As the publishing of Grenfell Tower Enquiry progress reports continues to shape remediation requirements across the country, the insurance implications of cladding and facade risk have never been more pressing—or more complex. For brokers placing construction risks, understanding the nuances of fire safety liability is no longer optional; it's essential to protecting both clients and maintaining underwriter capacity.
The fire safety environment has fundamentally shifted since Grenfell. The Building Safety Act 2022 and subsequent regulations have created a web of accountability that extends far beyond the original contractor. Developers, principal designers, building control bodies, product manufacturers, and even refurbishment specialists now face potential liability that can span decades through the new Building Safety Regulator enforcement powers.
For insurers, this means cladding and facade risks are no longer confined to the construction phase. Latent defect exposure, professional indemnity claims, and retrospective remediation costs are creating claims that surface years after completion. Recent Grenfell Enquiry findings have only intensified scrutiny on material specifications, testing protocols, and the adequacy of certification—areas where the gap between what was specified and what was installed can trigger substantial claims.
The Building Safety Act 2022 represents the most significant overhaul of building safety regulations in a generation. For construction insurance brokers, understanding these compliance requirements is not optional—it directly impacts risk assessment, underwriting decisions, and claims exposure.
Under the new regulations, buildings over 18 metres require non-combustible cladding materials rated Euroclass A2-s1, d0 or better. The Building Safety Regulator now has enforcement powers that can reach back through the supply chain, creating liability exposures that persist long after practical completion.
When underwriting construction risks involving cladding or facade works, brokers must dig deeper than standard technical schedules. Here are the critical questions that can make the difference between a risk that performs and one that does not:
Is the cladding system specified compliant with current Building Regulations Approved Document B? For buildings over 18 metres, non-combustible materials (Euroclass A2-s1, d0 or better) are now mandatory. Insist on seeing product certifications, not just contractor assurances. Desktop studies and material combustibility reports should be requested at the quotation stage.
Has the facade system undergone large-scale testing (BS 8414) with a BR 135 classification report (or subsequently developed test method)? Generic product approvals are insufficient; the system as designed must be tested. This is where many historic claims originate: approved components assembled in untested configurations.
Who is installing the system, and what is their track record? Facade installation requires specialist expertise. Check for CWCT (Centre for Window and Cladding Technology) membership, previous project experience on similar scale buildings, and whether the contractor holds adequate Professional Liability and Professional Indemnity limits.
For refurbishment projects, is there existing cladding being over-clad or left in situ? This can create hidden liability. Ensure the scope of works clearly defines what existing materials are being removed, what is being retained, and who bears responsibility for the existing installation.
The cladding crisis has permanently altered construction insurance. Brokers must move beyond tick-box compliance and engage with the technical detail. Request pre-contract risk assessments, demand evidence of independent fire safety consultancy involvement, and ensure that latent defect periods extend appropriately.
Most importantly, engage underwriters early. The market has capacity for well-documented, compliant cladding risks. What it will not tolerate is ambiguity, incomplete specifications, or contractors without demonstrable expertise.
This is a reminder that fire safety is a system, not a product. In cladding and facades, that system spans design, procurement, installation, and maintenance. Brokers who understand each link in that chain will place risks that protect clients, satisfy underwriters, and ultimately, save lives.
The Building Safety Act 2022 is landmark legislation that fundamentally reformed building safety regulations following the Grenfell Tower fire. It creates a new Building Safety Regulator with enforcement powers, extends liability beyond original contractors to include developers, designers, product manufacturers, and building control bodies, and introduces a "golden thread" of digital information that must be maintained throughout a building lifecycle. For construction insurance, this means liability exposures now span decades rather than just the construction phase, with retrospective remediation costs and professional indemnity claims surfacing years after completion.
For buildings over 18 metres (approximately 6 storeys), the Building Regulations now mandate non-combustible cladding materials rated Euroclass A2-s1, d0 or better. This European classification system measures reaction to fire, with A2 materials being largely non-combustible. The s1 rating refers to smoke production (limited) and d0 to flaming droplets and particles (none). Product certifications must be provided at quotation stage—contractor assurances alone are insufficient for underwriting purposes.
Under the Building Safety Act 2022, liability for building safety defects—including cladding issues—can extend for up to 30 years retrospectively for existing buildings, and 15 years for new buildings from the date of completion. This represents a significant extension from previous latent defect periods and creates long-tail exposure for all parties in the construction supply chain. Professional indemnity and latent defect insurance policies must now account for these extended timeframes.
BS 8414 is a large-scale fire test method that assesses the fire performance of complete cladding systems, not just individual components. The test involves constructing a full-height mock-up of the facade system and subjecting it to a controlled fire to measure flame spread and heat release. Results are classified using BR 135 methodology. Generic product approvals are insufficient—the specific system configuration as designed must be tested, as many historic claims have originated from approved components assembled in untested configurations.
Yes. Refurbishment projects involving existing cladding create unique exposures. If existing cladding is being over-clad or left in situ, this creates hidden liability that must be explicitly addressed. The scope of works must clearly define what existing materials are being removed, what is retained, and who bears responsibility for the existing installation. Insurers need to understand whether the contractor is taking on liability for pre-existing non-compliant materials, as this can trigger retrospective exposure under the Building Safety Act.
