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
What is liquidation and how does it apply to contractors in the construction industry?
Scrutiny is placed on Carillion's controversial 2013 decision to extend subcontractor payment terms to 120 days.
RSHP unveil their involvement in a boundary crossing which will provide a new entry point into Hong Kong.
With PFI currently under the spotlight due to Carillion, this introductory article explains what they are.
Estimates suggest that up to 30,000 small firms could be at risk of non-payment as a result of Carillion's collapse.
Sir Oliver Letwin to lead an independent review into the delays in the delivery of housing.
As Carillion collapses, read our article explaining insolvency in the construction industry.
43,000 jobs at risk as Carillion declares insolvency..
1961 saw the publication of three important books about urban design that remain relevant today.
Next week the planning fee increases by 20% and new fees are introduced.
How the transformative power of BIM and other digital technologies can be used to gain a competitive edge.