Are you feeling overwhelmed by the immense level of practical knowledge your clients now require of you? Or do you feel confident both in your understanding of the risks facing your clients and their businesses, and in the products you have provided them with? Either way, it’s becoming increasingly apparent that clients are looking for bespoke products which fully cover them against all potential losses, particularly in niche markets such as railway-adjacent construction. In this week’s episode, we’re very pleased to be speaking with Dave Cahill and Steve Cox of Miller Insurance’s construction branch. In conversation with Boston Tullis’ Sarah Myerscough, they discuss the staggering minefield faced by both construction firms and their respective brokers and insurers with regard to certain projects; namely those involving construction over or nearby transport links. Despite the specific focus on contractor liability insurance, the discussion in this episode can be considered microcosmic for broader market trends which brokers and insurers alike should be taking into consideration.   Quote of the Episode ‘You really need to know your staff when you're talking about this kind of a risk.’ When dealing with very niche, bespoke products with minimal capacity, it is essential that brokers provide insurers with all the necessary information about the particular risk facing their client. To avoid incidents such as Tesco’s extensive pay-out to Chiltern Railways after failing to secure coverage from their insurer following infrastructural damage at a supermarket construction site, clients need products that can provide watertight protection against both potential damage and non-damage. This principle needs to be undertaken across the entire insurance market. As it gradually becomes increasingly geared towards extremely niche specialisms, brokers need to be equipped with the knowledge required to perform detailed, analytical risk assessments before presenting to insurers.   Key Takeaways This episode examining the 2005 case of Tesco v Constable, in which the former was denied an insurance pay-out following the collapse of a tunnel being built to accommodate the construction of a new supermarket in Gerrard’s Cross. Fortunately, no one was hurt, but the collapse caused a significant amount of damage to the track, and prevented the railway line from operating for several months. The track was the property of Network Rail, while Chiltern Railways was the train operator which had the right to use the rail infrastructure in the area under a track access agreement.   Prior to the start of the supermarket’s construction, Chiltern Railways demanded that Tesco enter a legal agreement that it would indemnify them for any losses arising from the project, to which the company agreed. Despite the fact that Chiltern did not own the damaged track, they sustained a substantial non-damage loss due to the closure of the line after the collapse of the tunnel. Tesco accepted that they were liable under the agreement and sought to recover the damages that they were obliged to pay under their agreement through their public liability insurance policy. This policy included a contractual liability provision. However, the insurer refused to pay, and the matter went to court, where it transpired that this particular policy provision only covered contractual liabilities that were also coexistent in tort (i.e., entailing substantial damage to property). As the damaged property did not belong to Chiltern Railways, with whom Tesco agreed the contract, the insurer could decline the claim. This forced Tesco to pay for both the damaged property and the non-damage of Chiltern’s lost business themselves.   This highlights the profound importance of providing clients with iron-clad policies to protect them against potential indemnity, especially if they are involved in binding liability contracts as in this case. For example