My Account
We compare quotes from leading insurers
RETROFIT INSURANCE FOR LEGACY PLANT, INTEGRATION RISK & COMMISSIONING DISPUTES
Why Retrofit & Modification Projects Create “Grey-Area” Claims
Retrofits and upgrades are where projects most often fail: you’re interfacing with legacy machinery, undocumented modifications, ageing assets, and site constraints that don’t exist on a clean-sheet install. When something goes wrong, the dispute is rarely just about a broken part — it’s about responsibility, scope creep, acceptance tests, and whether performance meets the agreed spec.
Insurers and underwriters assess retrofit risk differently to new build. They’ll want to see how you manage unknowns: pre-works surveys, isolation and method statements, design review discipline, change control, testing and commissioning plans, and who “owns” safety validation.
This page explains common retrofit loss scenarios, the insurance gaps that catch businesses out, and how Insure24 helps you align Professional Indemnity, Contract Works and Liability cover with real-world retrofit exposures.
What Insurance Can Apply to Retrofit, Upgrade & Modification Work?
Retrofit risk is rarely solved by one policy. Most projects involve a blend of professional services (design/specification), physical works (installation/commissioning) and third-party exposures (injury/property damage). The “right” structure depends on your scope, contract terms, and what you are touching on the existing plant.
Cover is always subject to policy terms, conditions, exclusions and definitions — and the biggest value comes from matching the policy triggers to realistic retrofit failure modes.
- Professional Indemnity (PI) — design/specification/advice and errors & omissions exposures (claims-made; wording dependent).
- Contract Works / Erection All Risks — sudden physical loss/damage during installation and commissioning (scope dependent).
- Public & Products Liability — third-party injury or property damage arising from your operations or supplied components (wording dependent).
- Care, Custody & Control — where you work on customer assets and need clarity around “damage to property worked on” (policy dependent).
- Tools/Plant & hired-in equipment — cover for your own or hired equipment used to execute the retrofit.
- Motor / goods in transit — where retrofit components, panels or modules move between sites.
- Cyber / OT exposure — where controls, remote access, PLC code and backups create an additional loss pathway (policy dependent).
- Delay / penalties reality check — many pure financial losses, LDs and “delay-only” costs are not insured unless specifically addressed.
Common Retrofit & Modification Loss Scenarios
Underwriters want to understand how failure happens in retrofit environments and how you prevent a small issue becoming a major dispute. Typical scenarios include:
- Legacy plant interface failure — undocumented wiring, obsolete parts, unknown modifications causing integration faults.
- Commissioning instability — intermittent trips, tuning issues, sensor noise or control loop interactions delaying handover.
- Safety validation dispute — disagreement on guarding, interlocks, CE/UKCA obligations or performance level expectations.
- Performance shortfall — throughput, cycle time, tolerances or energy usage not meeting specification after upgrade.
- Damage to existing plant — accidental damage during works, lifting operations, hot works or energisation.
- Software/PLC change error — wrong version control, inadequate backups, or logic changes leading to downtime or damage.
- Change control breakdown — scope creep and undocumented variations escalating to contractual claims.
- Third-party property damage — utilities failure, leakage, arcing or process upset causing collateral damage beyond your work scope.
What Underwriters Look For (and How to Improve Terms)
Retrofit and modification risk is priced on uncertainty, workmanship controls and dispute likelihood. The best outcomes come from clear scope definition, disciplined engineering governance, and evidence that you manage interfaces with legacy plant safely.
Key appetite and pricing drivers
Scope (design vs install vs commissioning), type of machinery, safety-critical functions, access to legacy documentation, method statements, downtime exposure, contract terms (caps/LDs/acceptance), and how you manage software and change control.
Examples of “quote-ready” evidence
- Scope & responsibility map — what you design, supply, install and commission (and what the client retains).
- Site survey & assumptions — documented legacy conditions, unknowns, and dependencies you’ve flagged.
- RAMS / method statements — isolation, lifting, hot works, energisation and permit-to-work controls.
- Testing & acceptance plan — FAT/SAT, performance tests, tolerances, sign-off steps and evidence retention.
- Safety governance — guarding, interlocks, validation approach, and compliance responsibilities.
- Software control — backups, version control, remote access controls and rollback plans.
- Change control — variation process, client approvals, and impact tracking on time/cost/performance.
- Claims/dispute narrative — any prior issues and what you changed to reduce recurrence.
Common Gaps: Where Retrofit Projects Get Caught Out
Retrofit disputes often happen because the contract and insurance triggers don’t match the real-world failure pathway. You can have “cover” on paper, but still face large uninsured costs if scope, responsibility and exclusions are not aligned.
Typical pitfalls we help you avoid
The most common issues are uninsured rework, “damage to property worked on” problems, unclear commissioning triggers, and contract clauses that create uninsurable obligations.
- Assuming delay is insured — pure delay, LDs and penalties are commonly excluded unless explicitly structured.
- Property worked on — damage to the item you’re modifying can be excluded without the right liability/CCC position.
- Unclear acceptance tests — “works not accepted” becomes a dispute about performance and responsibility.
- Fitness-for-purpose language — can create liability beyond negligence and outside PI coverage.
- Legacy condition assumptions — undocumented site issues invalidate schedules and cause blame-shifting.
- Software exclusions — some wordings limit cyber/software triggers unless addressed properly.
- Inadequate limits — retrofit projects can create outsized claims relative to contract value if downtime is severe.
- Late notification — claims-made PI policies require disciplined notification and continuity management.
How to Arrange Retrofit, Upgrade & Modification Insurance
- 1. Confirm your scope — design vs supply vs install vs commissioning, and what you touch on existing plant.
- 2. Share contracts & acceptance — LDs, caps, exclusions, FAT/SAT and sign-off criteria.
- 3. Evidence controls — RAMS, permits, isolation procedures and governance over high-risk activities.
- 4. Align policies — PI, liability and contract works triggers mapped to realistic retrofit loss pathways.
- 5. Document and review — ensure schedules, territories and endorsements reflect how you actually work.
“The upgrade itself was fine — the dispute was about acceptance tests and who owned legacy wiring assumptions. Insure24 helped us evidence scope, change control and commissioning governance so insurers could quote sensibly and we could defend the project position.”
Operations Director, Automation & Retrofit ContractorPROTECT YOUR BUSINESS
- Specialist advice for retrofit, upgrade and modification projects in live industrial environments
- Support aligning PI, liability and contract works triggers to real commissioning loss scenarios
- Help evidencing surveys, RAMS, safety validation and change control for underwriters
- Guidance on acceptance tests, scope clarity, and contract clauses that drive disputes
- Fast, knowledgeable broking for complex manufacturing and engineering-led businesses
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
+-
Why are retrofit projects harder to insure than new installations?
Because retrofits involve legacy conditions, unknown modifications and shared responsibility with existing plant. Disputes often arise at commissioning and acceptance tests, so insurance must be aligned to realistic triggers and contract wording (policy dependent).
+-
Does PI cover retrofit design or specification errors?
It can, where allegations relate to negligence in professional services (design/specification/advice), but PI is claims-made and coverage is wording dependent. Pure contractual performance guarantees or fitness-for-purpose obligations may be restricted.
+-
Does contract works cover damage to existing machinery being modified?
Not always. Contract works typically focuses on the contract works value (new materials/works) and physical damage during the project. Damage to existing plant can be complex and may require specific structuring (policy dependent).
+-
Are delay costs or liquidated damages covered if commissioning overruns?
Often no. Delay-only losses, penalties and LDs are commonly excluded unless explicitly addressed. The focus is on aligning insurance triggers and contract terms so you don’t carry uninsurable obligations.
+-
What do insurers need to quote retrofit and modification risk?
Scope and responsibility split, contracts and acceptance criteria, surveys and assumptions, RAMS/permit controls, testing and validation plans, change control process, and claims/dispute history with evidence of improvements.
+-
How quickly can Insure24 arrange cover for retrofit projects?
Indicative terms can often be progressed quickly once scope, contracts, method statements and testing plans are clear. Complex sites or safety-critical modifications may require deeper underwriting — we’ll streamline this with the right information upfront.