The Sky is the limit: Developments in relation to damage under CAR policies
On 16 December 2024 the Court of Appeal delivered judgment in the case of (1) Sky UK Ltd and (2) Mace Limited vs Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd and Others, a decision which will provide welcome clarity to the construction community, as well as being of interest to the insurance market more widely in terms of its analysis of the nature of an indemnity policy. The judgment discusses a number of important points, notably the rights of insured parties under a Construction All Risks (“CAR”) policy to recover in respect of “deterioration and development damage” which occurred after the policy period as a result of damage which had occurred during the policy period.
The factual background
The claims were in respect of extensive water damage to the roof of Sky's global headquarters building in West London, which was constructed for Sky in 2014 to 2016 by Mace as main contractor under a JCT 2011 Design and Build Contract dated 17 March 2014. Sky and Mace were named insureds under the Policy.
The roof was comprised of 472 wooden cassettes, into a substantial number of which water had entered before final waterproofing had taken place and had remained for periods of construction, leading to wetting and, so Sky and Mace alleged, irreversible swelling and structural decay by the end of the period of insurance (or “POI”, which ran from commencement of the project to one year after practical completion).
In the period between expiry of the POI and the drying out works (which arrested any further damage) the condition of the timber already damaged had worsened, and moisture had spread to other parts of the roof construction. The Court of Appeal termed these types of damage as “deterioration damage”; i.e. damage, such as further swelling, in parts of the timber already damaged, and “development damage”; i.e. damage to additional, previously undamaged timber by way of spread.
It is important to note, as the Court of Appeal stated, that the vast majority of water ingress had occurred during the POI and there was little, if any, ingress after the POI. Secondly, there was no allegation by the defendant insurers that Sky or Mace had failed to mitigate their loss prior to the hearing, given the complexity of designing, agreeing and implementing a remedial scheme.
The underlying decision
In the underlying decision, HHJ Pelling held that Sky was only entitled to damage which had occurred during the POI, and not development or deterioration damage which occurred thereafter. In reaching this decision, the Judge relied on the House of Lords decision in Wasa International Insurance Co Ltd v Lexington Insurance Co [2009] and statements in that decision that in a policy covering losses occurring during a policy period, the cover does not extend to damage occurring before or after the policy period.
The Judge had found that the entry of moisture into the cassettes during the POI was a tangible physical change to the cassettes as long as the presence of water, if left unremedied, would affect the structural strength, stability or functionality of the cassettes during the POI.
The arguments on appeal
All of the parties were granted permission to appeal on numerous grounds, but in this article we discuss the primary point of contention, which was whether Sky could claim for deterioration and development damage.
On this point, the cover identified in the insuring clause of the policy was in respect of “damage to Property Insured occurring during the Period of Insurance” and insurers argued that damage occurring after the POI was not covered. Insurers relied on the decision in Wasa as authority for the proposition that, under “time policies”, the cover is in respect of damage occurring during the period of cover, and not occurring before or after.
In summary, Sky and Mace’s arguments in reply were that:
- An insurance claim is a claim for unliquidated damages and, as such, the measure of recovery is for all the loss suffered by reason of the insured peril occurring during the POI, including loss caused after the POI.
- The Policy contained a Basis of Settlement clause, as below, and the measure of recovery contended for was supported by the underlined words in the clause:
“Basis of Settlement
In settlement of claims under this Section of the Contract of Insurance the Insurers shall, subject to the terms and conditions of the Contract of Insurance, indemnify the Insured on the basis of the full cost of repairing, reinstating or replacing property lost or damaged (including the costs of any additional operational testing, commissioning as a result of the physical loss or damage which is indemnifiable hereunder) even though such costs may vary from the original construction costs …."
The Court of Appeal decision
Development and deterioration damage
Lord Justice Popplewell delivered the leading judgment, which was rooted in the principle, long established in the authorities, that a contract of insurance is a contract of indemnity, often described as a contract to hold someone harmless. Such a contract was not, however, a promise by the insurer to pay money upon the happening of the insured event, but rather a promise to hold harmless, i.e. a promise that the insured will not suffer the damage in the first place. This promise to hold harmless was the insurer’s primary obligation and, when breached, it was under a secondary obligation to pay damages for breach of the primary obligation.
In light of this, damages payable under an insurance policy fell to be assessed on the basis of established common law principles as to foreseeability, remoteness and mitigation that applied to any other contract; namely damages to put the innocent party in the position it would have been but for the breach, subject to express terms in the policy modifying the general position (e.g. limits or deductibles, exclusions such as for consequential loss or if caused by certain perils), but only if such modification was excluded by clear wording.
Lord Justice Popplewell found that the temporal limit in the insuring clause was insufficiently clear to modify the ordinary rule that insurers were liable to pay the reasonably foreseeable costs of remedying development and deterioration damage.
This conclusion was supported by the wording of the Basis of Settlement clause.
Further, Lord Justice Popplewell found that the authorities, including the House of Lords’ decision in Wasa was distinguishable on the facts, predominantly because it did not relate to development or deterioration damage of the type suffered in this case.
Investigation Costs
Mace also claimed the costs of “lifting the lid”, namely the upper surface of the cassettes in the roof upslope above the gutters, as reasonable investigation costs. The trial Judge, at first instance, denied these costs as being recoverable under the Policy and characterised them as “speculative opening up works”. Additionally, the Judge found that any investigation costs not revealing physical damage would not be recoverable under the CAR Policy.
Nevertheless, based on the normal common law principles that apply to contractual damages claim, aimed at putting the innocent party back in the position it was before the breach (to hold harmless), the Court of Appeal found that reasonable costs of investigation were recoverable if they were reasonably incurred in determining how to remediate the insured damage which has occurred. This was the case, even if the result of the investigation may be to identify the absence of damage in certain areas.
Meaning of physical damage
On a separate point, the Court of Appeal also rejected insurers’ appeal in relation to the meaning of “damage”, and upheld the trial Judge’s findings that damage meant any change to the physical nature of tangible property which impaired its value or usefulness to its owner or operator. There was no need for the physical change to compromise the performance of an individual cassette, as insurers argued.
Retained Liability
The Policy contained a deductible (or “Retained Liability”) of £150,000 “any one event but this will only apply to those claims which are recoverable under DE5…”. It was common ground that the claim was recoverable under DE5 by reason of defective design being a proximate cause, and the trial Judge had found therefore that a single deductible of £150,000 applied to the whole of the claim, as opposed to applying separately in respect of damage to each cassette.
The Court of Appeal also upheld the trial Judge’s findings on this point that, based on the long established authorities, an event refers to the cause of the damage, and not the damage itself, supported by the fact that the deductible was specifically linked to the cause of the loss being defective design.
Comment
As the Court of Appeal stated, on the principal point of contention, the fact that development and deterioration damage was recoverable, would accord with business common sense. In the context of a major construction claim, an insured party would reasonably expect to be compensated for the consequences of insured damage which occurred during the policy period, to a part of the works already damaged (deterioration) or to some other part of the building not yet damaged (development), after this period had expired, in the absence of any policy terms limiting recovery. This is especially so in relation to complex claims where a remediation scheme may not be finalised until sometime after expiry of the policy period, and where the state of the building may deteriorate in the meantime.
Of course, development or deterioration damage would be unlikely to be covered under a buildings policy, since this would exclude damage which first occurred prior to the building policy period, meaning the Court of Appeal judgment is crucial in helping insureds to transfer this risk to the insurance market.
The outcome is consistent with the approach taken in recent cases on non-damage business interruption claims, that provided the policy “trigger” occurs within the indemnity period, the totality of loss is covered including that which continued to be suffered after the policy period (UnipolSai Assicurazioni SPA v Covea Insurance plc [2024]).
The Court of Appeal decision will therefore be welcomed by employers and contractors alike. It remains to be seen whether permission to appeal to the Supreme Court is granted.
Authors
Camden Contribution Curtailed: TPRA 2010 Developments
Recent cases highlight potential difficulties for insurers in handling claims under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (“the TPRA”).
By way of reminder, the TPRA allows a third party claimant to pursue a recovery directly against an insolvent insured’s liability insurer, both to establish the insured’s liability to the claimant, and coverage under the policy, in the same action, without the need to join the insured to the proceedings. In relation to the underlying liability claim, the insurer is permitted to rely, as against the third party, on any defences that would have been available to the insolvent insured.
In Riedwig v HCC International Insurance plc & another [2024], the High Court (Master Brightwell) dismissed a liability insurer’s application to bring a Part 20 claim against the claimant’s professional advisors, seeking a contribution in respect of the insurer’s potential liability to the claimant under the TPRA.
The claim arose from alleged negligence by Goldplaza Berkeley Square Ltd (“Goldplaza”) in producing a valuation of property on Camden High Street. The claimant sought to recover her consequent losses from Goldplaza, and subsequently its professional indemnity insurers, HCC, following Goldplaza’s insolvency in 2021.
HCC applied to join the solicitors who had acted for the claimant on the original property transaction to the TPRA proceedings. The parties agreed that Goldplaza and the solicitors were potentially liable for the “same damage”, based on section 1 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 (“the CLCA”), which provides that:
“any person liable in respect of any damage suffered by another person may recover contribution from any other person liable in respect of the same damage (whether jointly with him or otherwise)”
However, the Court held that the insurer and the solicitors were not liable for the same damage. The insurer was potentially liable under the policy, while the solicitors were allegedly liable for financial loss resulting from the property transaction. Following Bovis Construction v Commercial Union [2001], approved by the House of Lords in Royal Brompton Hospital v Hammond [2002], “an insurer does not inflict damage on anyone … the only damage it is capable of inflicting is in refusing to meet its obligations under the policy of insurance”.
The Judge noted that the purpose of the TPRA is to enable a claimant to pursue an insurer directly in respect of the liability of its insured, and for the claimant to stand in the insured’s place for that purpose, not the insurer. The insurer does not become liable for damage caused by its insured, and the fact that the insured might have a contribution claim against third parties does not mean that the insurer also has that right.
Depending on the type and stage of insolvency proceedings, insurers may be able to apportion loss with third parties by a more convoluted route of joining the insolvent insured to TPRA proceedings (as HCC had intimated an intention to do) or else by way of subrogated recovery, after settling a policy claim. Alternatively, an assignment of the insured’s contribution rights could potentially be made to the insurer, through policy wording or subsequent agreement.
Liability insurers are generally required nowadays to take a more proactive approach to defence of litigation against an insolvent insured, since judgment in default may suffice to establish liability under the TPRA, even if it does not follow consideration on the merits of the underlying claim. This was confirmed by the Scottish Inner House, Court of Session, in the recent appeal decision Scotland Gas Networks plc v QBE [2024], upholding the first instance findings considered in our previous article.
While the intention behind the CLCA is to broaden the class of potential contributing parties, where a number of defendants share responsibility for a claimant’s loss, the ability of an insurer to seek contribution from third parties is limited in the context of TPRA claims.
Authors:
The F1: A closer look at the Bacardi principle and section 11 of the Insurance Act
The Facts
MOK Petro Energy FZC v Argo (No. 604) Limited, The F1 [2024] EWHC 1935 (Comm) concerned a cargo of 11,800 MT of 92 RON unleaded gasoline (“the Cargo”) that had been loaded onto the tanker F1 (“the Vessel”) in Sohar, Oman. The Cargo was insured under an all-risks marine open cover on the ICC(A) wording (“the Policy”).
The Cargo consisted of a blend of gasoline and methanol. The gasoline and methanol used for the Cargo were drawn from four shore tanks (two gasoline, two methanol). They were loaded onto the Vessel via connecting pipelines and then blended in a tank on board the Vessel.
All gasoline-methanol blends have a phase separation temperature (PST), i.e., a temperature at or under which the blend will separate into a gasoline-rich upper layer and a methanol-rich lower layer. Phase separation is undesirable as phase-separated blends have a lower octane value and may damage the engine in which they are used. Put another way: the lower the PST, the better for the blend.
Also relevant is the fact that water increases the propensity of a gasoline-methanol blend to under phase separation. Unwanted water contamination therefore increases the PST of a blend.
The Cargo specifications, per the sale and purchase contract between MOK (the buyer) and PetroChina (the seller), required the Cargo to have a PST of 1°C or below. However, when the Vessel arrived at the discharge port, the Cargo was found to have a PST of 29°C. The Cargo was rejected by MOK’s end purchaser and ultimately sold by MOK to a salvage buyer. MOK claimed an indemnity under the Policy for the difference between (i) the value of the Cargo had it complied with specifications and (ii) the value at which it was actually sold.
Insurers declined the claim. In the ensuing trial, the Commercial Court upheld insurers’ declinature. While much of the judgment turned on the specific facts of the case, the Court’s findings on the following two issues carry wider implications for policyholders:
- Whether the mere fact that the Cargo had been defectively blended could constitute damage.
- How should a Court assess whether compliance with a warranty would reduce the risk of loss, as required under section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015.
Whether the mere fact of defective blending could constitute damage
Clause 1 of the ICC(A) wording provides that the insurance “covers all risks of loss of or damage to the subject-matter except as provided in Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below”.
A policyholder seeking to obtain cover under the ICC(A) wording must generally establish (i) a fortuitous event which (ii) caused loss or damage to the insured cargo. Insured cargo is damaged only where it undergoes an adverse change in physical state.
In this case, one of MOK’s arguments was that (i) PetroChina’s decision to blend the gasoline and methanol in the proportions actually used was fortuitous, and (ii) this blending caused damage by resulting in a product that had a propensity to phase separate at 17°C, which was higher than the contractually stipulated PST of 1°C (although the blend did not actually undergo phase separation).
The question that arose was – could the blend be regarded as damaged merely because it was defective from the moment of its creation? Dias J held that it could not as there had never been a change to the physical state of the blend. The facts were on all fours with the well-known Bacardi Breezers case: Bacardi-Martini Beverages Ltd v Thomas Hardy Packaging Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 549 (“Bacardi”).
- In Bacardi, a drinks manufacturer mixed cardon dioxide which it did not appreciate had been contaminated with benzene with water and concentrate to form light alcoholic drinks. Unsurprisingly, the contaminated drinks were unmarketable. The issue was whether there had been “physical damage” to the drinks for the purpose of a limitation of liability clause. The English Court of Appeal held that there had been no damage – the drinks had not been subject to damage, but were merely defective from the moment of their creation.
- Similarly, in the present case, the blend was formed through the mixing of gasoline and methanol, and had a propensity to phase separate from the moment of its creation. It had never existed without this propensity. Since there was no change in the physical state of the blend to speak of, it could not, held the Court, be said to have suffered damage.
How should a Court assess whether compliance with a warranty would reduce the risk of loss?
Section 11 of IA 2015 applies to (among others) warranties which, if complied with, would tend to reduce the risk of loss of a particular kind. The general effect of section 11 is that, where an insured has breached a warranty to which section 11 applies:
- if the insured can show that “the non-compliance with the warranty could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred”, per section 11(3); then
- the insurer would not be able to rely on the insured’s breach to exclude/limit/discharge its liability.
Put another way, section 11 obviates an insured’s breach of warranty where the warranty is not relevant to the insured’s actual loss.
In the present case, the Policy contained an express warranty requiring a surveyor to inspect and certify the connecting pipelines between the Vessel and the shore tanks. On the facts, MOK’s surveyor had done the former but not the latter. Accordingly, the Court found that MOK had not complied with the express warranty.
The issue then became whether section 11 negated MOK’s breach of warranty. This would be the case if MOK could show that “the non-compliance with the warranty could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred”.
MOK’s primary case had been that the blend had been fortuitously contaminated with water either when the gasoline and methanol were loaded onto the Vessel via connecting pipelines, or when they were blended on board the Vessel. This water contamination in turn increased the PST of the blend (see above). The Court therefore assumed, for the purposes of its section 11 analysis, that the “loss which actually occurred” was the contamination of the blend with water as alleged by MOK.
On the facts, MOK’s surveyor had inspected the pipelines and found no water contamination, but had not issued a certificate in respect of the inspection. Arguably, the requirement to issue a certificate (when an inspection had already been carried out and no trace of water contamination had been found) was a mere formality and the failure to issue a certificate could not have increased the risk of loss (water contamination). The question then arose – in considering whether “the non-compliance with the warranty could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred”:
- Should the Court consider only the effect of the particular breach of warranty committed by MOK (i.e., only the effect of its surveyor’s failure to issue a certificate)? If so, MOK’s breach arguably would not have increased the risk of water contamination, and MOK would be able to rely on section 11 to negate its breach of warranty.
- Alternatively, should the Court consider the effect of non-compliance with the warranty as a whole (i.e., the effect of both not inspecting and not certifying the pipelines)? If so, non-compliance with the warranty as a whole would probably have increased the risk of contamination, and MOK would not be able to rely on section 11.
Dias J preferred the second view, holding that section 11 was directed at the effect of compliance with the entire warranty and not with the consequences of the specific breach by the insured, and that paragraph 96 of the Explanatory Notes to IA 2015 supported this reading. Accordingly, MOK’s breach of warranty would have been fatal to its claim.
Implications for policyholders – English law
Neither of the findings discussed are policyholder-friendly.
That said, Dias J’s finding that the mere fact of defective blending cannot constitute damage intuitively accords with the reason why mere defects are not covered under all-risks insurance – namely, that all-risks insurance is not meant to guarantee the proper manufacture or construction of the property insured. A parallel can be drawn with construction all-risks policies, which typically do not cover the costs of rectifying defects in design or workmanship. Apart from this, the F1 is also significant for being the first case to explicitly endorse the applicability of Bacardi in an insurance context (Bacardi having been concerned with a dispute under a supply of goods contract).
As for section 11 of IA 2015, this case (as noted in an earlier article) is significant for being the decision to consider that section. That said, Dias J’s observations (i.e. that it is the effect of non-compliance with the entire warranty, rather than the insured’s particular breach, that should be taken into account) were obiter and it remains to be seen whether another Court would agree with her. In our view, notwithstanding Dias J’s observations, the use of the definitive article in section 11(3) (“the non-compliance”) might suggest on the contrary that it is the insured’s particular breach that should be looked at.
Implications for policyholders – Singapore Law
The authors – both of whom are APAC-based – will briefly consider the implications of this decision for Singapore law, a commonwealth jurisdiction whose law of insurance substantially reflects the English position prior to IA 2015.
There do not appear to be strong reasons why a Singapore Court would not consider Dias J’s findings on the issue of defective blending persuasive.
However, Dias J’s observations on section 11 of IA 2015 have less relevance. Under Singapore law, a breach of warranty has a draconian effect – the insurer is discharged from liability from the date of an insured’s breach of warranty: see section 33(3) of the Singapore Marine Insurance Act 1906. There is no equivalent of section 11 of IA 2015 that a policyholder can look to negate the breach of warranty. The Singapore law position accords with what had been the English law position prior to 2015, and its harshness was the reason behind the English reforms to insurance warranties as set out in the IA 2015.
Authors:
Toby Nabarro, Director Singapore
Reinsurance Cover for Covid BI Losses Upheld on Appeal
In UnipolSai Assicurazioni SPA v Covea Insurance PLC [2024] EWCA Civ 110, the Court of Appeal has upheld the first instance finding that the reinsured (Covea), having paid out substantial sums in respect of Covid business interruption (BI) losses, were entitled to indemnity under property catastrophe excess of loss policies with reinsurers. The decision provides clarification on the operation of aggregation clauses and the proper interpretation of a “catastrophe” in treaty reinsurance arrangements.
Covea provided cover for a large number of children’s nurseries which were forced to close between 20 March 2020 and July 2020, as a result of the pandemic. The factual background and outcome at first instance are explained in detail in our earlier article. The decision was appealed by reinsurers and the following questions arose for re-evaluation:
1. Whether Covid-19 losses arose out of, and were directly occasioned by, a “catastrophe”; and
2. Whether the “Hours Clause” - by which the duration of any “Loss Occurrence” was prescribed depending on the nature of the underlying peril - meant that:
(i) an “individual loss” occurs on the date the covered peril strikes, including where the insured peril is the loss of ability to use premises; and
(ii) where the (re)insured first sustains indemnifiable BI loss within a nominated 168-hour period, subsequent losses after that period fall to be aggregated as part of a single “Loss Occurrence”.
Meaning of Catastrophe
At first instance, Mr Justice Foxton held that Covid-19 did amount to a “catastrophe,” as required under the reinsurance wording. On appeal, the reinsurers argued that a catastrophe must be a sudden or violent event, capable of causing physical damage, whereas the pandemic was an ongoing state of affairs.
The Court of Appeal rejected these submissions, highlighting the absence of any reference to an “event” within the policy wording, and noting that the unities test in Axa v Field [1996] is merely an aid to be used with broad application. Their Lordships also rejected the argument that “suddenness” was a pre-requisite for all catastrophes, and, in any event, the “exponential increase in Covid 19 infections in the UK […] did amount to a disaster of sudden onset.” The attempt by reinsurers to rely on an ejusdem generis argument, in relation to the alleged need for physical damage, was flawed, as the types of catastrophes mentioned in the policy were not intended to be a prescribed class. The expert evidence that BI cover may include cover for non-damage BI was unchallenged.
Operation of the Hours Clause
The central question for consideration under the Hours Clause was when the relevant loss occurred. If it fell outside the period stipulated, then it would not be recoverable. It was also noted that the term “Loss Occurrence” was defined in the policy to mean “individual losses”. Discussing this further, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the term “occur” means when a loss first happens during a period of time. In relation to BI specifically, it was held that when the covered peril is the loss of an ability to use the premises, the individual loss occurs at the same time, regardless of how long the financial loss continues - consistent with the approach taken by Mr Justice Butcher in Stonegate and Various Eateries. Provided the individual loss occurs within the indemnity period, the totality of that loss is covered and all of its financial consequences. An apportionment of financial loss would give rise to considerable practical difficulties and was deemed to be incorrect.
Implications for Policyholders
The decision is welcomed by cedants with the benefit of similarly worded reinsurance policies. The implications are far-reaching, with total payouts for Covid BI claims estimated in the region of £2 billion, according to the Association of British Insurers. This policyholder-friendly precedent is particularly helpful, since most reinsurance disputes are resolved in confidential arbitrations.
Authors:
Pawinder Manak, Trainee Solicitor
Climate Risks Series, Part 3: Aloha v AIG - Liability Cover for Reckless Environmental Harm
Aloha v AIG - Liability Cover for Reckless Environmental Harm
Increasing numbers of claims are proceeding around the world alleging that the public were misled about the risks associated with climate change, resulting from fossil fuels and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions.
A recent decision in the Supreme Court of Hawaii, Aloha Petroleum Ltd v National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh and American Home Insurance Co. [2024], held that an “occurrence” in this context included the consequences of reckless conduct, and GHG emissions were a “pollutant” for purposes of a pollution exclusion under a commercial general liability policy.
Background
The Appellant, Aloha Petroleum Ltd (“Aloha”), was insured with two subsidiaries of AIG under a series of liability policies, in respect of its business as one of the largest petrol suppliers and convenience store operators in Hawaii.
The counties of Honolulu and Maui sued several fossil fuel companies, including Aloha, claiming that the defendants knew of the effects of climate change and had a duty to warn the public about the dangers of their products. It was alleged that the defendants acted recklessly by promoting climate denial, increasing the use of fossil fuels and emitting GHGs, causing erosion, damage to water infrastructure and increased risks of flooding, extreme heat and storms.
Aloha sought indemnity under the policies and AIG refused to defend the underlying claims, alleging that the harm caused by GHGs was foreseeable and therefore not “accidental”; and alternatively, seeking to rely upon an exclusion to cover for losses arising from pollution.
Aloha issued proceedings seeking a declaration that the policies would respond, and the District Court of Hawaii referred the following questions to the Supreme Court, to assist with determining the parties’ motions for summary judgment:
- Does an “accident” include recklessness, for purposes of the policy definition of “occurrence”?
- Are greenhouse gases “pollutants” within the meaning of the pollution exclusion?
Policy Wording
The policies provided occurrence-based coverage, with two different definitions of “occurrence” for the relevant periods:
- “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to substantially the same general harmful conditions”, or
- “an accident, including continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which results in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured”
The pollution exclusion clauses varied across the policies, but the differences were immaterial for purposes of the issues before the Supreme Court.
The 2004-2010 policy excluded cover for:
“Bodily injury” or “property damage” which would not have occurred in whole or part but for the actual, alleged, or threatened discharge, dispersal, seepage, migration, release or escape of “pollutants” at any time.
. . . .
“Pollutants” [mean] “any solid, liquid, gaseous or thermal irritant or contaminant, including smoke, vapor, soot, fumes, acids, alkalis, chemicals and waste.”
Is Reckless Conduct Accidental?
Aloha argued that it was entitled to indemnity, as the allegations of recklessness were sufficient to establish an “accident” and therefore an “occurrence” under the policies. Aloha relied on Tri-S Corp v Western World Ins. Co. (2006), which held - in the context of unintentional personal injury resulting from proximity to high voltage power lines - that reckless conduct is accidental, unless intended to cause harm, or expected to with practical certainty.
AIG claimed that Aloha understood the climate science, and the environmental damage was intentional, not fortuitous. It relied on AIG Hawaii Ins. Co. v Caraang (1993), which held - in the context of torts involving obvious physical violence - that an “occurrence” requires an injury which is not the expected or reasonably foreseeable result of the insured’s own intentional acts or omissions.
The Supreme Court agreed with Aloha, ruling that:
“when an insured perceives a risk of harm, its conduct is an ‘accident’ unless it intended to cause harm or expected harm with practical certainty … interpreting an ‘accident’ to include reckless conduct honors the principle of fortuity. The reckless insured, by definition, takes risk.”
Are GHGs “Pollutants”?
Aloha argued that GHGs are not pollutants, because they are not “irritants” (applicable in the context of personal injury, not property damage) or “contaminants”. The drafting history was said to indicate that the exclusion should be limited to clean-up costs for traditional pollution caused by hazardous waste from the insured’s operations, not liability resulting from its finished products.
The Supreme Court held that a “contaminant”, and therefore “pollutant” for purposes of the exclusion, is determined by whether damage is caused by its presence in the environment. Although a single molecule of carbon dioxide would not be viewed as pollution, a fact-specific analysis is required, and the Supreme Court was satisfied that Aloha’s gasoline production is causing harmful climate change. This approach was supported by the regulation of GHG emissions in Hawaii and the federal Clean Air Act.
Not all of the policies contained a pollution exclusion clause, however, and the question of whether AIG is required to indemnify Aloha for that policy period (covering 1986 to 1987) will now be considered by the District Court.
Impact On Policyholders
The finding that reckless conduct is covered by liability policies in the context of climate harms is highly significant and will be welcomed by energy companies.
While the issues are yet to be fully explored in European jurisdictions, it is interesting to compare the UK Supreme Court decision in Burnett v Hanover [2021], where merely reckless conduct was insufficient to engage a ‘deliberate acts’ exclusion in a public liability policy; and the recent decision in Delos Shipping v Allianz [2024], confirming that a defence based on lack of fortuity requires the insurer to establish that consequences of the insured’s actions were inevitable, i.e. “bound to eventuate in the ordinary course”.
The precise wording of any pollution or climate change exclusion should be carefully considered prior to inception of the policy period. The causative language used can significantly alter the scope of coverage and prospects of indemnity (see, for example, Brian Leighton v Allianz [2023]).
Authors:
Climate Risk Series:
Part 1: Climate litigation and severe weather fuelling insurance coverage disputes
Part 2: Flood and Storm Risk – Keeping Policyholders Afloat
Webinar - Limitation – when does time start to run in relation to insurance claims?
Agenda
In this webinar, Chris Ives, a partner in our Financial and Professional Risks practice, will discuss limitation periods and the date of accrual in relation to different types of insurance policies, when that date can be amended by contract and the position under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act
