Professional indemnity exposure sits behind almost every specification decision an architect makes on a project, even when it is rarely discussed openly in a design team meeting. A frequent question from specifiers considering a non-penetrative balustrade system for the first time is whether choosing an unfamiliar product increases that exposure, given the apparent comfort of a well-established penetrative detail with decades of precedent behind it and, on the face of it, a longer track record to point to if something goes wrong.
Why familiarity is not the same as reduced risk
The honest answer, based on how PI claims investigations actually work, is that exposure tends to follow documentation, not familiarity with the product category. A specifier who selects a well-established penetrative fixing but cannot produce structural calculations, certification evidence or a clear paper trail showing why that detail was appropriate for the specific project carries more exposure than one who specifies something newer with a complete evidence file behind it. Insurers and PI claims investigators, when they do look closely at a specification decision after an issue arises, are generally looking for evidence that a reasonable process was followed at the time, not evidence that the most commonly used product on the market was the one chosen.
What an insurer or claims investigator actually looks for
In practice, that means a structural calculation specific to the project’s loading and wind conditions, evidence that the specified product’s certification scope actually covers those conditions, and a record showing the specification was reviewed and signed off through the normal design process rather than defaulted to without consideration. A specification decision that can be reconstructed clearly after the fact, showing what was chosen, why, and on what evidence, is generally the strongest position a specifier can be in, regardless of which product category was ultimately selected.
The BalcoDeck evidence file
For BalcoDeck specifically, that evidence file typically includes the patent reference GB2636232, the relevant third-party certification covering structural and weathering performance, a project-specific structural calculation confirming the system suits the loading and wind conditions on that particular building, and a Certificate of Compliance confirming the fixing method actually used on site matched what was specified. Kept together as a single retained file, this gives a specifier a documented basis for the decision that exists independently of the product’s overall track record in the market, which matters most in the early years of any newer system’s adoption, before a long history of comparable projects exists to point to as precedent.
What this does not remove
None of this removes the underlying professional judgement a specifier has to exercise on every project, and no fixing method, established or new, removes the need for a project-specific structural check carried out by a competent engineer. But a complete, retained documentation trail is generally the strongest single factor in how defensible a specification decision looks after the fact, more significant in practice than which product category, penetrative or non-penetrative, was chosen in the first place.
