Professional indemnity insurance clause in conditions of engagement
The case of Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management Ltd  EWHC 2137 (TCC) relates to conflict between a liability clause and insurance clause in conditions of engagement.
The Claimants alleged that the Defendants had been negligent in their management of a construction project, and that their limitation of liability clause was unenforceable.
The liability clause said:
'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 £1million whichever is the less'
The insurance clause said:
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
- Further analysis of Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management in relation to letters of intent.
- 3D animation for insurance risk analysis.
- Contractors' all-risk insurance.
- Directors and officers insurance.
- Letters of intent.
- Professional indemnity insurance.
- Residual value insurance.
 External references
- Unfair Contract Terms Act.
- The full decision: Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management.
Featured articles and news
"We can’t sustain low density suburbs, density isn't a choice, it's a necessity." - Read our interview with the award-winning social housing architect Peter Barber.
Conservation area designation can be crucial, but treatment of individual parks varies considerably.
ICE publish new NEC4 Design, Build and Operate contract.
Report states $2 trillion is needed over the next 10 years to fix American roads.
What is the client's strategic brief for construction projects?
Read the story behind the world's most iconic festival stage, Glastonbury's Pyramid Stage.
First ever BREEAM Communities innovation credit is claimed by Temple Farm Development.
Read the story of Ronan Point, another disastrous event which had profound consequences for the construction industry.
CIOB to help conservation specialists gain recognition for their expertise with launch of new Certification Scheme.
A brief introduction to Building Information Modelling - is it the future of construction?
Have a look at Francis Kéré's 2017 pavilion, based on the concept of the tree as a place of shelter.
CIOB announce new commission to assess what more it and the industry can do to tackle build quality issues.
Not only is this building shaped like a teapot, it can rotate 360-degrees.
What is ACM cladding, what is it used for, and is it banned?