- Project plans
- Project activities
- Legislation and standards
- Industry context
Last edited 15 Dec 2017
Professional indemnity 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.
- Run-off cover.
 External references
- Unfair Contract Terms Act.
- The full decision: Ampleforth Abbey Trust v Turner & Townsend Project Management.
Featured articles and news
Whole-life costs consider all costs associated with the life of a building, from inception to disposal. Find out more here.
Reports emerge of injuries caused by Apple employees colliding with the campus' glazed walls.
The winners of NIC's ideas competition on transforming the Cambridge to Oxford arc discuss their concept.
Create new habitats and improve air quality and wellbeing.
New report provides 12 key actions which could close the structural talent gap in the construction industry.
These can be used to find out whether a proposed development is likely to be approved. Read more here.
Studying a built environment degree? Check out our helpful student resources section.
New BRE research paper explores how blockchain technology can benefit the built environment industry.
Timber is a natural carbon sink, but it must not end up in landfill at the end of its useful life.
BSRIA has collaborated with the Department of Health on research into air permeability in isolation rooms.