- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
- Specialist wikis
Last edited 23 Jun 2021
Professional indemnity insurance clause in conditions of engagement
'Liability for any negligent failure by Us to carry out Our duties under these Terms shall be limited to such liability as is covered by Our Professional Indemnity Insurance Policy terms... and in no event shall Our liability exceed the fees paid to Us or £1 million whichever is the less'
The Defendants agreed their terms were 'standard terms'. This meant that S 3(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applied which required an exclusion or limitation of liability to be reasonable. If not reasonable it was unenforceable.
The Defendants claimed the liability cap was reasonable and therefore enforceable because:
- The terms were clear, unambiguous and would have been understood by their client if the client had taken the trouble to read them.
- There was no inequality of bargaining position.
- The Claimants had not received an inducement to accept the terms.
- The Claimants had the time, opportunity and freedom to turn to an alternative project manager.
- Generally commercial parties should be left to apportion risks as they see fit.
The Judge decided the limit was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. This was because the defendants had contracted to hold £10 million professional indemnity (PI) insurance which exceeded the liability cap. The Judge felt that the claimants had in effect paid for access to £10 million of PI cover, and so it was unreasonable to deny access to that insurance:
'The effect of upholding the limitation clause would be that, although the parties had contracted for the insurance of the risks and (implicitly) for the Trust to pay for that insurance, far the greater part of that insurance would be rendered illusory.'
NB: An additional ruling was made in this case in relation to a project managers duty to ensure a contract is entered into rather than relying on a letter of intent. See: Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management.
 Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki
- Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management.
- 3D animation for insurance risk analysis.
- Contractors' all-risk insurance.
- Directors and officers insurance.
- Letters of intent.
- Professional indemnity insurance.
- Professional indemnity insurance in construction.
- Residual value insurance.
- Run-off cover.
 External references
- Unfair Contract Terms Act.
- The full decision: Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management.
Featured articles and news
To support in Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund bids
A must read for all built environment professionals.
A brief description of time in the sun.
Given by ICE President Ed McCann.
Two new research reports published by APM.
50% off APM Associate membership for Designing Buildings users.
A commentary from the insurance perspective.
In brief with further links.
A definitive book on a pioneer of green architecture.
Using heritage as a catalyst for reviving historic centres.
Declaration prioritising sustainable urbanisation adopted.
Some brief words about the actuator.
After 34 years at the Institute.
To support the next generation of engineers.
CIAT reporting from the Competition and Markets Authority.
Making sustainable construction number one priority.
Interview with ECA CEO.
Many provisions came into force on June 28, 2022.
With room to expand.
Refurbishment, Energy Efficiency, Indoor air and process.
Aluminium Composite Panels (ACP) is one example.
Write about something you know, help us build and grow !