Home / Kitchen Extraction Cleaning / Guide
Kitchen extraction - insurance
After a kitchen fire, the question is not only what happened but whether you did what your policy required. Many commercial policies now tie cover to how the extract system was cleaned - and a claim can turn on records you either have or you do not.
The short answer
Many commercial kitchen insurance policies now contain conditions requiring the extract system to be cleaned to a recognised standard, usually TR19, with documented evidence - dates, areas covered, and proof that issues found were addressed. After a fire, insurers investigate whether those conditions were met, and a claim can be refused where they were not - even if a cleaning contractor had been used but the work or records fell short. The records are as much a part of the cover as the cleaning.
Why the extract
To an insurer covering a food business, the kitchen extract is one of the sharpest fire risks on the premises, because grease building up in the ductwork and fan is combustible material running through the building. Fire in commercial kitchens is a well-understood and costly hazard, and the extract system is central to it. So when an insurer assesses or prices the fire risk of a food business, the condition and maintenance of the extract system is exactly the kind of thing they care about - it is a known, controllable risk they expect to see managed.
That is why the extract features so prominently in the conditions insurers attach to commercial kitchen policies. Rather than simply hoping the risk is controlled, insurers increasingly write the control into the policy - requiring the system to be cleaned properly and the cleaning to be evidenced. The grease fire risk is too significant and too manageable for them to leave to chance, so they make managing it a condition of the cover. Understanding that is the key to understanding what they look for.
The policy conditions
The conditions themselves are increasingly specific. Many commercial kitchen policies now require the complete extraction system to be cleaned regularly to a recognised standard - usually TR19, the BESA specification for managing fire risk in kitchen extract - rather than just wiped over. Alongside the cleaning, they typically require documented evidence of it: records showing the dates of cleaning and the areas covered, so there is a clear, dated history of the system being maintained to the standard.
Crucially, the conditions often go further and require evidence that any issues found during cleaning were addressed. If a cleaning report flags an area that could not be reached, or a part that needs attention, insurers expect to see that dealt with - not left flagged and ignored. This reflects how thoroughly the requirement is meant: it is not enough to have the system cleaned, it must be cleaned to the standard, documented, and any shortcomings acted on. The whole regime is written to ensure the risk is genuinely controlled, not just nominally serviced.
After a fire
The conditions matter most at the moment a claim is made. After a fire, insurers investigate whether the policy conditions were actually met - and for a kitchen fire, that means examining how the extract system was cleaned and maintained. They will look at whether the system was cleaned to the required standard and frequency, whether the documented evidence exists, and, tellingly, whether areas highlighted as uncleaned or inaccessible in previous cleaning reports were addressed. The investigation is specifically checking compliance with what the policy required.
The consequence is serious: where the conditions were not met, a claim can be refused. And this can happen even where a cleaning contractor had been employed - if the work did not meet the required standard, or the system was not fully cleaned, or the records do not evidence it, the fact that someone was paid to clean it is not enough. The policy required a particular outcome, documented; falling short of it, whoever was involved, can leave the business without the cover it thought it had, facing the cost of a fire on its own.
What it means for the business
The practical lesson is that, for a food business, cleaning the extract properly and keeping the evidence are not two things but one, because the insurer treats them together. Having the system cleaned to TR19 on an adequate frequency protects against the fire; keeping the dated records, and acting on anything the reports flag, protects the claim if a fire happens anyway. Neglect either and the cover is exposed - a clean with no records is nearly as weak, at claim time, as no clean at all.
So a business should treat the cleaning records as part of its insurance, not administrative clutter. That means using cleaning that meets the recognised standard, on a frequency the policy accepts, with proper reports showing dates and areas; and it means following up on anything the reports identify, so there is no flagged-but-ignored area for an insurer to seize on. Done that way, the cleaning both controls the fire risk and stands up if the cover is ever tested - which is exactly what the policy conditions are there to ensure.
The takeaway
Insurers assess the fire risk of a food business with the extract system squarely in view, and increasingly they write the control of that risk into the policy - requiring cleaning to a recognised standard, usually TR19, with documented evidence and proof that any findings were addressed. After a fire, they investigate whether those conditions were met, and a claim can be refused where they were not, even if a contractor was used.
For the business, that makes proper cleaning and proper records a single, joined-up duty: clean the system to the standard on an adequate frequency, keep the dated evidence, and act on what the reports flag. Do that and the cover holds; neglect the standard or the paperwork and it may not, whoever did the cleaning. The extract records are not filing - they are part of the insurance, and worth keeping as carefully as the policy itself.
Questions
Many commercial policies require the complete extraction system to be cleaned to a recognised standard, usually TR19, with documented evidence - dates and areas covered - and proof that any issues found during cleaning were addressed.
Yes, where the policy conditions were not met. After a fire, insurers investigate whether the extract was cleaned to the required standard and documented - and a claim can be refused if it was not, even where a cleaning contractor had been used.
Because the policy requires a particular outcome, documented. If the work did not meet the standard, the system was not fully cleaned, or the records do not evidence it, the fact that someone was paid to clean it is not enough on its own to satisfy the condition.
Documented evidence of cleaning - the dates it was done and the areas covered - and evidence that anything flagged in cleaning reports, such as uncleaned or inaccessible areas, was addressed rather than left ignored.
Whether the policy conditions were met - how the system was cleaned and maintained, whether the required standard and frequency were followed, whether the records exist, and whether areas previously flagged as uncleaned or inaccessible were dealt with.
Effectively, yes. The insurer treats the cleaning and the evidence together - a clean with no records is nearly as weak at claim time as no clean at all. Keeping the dated reports and acting on findings protects the claim as much as the cleaning protects against the fire.
We clean extract systems to TR19 and give you the dated records and noted findings your policy requires - so your cover holds if a fire is ever investigated.
