerations that many contractors have little previous experience of. Errors in specification can result in anything from costly remedial work to fires and electrical failures.
Richardson believes policy wordings are still catching up with the way construction work is evolving.
"A lot of the changes that we build into our coverage and policy wordings is largely driven from claims as opposed to, well, we've got this on the horizon," he said.
If there's one belief Richardson would like to see retired altogether, it's the idea that PI cover is the preserve of consultants, architects and engineers. With contractors now involved from the design and planning stage, Richardson argues that assumption "doesn't ring true" and that SMEs have a duty to review their own risk from start to finish.
The danger is that the exposure is not always obvious. A contractor may not believe they are taking on design responsibility, but contractual wording can impose exactly that obligation.
"This contract is imposing that duty on me and obviously a lot of this can be lost in the legalese," he said. "So if it's missed, there could be an exposure there that they're not particularly aware of."
The challenge is helping contractors recognise how much their role has evolved. As design responsibility shifts down the supply chain, so too does the professional liability that comes with it, leaving many smaller firms carrying risks they may not even realise they have.
