Government to fund replacement of non-ACM cladding systems on residential buildings
On 11 March, the government announced that it would provide up to £1 billion in 2020/21 to fund the removal and replacement of unsafe non-ACM cladding systems on high-rise residential buildings.
Attitudes towards building safety have undergone a paradigm shift since the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. Since then, the government has introduced a wide-ranging package of measures to ensure that buildings, particularly those with Aluminum Composite (ACM) cladding, are made safe. Notably, the government last year introduced a fund of £600m for the replacement of unsafe ACM cladding from residential buildings, similar to the type that was in place on Grenfell Tower.
Although ACM cladding remains the government’s priority, it has now announced proposals to extend funding for the removal and replacement of non-ACM cladding, such as High Pressure Laminate panels (‘HPL’). The announcement follows the guidance issued by the government earlier in the year in its “Consolidated Advice Note on Building Safety”, and in particular, the views of its Expert Panel that HPL systems with a ‘C’ or ‘D’ (i.e. those with a medium or high contribution to fire) would not meet the requirements of the Building Regulations, and that owners of such buildings should replace those materials as soon as possible.
Funding will be available to both the social and private sectors. In the private sector, the fund will be for the benefit of leaseholders to ensure that their buildings are made safe; and in the social sector, where remediation costs would otherwise be too prohibitive.
What are the eligibility criteria?
As with the ACM fund last year, funding will be available for buildings that are 18m or above.
The government has also said that building owners will be required to pursue warranty claims and take “appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on these buildings, with any damages recovered paid to Government once recouped.”
What are warranty claims?
Warranty claims refer to claims made under latent defect insurance policies. Those policies provide cover for newly built properties in the event of an inherent defect that was not capable of being discovered through inspection before completion.
Typically, latent defect policies are triggered in the event of (a) a non-compliance with the relevant Building Regulations that applied at the time of construction/conversion; and (b) which causes a present or imminent danger.
Given the above, unsafe non-ACM cladding that has been installed in high-rise residential blocks is likely to meet those requirements.
What other claims might be available against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on buildings?
Those involved with the original cladding installations may include Main Contractors, Architects, and specialist cladding subcontractors. The type of claims that can be brought against them will differ in each case, and will depend upon the nature of the relationships between the parties, and the specific work that was undertaken.
One route to making a recovery against those involved with the original cladding installation is under the Defective Premises Act 1972.
The Defective Premises Act imposes a duty on builders and any other professionals who take on work in connection with the provision of a dwelling. It requires the work to be done in a professional or workmanlike manner, with proper materials, and that the dwelling is for habitation when completed. The duty is owed to every person who acquires a legal or equitable interest in the dwelling.
Summary
The announcement of funding for the remediation of non-ACM buildings underlines the government’s ever-increasing commitment to building safety.
It is also likely to come as a blow to latent defect insurers, who may face a surge in the number of claims made under their policies. The potential for claims will be increased if, as expected, local authorities and Fire and Rescue Services are granted enforcement powers where building owners refuse to apply for funding, or otherwise refuse to remediate their buildings.
Alex Rosenfield is a Senior associate at Fenchurch Law
Covid-19 Business Interruption Update: Is another storm brewing?
With the FCA Test Case concluding last week, and judgment not expected until mid-September at the earliest, this blog looks briefly at what further tumultuous times may lie ahead for policyholders. Specifically, whether policyholders’ business interruption (“BI”) losses following COVID-19 will be aggregated.
Policyholders and their brokers will know that aggregation is not in the scope of issues that has been considered by the court in the FCA Test Case. There will therefore be no fresh judicial assistance available to insureds on this issue.
Given the significance of some policyholders’ losses, we anticipate that this will be a hotly contested battle with insurers that will yet need to be resolved post-FCA Test Case.
Aggregation
In summary, aggregation is a principle under which two or more separate losses are treated as a single loss because of a unifying or connecting factor.
For those policyholders that have multiple premises insured under a single composite policy, additional aggregation arguments may arise (subject to the specific policy wording).
Where the sub-limits relevant to these COVID-19 BI claims are often lower, any aggregation of claims may ultimately be the difference between claims of hundreds of thousands of pounds or multi-millions.
On that basis, it is inevitable that insurers will use any and all arguments available to them to limit the losses recoverable, presuming policyholders succeed at least in part on liability and are able to pursue the quantification of claims.
Key issues
Whilst insurers may well seek to aggregate the losses for those policyholders that have suffered large losses, there must be a proper legal and policy basis for doing so. We are not convinced that, market-wide, there is such a basis.
As a starting point, there are numerous BI policies that do not have any aggregation wording present at all. In those cases, policyholders can take some comfort depending on how the applicable limits and sub-limits are expressed.
There are others that may face arguments from insurers that suggest that throwaway comments such as “any one loss” amount to an intention to aggregate losses, even where the wording does not purport to be an aggregation clause. Such assertions are capable of being firmly rebutted.
Any application?
On one view, it might be that aggregating wording is not triggered in any event. If the wording responds in cases where there has been ‘Damage’ i.e. property damage, one might question the relevance of that wording to the non-damage linked extensions with which COVID-19 BI claims are principally concerned. If the definition of ‘Damage’ is not extended to include non-damage perils, then it may be arguable that any aggregating wording is limited to apply only to those damage-based claims.
Commercial intentions
Even if it is conceded that there is a hypothetical basis for aggregation wording applying to a BI policy, policyholders may wish to look for the commercial realities of the effect of aggregation.
Taking the example of multiple premises being insured under one policy, where the sub-limits of the non-damage BI extensions are often a lot lower than the sum insured, policyholders may reasonably arrive at the conclusion that the aggregation of its losses would result in a commercial absurdity. Policyholders might be left with entirely inadequate cover, which cannot have been what was intended by policyholders or their brokers when obtaining cover.
Policy construction and factual issues
Notwithstanding the primary arguments above, policyholders can take some comfort that there are likely to be good policy construction arguments available, which may well be supported by a proper application of the facts.
Each policy and claim will of course have to be assessed on its own merits and facts. That notwithstanding, we would encourage insureds and their brokers to very carefully consider: (a) the construction of the wording that the insurer wishes to rely on (where relevant); and (b) how the insured’s losses have actually arisen.
Close attention needs to be paid to the actual aggregating words used: clauses that purport to aggregate losses by ‘originating cause’, ‘event’, ‘occurrence’, or ‘claim’, will have very different effects, and despite a long line of case law considering the meaning and application of these terms to various facts and circumstances, their proper application in any given case remains perennially contentious.
No two losses will have arisen in the same way. Referring again to the example of a limit applying ‘any one loss’ in a policy covering multiple insured premises, it is likely implausible that the same losses will have arisen across multiple premises, at the same time, in the same way, and with the same consequences. Might the better analysis be that multiple losses and therefore claims have in fact arisen, which therefore do not fall to be aggregated?
Further Lockdowns
As we move into the next phase of the pandemic and a new era of local lockdowns and other containment measures, many recently re-opened businesses may find themselves shutting down once more. Do any losses arising as a result give rise to a new claim under the policy, or do they fall to be aggregated with any claim already submitted from the earlier national lockdown?
The answer will lie partly in the outcome of the FCA Test Case, which will give us clearer guidance on exactly how and when the various non-damage BI clauses respond, and partly on an analysis of the relevant aggregating language in the policy. No doubt further disputes will arise over whether local lockdowns and restrictions imposed in relation to localised COVID-19 outbreaks amount to independent ‘causes’, ‘events’, or ‘occurrences’, and again the outcome may make the difference between no cover and full cover for continuing losses suffered by many businesses affected by the progress of the pandemic.
In the meantime, any policyholder that is subject to new restrictions on their business that are likely to result in losses should make a fresh notification under their policy via their broker.
Comment
We remain hopeful that the judgment following the FCA Test Case will decide at least some of the issues in favour of policyholders so that claims in principle may yet fall to be indemnified. If that is right, policyholders will understandably wish to proceed as quickly as possible to the quantification, and recovery, of losses.
In circumstances where that point is nearing, and losses may begin to be crystallising as those shorter indemnity periods end, we would encourage policyholders to seek assistance from their professional advisers in presenting the losses in an accurate and appropriate way. Failure to take care in doing so only risks backfiring at a later stage.
If policyholders or their brokers would like advice on any of the issues discussed in this article, or COVID-19 BI claims generally, please do not hesitate to contact us. In addition to written material, our thoughts on these issues are also disseminated by webinar as part of Fenchurch Law’s The Associate Series.
