A Vivid Reminder: Fire Safety Defects Can Trigger Cover

Ten years on from Grenfell, fire safety defects remain one of the defining issues in the built environment. Against that backdrop, the recent decision in Vivid Housing Ltd v Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE [2025] offers important guidance on how the courts approach ‘imminent damage’ and reinforces the need for insurers to be part of the solution rather than an obstacle to remediation.

At Fenchurch Law, we have advised on several imminent danger cases, an example being Nova House, Slough – which involved a variety of fire safety and structural issues. The decision in Vivid, which involved an application for summary judgment, sits squarely within this developing line of authority and offers policyholders helpful clarity.

The Policy

The operative clause at the heart of this application is Clause 3(a), which states:

Clause 3(a) Operative Clause
“The Insurers agree to indemnify the Insured against the cost of repairing, replacing and/or strengthening the Premises following and consequent upon a Defect which becomes manifest and is notified to Insurers during the Period of Insurance and not excluded herein causing any of the following events:
(i) destruction of the Premises; or
(ii) physical damage to the Premises; or
(iii) the threat of imminent destruction or physical damage to the Premises which requires immediate remedial measures for the prevention of destruction or physical damage within the Period of Insurance.”

The Dispute

Vivid submitted a claim in May 2019, contending that several building safety defects had manifested at the Property, and that they all fell within the Policy’s definition of “Defect“, thereby triggering the Operative Clause. Allianz denied that contention.

The summary judgment application focused solely on the meaning and scope of sub-clause(iii):

“the threat of imminent destruction or physical damage to the Premises which requires immediate remedial measures for the prevention of destruction or physical damage within the Period of Insurance.”

The key question here, assuming that there were such “Defects”, was whether there was a risk of imminent damage.

The Defects

• Defect 1 (Rockpanel cladding): Vivid alleged that combustible RP cladding and foam insulation were used on a building over 18m high without proper testing or barriers. It also said that combustible debris in cavities could enable fire and smoke to spread externally.
• Defect 2 (vertical cavity barriers): Vivid contended that required vertical cavity barriers were missing, allowing fire or smoke to spread unnoticed throughout the building.
• Defect 3 (horizontal cavity barriers): Vivid claimed that missing or faulty cavity barriers at party walls, slab edges, and window openings could allow fire and smoke to spread undetected throughout the development.
• Defect 4 (Rockclad bracketry): Vivid states that RP cladding panels were not properly secured to vertical rails, with brackets that were inadequately supported or overstressed, posing a risk of detachment or damage.
• Defect 5 (building debris): Vivid claimed that debris left in building cavities created a fire hazard, facilitated fire spread, and enabled water to enter flats, causing further damage.

Allianz’s Position

Allianz argued that “imminent” required a serious and immediate likelihood of damage occurring soon, which it said was not the case as of August 2019.

In their view, the clause did not cover threats that would materialise only if a non-imminent event occurred, nor extend to circumstances where remedial measures are not immediately necessary to prevent destruction or damage within the policy period.

There was no likelihood of damage occurring soon as at August 2019, Allianz said, because:

(i) Vivid’s response in the notification to whether urgent repairs were required was “N/A.”

(ii) The only measures implemented during the policy period were “Waking Watch” arrangements, which were not intended to prevent property damage.

(iii) No damage occurred during the policy period, despite the absence of remedial works.

Vivid’s Position

Vivid, by contrast, contended that “imminent damage” should be assessed objectively, and that there was no requirement that the destruction or physical damage should happen soon. On its proper construction, they said that sub-clause (iii) applied where a reasonable observer would conclude that there was a realistic prospect of physical damage requiring immediate remedial measures to prevent it.

As to each of the defects, Vivid argued that:

(i) Defects 1, 2, 3 and 5 made the development vulnerable to physical damage in the event of fire, giving rise to a realistic prospect that imminent physical damage might occur. That risk was constant given the frequency of fires, supported by evidence of similar incidents.

(ii) Defect 4 put the cladding panels and bracketry at risk of deformation and detachment, giving rise to a realistic prospect that imminent physical damage might occur.

The Court’s Decision

The Court considered whether the defects created a threat of imminent destruction or damage sufficient to engage the policy.

As to the fire safety defects, the Court held that it could not be said there was no realistic prospect of establishing a serious risk of fire and imminent damage, particularly given the implementation of Waking Watch measures, which reflected an ongoing fire concern. Put differently, the presence of a Waking Watch did not undermine the concern of a present or imminent danger. Quite the opposite, it was that very concern which required the Waking Watch to begin with.

The court emphasised that the policy required not only an imminent threat but also that immediate remedial works are necessary to prevent destruction or damage within the period of cover. Whether this threshold is met is fact-sensitive; typically, imminent threats necessitate immediate repair or mitigation. Temporary measures such as Waking Watch do not negate the need for remedial works.

Ultimately, the court concluded:

“Vivid’s case on the construction of the policy clause and whether the policy responds has a real prospect of success in relation to all Defects other than Defect 4, and the application for summary judgment is refused.”

In respect of Defect 4 (Rockclad bracketry), which was unrelated to fire risk, the Court found in Allianz’s favour and granted summary judgment.

For Defects 1, 2, 3 and 5, the Court accepted that the fire‑related risks created a realistic prospect of imminent damage.

ANALYSIS

Why Did the Court Exclude Defect 4?

Defect 4 involved the risk of deformation and detachment of cladding panels and bracketry. Intuitively, one might say this creates a clear risk of physical damage. However, the court held that the defect did not amount to a fire‑related risk and did not require “immediate remedial measures” to avoid destruction or damage within the policy period.

Two nuanced reasons are at play:

• Immediacy: the deformation risk was progressive, not acute.
• Requirement for immediate works: unlike fire safety defects, the defect did not necessitate urgent intervention to avoid catastrophic loss.

This highlights a key theme in imminent danger cases: the immediacy of required remedial work often drives the outcome more than the nature of the defect itself.

Why Vivid Matters

Similar wording has been scrutinised before, most notably in Manchikalapati & others v Zurich Insurance plc & others [2019] (“Zagora”), and the court’s approach in Vivid aligns with and develops that earlier guidance.

In Zagora, the court held that imminence requires a real and present risk, not a remote or hypothetical possibility. Vivid adopts that framework but clarifies how it applies to fire safety defects, emphasising:

• fire events are inherently unpredictable;
• where fire‑related defects exist, the risk of damage is constant; and
• temporary measures (e.g., Waking Watch) do not remove the underlying risk.

CONCLUSION

The decision in Vivid is consistent with previous case law and provides helpful confirmation that:

• Fire safety defects can constitute imminent danger;
• Temporary measures such as Waking Watch do not exclude immediacy;
• The courts will continue to apply the principles developed in Zagora; and
• Insurers must recognise their role in enabling, rather than hindering, fire safety remediation.

For policyholders, the judgment offers helpful reassurance. For insurers, it is a reminder that narrow constructions of imminent danger are increasingly difficult to sustain.

Importantly, policyholders should not be required to wait for an actual fire incident before their insurance coverage becomes applicable. The judgment clarifies that waiting for harm to occur before responding to the risk is both unreasonable and contrary to the purpose of fire safety provisions.

Chloe Franklin is an Associate at Fenchurch Law