Risk conversations in the UK property market are no longer routine exchanges of exposure and premium. They have become more detailed, more evidential and, in many cases, more exacting.
For Gary Boome (pictured), of Renata Group, however, the shift is not about difficulty so much as depth. “I wouldn’t use the term ‘difficult’,” he said. “I would say they’ve become more in-depth.”
For brokers operating in property and property managing agent business, that distinction is significant. A building that might once have been presented and placed with limited interrogation is now subject to far closer scrutiny. Insurers expect granular clarity around construction, mitigation and management, and increasingly have the tools to validate what they are told.
“In the past, you could just ring up and say, ‘I’ve got a building, can you insure it?’ ‘Yes,’ and it’s done,” Boome said.
That approach reflects a different underwriting environment. Today, insurers have access to far more information, much of it available in real time. Clients, too, are more aware of the data attached to their own properties.
As a result, tolerance for uncertainty has narrowed. Following the Grenfell Tower fire, scrutiny around cladding and building materials intensified sharply, and generalised assurances are no longer sufficient.
“‘I don’t know’ isn’t a good enough answer anymore,” he said. “It is, ‘Well, you should know, or you need to go out and find that information.’”
Flood exposure presents a similar recalibration. Rather than relying solely on long-term statistical assumptions, insurers are increasingly asking what preventative measures are in place and how risk is being managed on the ground.
“If insurers can say, ‘Well, we see this as a high-risk flood area,’ they are now asking clients, ‘what are you doing to prevent it?’” he said.
This has introduced a more reciprocal dynamic. Clients want to understand whether investment in mitigation will influence premium, excess or scope of cover. According to Boome, stronger risk management is more likely to be reflected in the outcome.
In that context, the quality of the risk conversation plays a direct role in shaping placement.
Boome said clients are generally better informed than in previous years, but that awareness brings greater accountability.
Large freeholders with extensive portfolios, for example, are expected to understand precisely what they own and how those assets are exposed. “Whether they bought them on a piece of paper as a market years ago, they are expected to know what that property is, what is there,” he said.
Underwriting enquiries have expanded accordingly. What may once have required only a handful of questions can now involve detailed disclosure across construction, occupancy and risk management practices.
This reflects not only improved data visibility but also a shifting environmental backdrop. Areas historically unaffected by flooding are now experiencing it, altering long-held assumptions.
“They are getting far more in depth in that sense and really narrowing it down,” he said. The direction of travel is clear: precision is expected.
Beyond property-specific exposures, Boome pointed to the speed at which external developments now affect the UK market. Geopolitical events that might once have filtered through gradually can influence business conditions almost immediately, requiring businesses to demonstrate resilience rather than assume delayed impact.
Cyber risk has followed a comparable trajectory. “Even just five years ago, people said, ‘Oh, I don’t have a website, cyber doesn’t affect me,’” he said. “Well, now … everyone is now realising that actually cyber will affect them.”
Technology is embedded in daily operations, and exposure extends well beyond organisations with prominent digital footprints. In Boome’s view, cyber is increasingly treated as a core exposure, comparable to fire or flood.
Regulation has reinforced the need for transparency. Under frameworks such as Consumer Duty, brokers must highlight warranties, excesses and anomalies clearly and consistently.
This has clarified responsibilities across the distribution chain. Clients have a duty to disclose material information. Brokers must communicate insurer expectations accurately. Insurers, in turn, are required to articulate those expectations transparently.
Boome acknowledged that some still approach placement primarily through the lens of price. However, he believes the emphasis is shifting toward the substance of the underlying risk discussion.
“Some people might see the placement as transactional still, where price is king,” he said. “But I think it’s more coming down to the conversations that people are having to build the risk, to identify it all.”
For insurers, a well-prepared submission signals understanding and intent. For clients, clearer expectations provide greater predictability around terms and outcomes.
“It gives the insurer some clarity and control, so that they can really gel, and everyone’s singing from the same hymn sheet,” he said.
As climate volatility, cyber exposure and regulatory scrutiny continue to evolve, risk conversations are unlikely to revert to a lighter-touch model. For brokers, the differentiator increasingly lies in their ability to navigate that depth, and to ensure clients are prepared for it before placement begins.
