While the eco-credentials for mass timber (or engineered wood products) are clear, they will continue to be perceived by insurers as a risky product. Mass timber has a degree of inherent fire resistance which can be enhanced with appropriate design and engineering, but it is nevertheless a combustible product and where disaster strikes can lead to catastrophic consequences and total loss. It is also susceptible to water damage, mould and rot. The frequency of damp or water ingress events is high. Care must be taken to ensure appropriate protection from exposure to weather during transit, site storage and indeed during the construction phase itself. As a relatively new material for large scale projects, knowledge and understanding of the properties and performance of mass timber is a developing science. Mistakes in design and installation are occurring. Further, the absence of historical data on the repair and replacement of mass timber structures makes underwriting challenging for insurers. Yet mass timber is a strong and sustainable product, and its use can be cost-efficient. Looking forward, education, training and data is needed to support the adoption of mass timber and to move away from carbon-intensive materials.

Claims against mechanical and electrical (M&E) consultants are likely to increase as greater demand for services and design creativity is required to address the effects of climate change. The UK experienced its hottest summer ever in 2025. Indeed, all five of the UK's warmest summers have occurred this century. Climate change is not on the way, it is already here, bringing with it an increased need for powerful cooling systems in both commercial and residential premises, whether new build or by way of refurbishment. Design parameters and capacity for such systems will need to adapt to the changing climate. We have already seen several large claims against M&E consultants for inadequate cooling (and heating) designs. We also predict that new building projects in the UK are likely to become subject to compulsory 'net zero' standards within the next few years. Currently, compliance with the UK Net Zero Carbon Building Standards is not obligatory, but it is unlikely to stay that way. This could well become an evolving source of claims against M&E engineers (and other construction professionals) operating in this space, given that litigation for failure to achieve net zero targets has already begun in other arenas.

The growing incorporation of technology in the construction industry and pressure to reduce energy wastage has led to increasing numbers of buildings utilising smart technology. Smart buildings include analytical tools which can predict the needs of those using the building and monitor parts and systems, flagging them for repair or maintenance. Sensors in a smart building's infrastructure can have a positive effect in terms of reducing energy usage and carbon emissions. However, smart buildings are challenging to design and build, often requiring sophisticated construction techniques and complex mechanical and electrical infrastructure which can lead to claims against the contractor and professional team if they do not meet requirements. Smart buildings are also more at risk from cyberattacks than legacy buildings: a hacker who gains access to a building's system can cause chaos.

There will be more building failures involving modular construction, the impact of which will be determined by whether and how insurers have used retained liability or series loss clauses. Modular construction was mooted as the future of construction – modules or 'pods' being parachuted onto site – enabling contractors to build quickly, often using environmentally friendly materials with cutting edge technology. The reality has often been that defects are simply replicated across site, which can be very expensive, especially if a defect only comes to light once the modules are integrated into a finished building. Insurers can limit their liability by using series loss clauses, which can be effective in these scenarios. Indeed, series loss clauses tend to be more useful than retained liability clauses, as these types of failures will often then be subject to a single excess.