A South East construction company with a £2.9 million turnover asked Java Insurance to sense-check its programme. Although generally happy with their incumbent broker, they wanted to confirm that their Contractors Combined policy and associated covers truly matched live activities. As a family-built business that values trust, relationships, and quality results, they align closely with how we work.
The client believed their insurance was fully protective. Our goal was to test that assumption, uncover any gaps, and confirm where cover could be simplified or strengthened without unnecessary spend.
We met face-to-face to understand operations, project types, and risk appetite. Using open questions, we mapped activities and exposures, then reviewed existing schedules, endorsements, and declarations shared by the client.
This two-way dialogue helped validate assumptions, highlight blind spots, and set clear priorities for improvement.
We began by clarifying current and upcoming work across residential and commercial projects, hiring practices, subcontractor use, and materials. We then examined policy wordings and endorsements to ensure the business description, sub-limits, and any restrictive clauses would not undermine a future claim.
Next, we compared hired-in plant limits and annual hire charges with real contract values and invoices. With this analysis complete, we identified gaps and proposed practical changes, including optional protections aligned to management and cyber risk, before approaching a broad insurer panel to source competitive terms that reflected the true risk.
Our review showed the policy described residential construction only, while the client was actively delivering a mixed commercial and residential scheme, which could have jeopardised a claim. Hired-in plant cover was set at £20,000, yet the firm regularly hired equipment worth more than double that amount.
Annual hire charges were also understated at less than half of the actual spend, increasing the risk of reduced or declined claims. We also uncovered a timber frame sub-limit that did not match the project’s potential build cost, creating the risk of a declined claim during the build stage.
Finally, we noted that Management Liability (Directors’ and Officers’) and Cyber Liability were missing, and we explained how these can respond to common construction exposures.
We placed a refreshed Contractors Combined programme that accurately reflects the client’s real activities and values. The business description now includes both commercial and residential works. Hired-in plant limits and annual hire charge declarations are aligned to typical contract values. Restrictive timber frame sub-limits were removed or adjusted to suit current projects. We also provided clear recommendations for Management Liability and Cyber cover to strengthen resilience.
When insurance is not reviewed against live projects, critical gaps can appear. Mismatched descriptions, restrictive endorsements, or under-declared values can reduce or invalidate claims. A focused review improves the likelihood of fair settlements, fewer disputes, and a stronger negotiating position with insurers.
The client now has policies matched to real exposures and project scope, with a clear understanding of what is and is not covered. Accurate declarations and aligned wordings reduce the risk of claim challenges, while guidance on management and cyber risks supports long-term continuity.
Led by Andy Clarke, we combine more than 15 years of experience with access to a broad panel of leading insurers through the Movo Partnership. We listen first, explain options in plain English, and stand with you at claim time. Supporting Andy is Martin Bell, who brings strategic expertise and specialist support to complex placements.
