The legal rules around employers’ liability insurance (ELI) for self-employed workers create significant uncertainty. While the distinction between employees and freelancers appears clear on paper, the reality often depends on how much operational control a business maintains over those it engages. This control determines whether ELI coverage becomes mandatory, even when workers are formally classified as independent contractors.
ELI requirements hinge on two core criteria: the worker’s classification and the nature of their engagement. For labour-only subcontractors—those dependent on the business for tools, uniforms, or direct supervision—ELI is compulsory. These individuals are treated as employees for insurance purposes, regardless of their contractual status. The business assumes responsibility for their safety and well-being while they perform work on-site or use company resources.
In contrast, a bona fide subcontractor operates with full independence. They provide their own equipment, set their own schedules, and are not subject to daily oversight. Such workers typically carry their own insurance and can delegate tasks to others. In these cases, ELI is not required, unless the business exerts enough control to obscure the freelance relationship.
On-site work triggers mandatory coverage
The physical setting of work also influences coverage obligations. Where individuals work is important too, if they work remotely then you don’t need insurance. If you tell them to come and work on-site and use your equipment, then you do. Be careful about this. If they become unwell from ill-positioned equipment, for example, they could make a claim against you.
Recent legal cases involving Uber and Deliveroo drivers have exposed these gray areas. Courts frequently assess whether businesses treat workers like employees in practice, even when legal classifications differ. Gareth Matthews, a partner at MLP Law, highlights that many businesses incorrectly assume freelancers are truly independent when, in reality, tight control blurs the lines. “The issue comes from the fact that employment status is very rarely black and white,” he said. “Small businesses might use what they term ‘freelancers’, but they might be exerting more control over them than they think. By doing that, they’re blurring the lines.”
Non-compliance with ELI requirements carries severe financial and legal consequences. Businesses without proper coverage face fines of up to £2,500 per day until the policy is secured. Additionally, failing to display the ELI certificate or refusing to provide it to inspectors incurs an extra £1,000 penalty. Beyond fines, non-compliance increases exposure to legal challenges, as tribunals may reinterpret worker status based on actual working conditions rather than contractual labels.
Read Also: Sole traders allowed to hire staff
The minimum ELI coverage is set at £5 million, though larger businesses often purchase higher limits to account for greater risks. Policies must be obtained from authorized insurers, and many businesses rely on brokers to ensure compliance.
Businesses cutting insurance risk legal backlash
Research from Smart Money People shows that 14% of businesses with 50–249 employees have reduced or dropped ELI this year, while 9% have eliminated it entirely.
Family businesses that only employ close family members (if they’re not incorporated as limited companies) are exempt, as are businesses with employees who are based abroad. Sole employee businesses don’t need insurance either – that is, unless it’s requested by clients or they own less than 50 per cent of the shares in their company. Limited companies will need employers’ liability if there’s more than one director.
The risks of misclassification extend beyond financial penalties. Minal Backhouse, director of Backhouse Solicitors, warns that businesses without ELI face reputational harm, particularly when working with public sector clients. “Businesses that do not put Employers’ Liability Insurance in place are taking a financial and reputational big risk,” she says. “There is a risk that other companies may not want or be able to deal with a company that does not have Employers’ Liability Insurance, potentially affecting the future earnings of the business.
This is particularly true when supplying public sector organisations. There is also a reputational risk. If an employer does not want to protect itself and its people, then what does that say about the kind of company it is? Not only is Employers’ Liability Insurance required by law, but companies should want to do the right thing.”
Leave a Reply