BIMINAM INSURANCE WORKSTREAM MEETING, 18-05-2026
Date: 18 May 2026
(Summary primarily based on the transcript, with supporting insights from the chat discussion)
Purpose of the Session
This inaugural BIMinAM Insurance Workstream meeting explored how structured asset information, the Golden Thread and digital assurance processes could improve:
- insurance risk assessment
- competency assurance
- compliance visibility
- lifecycle accountability
- and ultimately the insurability of buildings and projects.
The discussion brought together professionals from insurance, risk management, digital construction, asset management, compliance and AI/data engineering.
Key Themes & Discussion Points
- Insurance as a driver for better information
A major theme throughout the session was that insurers could become a powerful lever for improving information quality and compliance.
Participants discussed how:
- insurance premiums are currently often based on incomplete information
- poor visibility of risk leads to higher premiums
- better asset information and transparency could improve underwriting decisions
The group explored the idea that:
projects delivering higher-quality, validated information should be viewed as lower risk and therefore potentially attract more favourable insurance terms.
- Integrated Project Insurance (IPI) and collaboration
George Stevenson introduced earlier work on Integrated Project Insurance (IPI), where:
- one project insurance policy covers the whole team
- participants do not carry separate PI policies
- the model encourages collaboration rather than risk transfer
The discussion highlighted how traditional PI structures often:
- isolate responsibilities
- create fragmented workflows
- introduce gaps between parties
Participants recognised that many failures occur:
in the gaps between responsibilities.
- The Golden Thread as an insurance data source
A strong consensus emerged that the Golden Thread should become:
- a structured evidence base for insurers
- a way to assess competence, compliance and risk
- a mechanism for improving trust in project information
Discussions focused on:
- what level of information insurers actually need
- how data should be structured
- how information should evolve throughout the lifecycle
Several speakers stressed that:
asset information should begin before design starts and continue through operation, maintenance and handback.
- Competency and accountability concerns
Participants repeatedly highlighted concerns around:
- inconsistent competency management
- lack of standardised Gateway reporting
- fragmented supply chain accountability
- weak oversight of project-level competence
Mark O’Reilly explained that current competency frameworks and reporting structures remain inconsistent and immature, particularly under the Building Safety Act regime.
A recurring point was that:
clients cannot contract out their legal responsibilities.
- Project IRIS and insurer-led standardisation
Dr Bola Abisogun presented work on Project IRIS, an initiative under the nima IMI programme.
The objective is to create:
- a standardised insurance data exchange framework
- consistent underwriting inputs
- structured information requirements for insurers
Key aims include:
- enabling insurers to assess risk more consistently
- improving visibility of material changes during projects
- embedding Golden Thread principles into insurance workflows.
- Grenfell, visibility and material change
Grenfell Tower was repeatedly referenced as an example of:
- inadequate visibility of material changes
- fragmented information flows
- failures in oversight and assurance
The discussion highlighted that insurers often lacked visibility of:
- specification changes
- compartmentation issues
- evolving risks during construction
Participants argued that:
insurers need access to structured, real-time project information if they are to assess risk meaningfully.
- Risk transfer versus risk understanding
A major debate focused on the difference between:
- transferring risk contractually
versus - actually understanding and managing risk.
Several participants argued that current procurement and contractual models:
- encourage delegation of responsibility
- weaken accountability
- and obscure ownership of risk.
The group discussed how structured information and lifecycle traceability could help clarify:
- who is responsible
- what decisions were made
- and what evidence exists to support compliance.
- AI, metadata and digital provenance
Tim Aikin demonstrated practical examples of using:
- AI
- metadata
- automated tagging
- ontology and taxonomy structures
to improve information provenance and traceability.
Examples included:
- metadata-rich photographic evidence
- automatic location tagging
- GDPR-aware image processing
- traceable audit trails embedded within files.
The discussion reinforced that:
provenance and traceability reduce uncertainty and therefore reduce risk.
- Insurance market limitations and realities
Gary Watts provided a strong insurance-market perspective, highlighting:
- the withdrawal of insurers from PI markets
- soft market conditions
- inconsistent underwriting methodologies
- concerns over insurer appetite for construction-related liabilities.
Examples were shared where:
- buildings with significant defects were still insured
- insurers may later reject claims based on inaccurate declarations or non-conformities
This reinforced concerns around:
- poor visibility
- weak assurance processes
- and unreliable declarations.
- Need for insurer engagement and industry collaboration
A key conclusion was that meaningful change will require:
- direct involvement of insurers and brokers
- standardised data requirements
- cross-industry collaboration
- and clearer expectations around competency and information quality.
The group agreed that:
insurance could become one of the strongest drivers for improving Golden Thread delivery and lifecycle accountability.
Key Insights from the Chat
Additional points raised in the chat included:
- concerns about lack of progress photos and poor metadata tagging for fire stopping records
- calls for guidance documents explaining sufficiency of insurance to clients and resident organisations
- discussion around whether insurance claims are more commonly caused by poor design or poor workmanship
- recognition that skills gaps persist because competency requirements are not clearly defined across the sector.
Overall Conclusion
The session highlighted a growing recognition that insurance, asset information and competency management are becoming increasingly interconnected.
The discussion reinforced that future insurance models may depend on:
- structured Golden Thread information
- validated lifecycle data
- competency assurance
- transparent change control
- and clearer accountability across the supply chain.
While participants acknowledged significant industry fragmentation and market challenges, there was strong agreement that insurers could become a major catalyst for improving information quality, compliance and risk management across the built environment sector.