AI liability in healthcare: Important updates from the UK jurisdiction taskforce

The UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, chaired by the Master of the Rolls, is shortly due to publish a Legal Statement on Liability for AI Harms, following consultation earlier in 2026. For health insurers and medical defence organisations, it may be one of the most consequential regulatory developments of the year.

What is happening?

The statement will address liability for both physical and economic harm caused by autonomous AI systems and has already confirmed that AI has no legal personality under the law of England and Wales.

The Law Society's Chief Executive, Ian Jeffrey, has welcomed the initiative stressing that it must be easier to prove legally what caused an AI harm and who should bear responsibility. He has also called for clearer guidance on how professional standards should adapt as AI tools become more widely used by practitioners.

Why this matters for health insurers and indemnifiers

We have previously written about the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" challenge facing clinicians as AI becomes embedded in healthcare practice - and about the particular tensions around the standard of care, informed consent, and policy silence on AI coverage. The forthcoming Legal Statement brings those issues into sharper focus.

The confirmation that AI has no legal personality under English and Welsh law, combined with the Law Society's call for clearer mechanisms for proving what caused an AI harm, signals that the question of who bears responsibility when AI goes wrong is now being addressed at the highest levels.

For health insurers and indemnifiers, that is a significant development. As AI tools are increasingly used for diagnostics, triage, radiology interpretation, and decision support across both the NHS and private sectors, the legal consequences of that adoption are beginning to crystallise. Courts will need to assess whether relying on AI advice was logically defensible under the Bolam and Bolitho tests - and equally, whether failing to deploy available AI tools was itself a departure from an acceptable standard of care.

The live issues for insurers and indemnifiers

• Policy wording: Most policies were drafted before the current wave of AI adoption. Whether AI-related harms fall within existing cover remains, in many cases, genuinely uncertain. Some insurers are now addressing AI expressly - by exclusion or affirmative cover - but many policies remain silent. That silence is itself an exposure.
• Cause and accountability: The Legal Statement is expected to bring greater clarity on where liability sits as between healthcare providers, AI developers, and regulators. Until it does, the allocation of responsibility in AI-related claims remains unresolved.
• Informed consent: As we have previously noted, patients must be made aware of AI involvement in their care. Failure to do so carries consent-related risk — an area where claim volumes can grow quickly once patient awareness increases.

What should insurers and indemnifiers do now?

• Review policy wording for AI coverage and make a deliberate decision - affirmative cover or exclusion - rather than leaving the position to chance.

• Issue proactive guidance to members and insureds, reminding clinicians to notify their indemnifier of AI usage in practice and to document the basis on which AI-generated advice was accepted or departed from.

• Monitor the Legal Statement closely and assess its implications and prospective policy terms as soon as it is published.

• Stay ahead of the regulatory framework - the government's proposed focus on transparency, accountability, mandatory human oversight, and auditing for bias will shape the backdrop against which future negligence claims are assessed.

By addressing these areas, hospitals and clinicians can make the most of AI’s benefits while minimising risks and maintaining high standards of patient care. 

At Browne Jacobson, our dedicated specialist teams are equipped to support organisations with a comprehensive range of services, including policy reviews, claims management, and the resolution of coverage disputes.