As a tenant of a commercial building, finding a new space can be an exciting time for the business as a whole. But once you have found it, consideration then turns to the fit out. There are many considerations when undertaking an office fit out, including who to use as the contractor, ensuring you have a well drafted and protected contract for the works, and making sure that you have covered off all of the landlord’s requirements.
In addition, insurance can be a major headache. Figuring out the right insurance strategy adds complexity to the process of getting the fit-out work done.
Buildings and works insurance
When it comes to fit out contracts, there are two key items which need to be insured – the building as a whole and the works which are being undertaken
In most cases, the landlord takes care of buildings insurance for multi-let buildings and this is usually a provision of the lease the tenant has with the landlord. However the fact that the insurance is in place for the building itself is not the end of the story. If the fit out works cause issues to the building itself, the contractor or the tenant may face a form of liability for that damage without having recourse to the buildings insurance provider. This would be the case if for example the building insurance didn’t have the tenant and the contractor named on the policy. What’s worse is that if the landlord then claims on the building insurance, the insurer may bring a subrogated claim against the tenant or contractor
Tenants often face resistance from landlords when they ask for a firm commitment to either share insurance coverage or get a waiver of subrogation rights. Landlords want to protect their building insurance policies and avoid potential claims that could affect their risk profile. Sometimes, tenants are only “noted” on the insurance policy, which means they receive limited notifications but aren’t fully covered. This therefore provides limited protection when considering the points addressed above.
Co-Insurance as the Best Option
The ideal situation for both tenants and contractors is to have co-insurance protection that covers risks associated with the existing structure. Under co-insurance parties insured under the same policy can’t sue each other for the same risk. Further, in terms of the common law rules on subrogation, an insurer who has paid out money to an insured can claim all or some of that money from a third party who caused or contributed to the loss. If insurance is taken out in the joint names of two or more persons, the insurer would not be able to enforce its rights of subrogation to bring a claim against one of the parties under the policy and if it does, the co-insured party who caused or contributed to the loss can raise a defence that they are a co-insured under the policy.
The works policy
Separate from the buildings policy itself would be the insurance in respect of the works. This type of insurance covers damage or loss to the works from any events covered by the relevant insurance. Frequently contractors will have CAR (contractor’s all risk) insurance which could cover the works but again further consideration is needed. For instance, does the policy cover the particular works being undertaken, would the tenant want to be named on that policy and would the landlord require to be named under the policy.
In addition, if the contractor does not have suitable all risks insurance then one of the parties may need to take out an independent one-off policy for the works in question which will of course come at a cost.
Overall, it is crucial to ascertain early on in a fit out project who is taking out which insurance and who needs to be named on each policy (or whether waivers of subrogation would be sufficient).
The Conway v RFU Case and its Impact
In April 2023, the Court of Appeal ruled on a case involving contractor Conway and the Rugby Football Union (RFU) (Rugby Football Union v Clark Smith Partnership Ltd [2022] EWHC 956 (TCC)). Although Conway was co-insured under the project insurance policy, the court decided that the co-insurance defence didn’t apply in that specific situation. The judgment emphasized the importance of the underlying contract in defining the scope of co-insurance coverage.
JCT Insurance Option C was used which states that the employer co-insures the contractor on a composite basis for loss or damage to:
- the existing structure due to the specified perils (JCT Option C.1) and
- the works (or site materials) for the risks covered by the works insurance policy (JCT Option C.2).



