Construction clients seeking insurance recognition for investments in cameras and sensors need to show how those tools change the way risks are managed.
According to Adrian Pellen (pictured), managing director of NFP’s Construction and Infrastructure Group, some insurers are offering premium credits for effective technology use. The opportunity puts brokers closer to decisions about how clients monitor projects and respond to emerging problems.
“If you can use technology more readily to have insights about how your asset’s performing, how it’s interacting with weather patterns, and taking action around those, insurers are rewarding those insureds accordingly,” said Pellen.
A recent Zurich announcement offers an example of the loss-prevention potential. On October 1, the insurer highlighted its construction safety collaboration with Arrowsight, reporting that a multiyear New York pilot recorded more than a 50% reduction in workers’ compensation claim frequency compared with similar projects outside the pilot.
The offering combines camera technology with human-led safety coaching and risk engineering. Zurich began offering it nationally in November 2025 and said it is now used on projects including mass transit infrastructure and data centers.
Other insurers have also connected technology adoption with the insurance proposition.
AXA XL launched its Highly Protected Project approach in 2020, offering tailored insurance for qualifying construction projects using technology to reduce risk. Its launch criteria included projects worth at least $200 million in sectors such as healthcare and commercial offices, with tools addressing exposures including water damage and unsafe site conditions.
In a 2021 case study, AXA XL described a $400 million hospital expansion that installed water-flow and leak-detection technology. The insurer said the hospital purchased its Highly Protected Project solution, with favorable terms and conditions linked to the protections.
Pellen identified cameras used for reality capture, alongside temperature and other sensors, as tools that can help construction firms and asset operators understand their exposures.
Some installations also continue to benefit an asset after construction, extending the risk-management conversation into its operating life. A broker assessing that investment can ask who receives the information and who has authority to act on it. Those answers help establish whether the technology has a practical role in the project’s existing risk-management arrangements.
Zurich’s earlier description of the Arrowsight pilot illustrates that process. Cameras and human video review identify risky and exemplary behavior, allowing contractors to make adjustments with support from risk engineers. Its underwriting study compared nine camera-equipped New York City projects with 12 projects without the technology during the highest-risk phases of work. Zurich said the findings led it to require Arrowsight on all New York construction wrap-up projects it insures. The insurer also noted that many claims fall within clients’ deductibles or retentions, giving contractors a financial interest in preventing losses beyond any change in premium.
The Hartford offers another example of technology working alongside operational changes.
In a published construction case study, it described a customer that suffered a $4 million storm-related loss involving damaged building materials and project delays. The customer subsequently introduced a water damage prevention plan and installed sensors throughout the site, with oversight to ensure the system was operational.
The Hartford said subsequent sensor alerts helped prevent two additional incidents, with avoided losses it has estimated at $2 million.
To leverage these benefits, Pellen believes brokers should be involved early enough to assess project risks alongside owners and contractors.
“We really need to work with them in tandem, based on their risk tolerance and the cost of each programme, to figure out who the right stakeholder is to procure insurance,” he said. “There isn’t a hard-and-fast rule. I think it has to be examined individually, given the complexity of these projects.”
That assessment also involves contractual responsibilities and operational controls. Pellen said lenders are increasingly involved in discussions about allocating risk, while NFP uses microsites to help stakeholders visualize exposures and identify the most material ones.
However, technology also introduces risks that can affect construction schedules. Pellen pointed to equipment connected through the Internet of Things, including machinery that can sometimes be controlled remotely, and the potential for third parties to hack it. Cyber disruption has already affected construction businesses he has worked with.
“We’ve seen phishing be a big issue,” he noted. “This has come up in a couple of different construction companies that I’ve personally worked with, without necessarily providing names, where they’ve had a phishing attack, systems have been shut down and they can’t operate for a series of days.”
Those interruptions raise questions about contractors’ ability to absorb delays. “There could be financial penalties for contractors to have delays in their schedule,” Pellen added. “Do they have enough float in the schedule to be able to do that as a result of a cyber incident?”
