Professional Indemnity insurance Scheme Renewal – 2021 - 22

the next decade. The simple reason for that interlinked belief is that the cover we have provided to date for legacy work is so out of step with what the PI insurance market offers today, that all our clients would become collectively exposed to being the last people standing, which is to say, the last people still solvent, trading and with deep insurance pockets for claimants to target. Our Scheme – and more importantly our clients to whom it provides its protection – then potentially become the safety net, not for the errors and omissions of those whom it insures, but for all the ills, problems and failings of how the built environment has been procured, designed and constructed for a generation or more. The only result of that would be the loss of insurance market support, ending up with an overall specification of cover which is objectively worse than that at which we have arrived. In entirely plausible scenarios, we might end up with no Scheme offering at all. The story behind why the industry has ended up where we have is a complicated one. It will have been evident to anyone involved in construction that the PI insurance market has been continuing to restrict and remove cover in this area. That further change to the cover was likely was a frequent warning of ours. That we have been able to maintain very broad cover some 4-years after Grenfell has put all our clients in a very strong position as regards protection against genuine FSN claims. We would hope that, by now, any material FSN problems relating to legacy matters would have been notified to Scheme insurers. If you are in any doubt about whether to notify anything then we would strongly recommend speaking to your usual G&A contact. For initial advice, please refresh yourself on the issues by reading our recently revised guidance here. The change we have made is one that we genuinely believe, having regard to the alternative options available, is in the long-term best interests of our clients and the supply side of the industry generally. We could have simply agreed to restrict cover in the way the PI insurance market generally is seeking to do. This would have provided a higher limit of indemnity for FSNs, certainly, but it would have done so at a considerable cost. That cost would have been to remove essential protections in relation to most contractually assumed liabilities. The cost would have included the removal of all other aspects of cover, other than the direct expenses of rectifying the work that had been undertaken. The