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
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
Climate Risks Series, Part 2: Flood and Storm Risk: Keeping Policyholders Afloat
Introduction
Extreme rainfall and storms have become increasingly prevalent in the UK. Figures from the Association of British Insurers (“ABI”) show that storms and heavy rain have contributed to driving up property insurance payouts to the highest level in 7 years.
During floods in September 2024, several areas of the UK experienced significant property damage. This included AFC Wimbledon’s grounds, where a sinkhole caused the football pitch to collapse, after a nearby river burst its banks due to the excessive rainfall.
This article will discuss:
- The coverage issues that policyholders could face in relation to cover for damage caused by flood and storm.
- How stakeholders can increase resilience to floods and storms.
Coverage Issues
Where policies do not clearly define what constitutes a “flood” or a “storm”
Extreme weather comes in various forms and severities. In the absence of a clear definition of “flood” or “storm”, insurers may seek to rely on metrics such as the Beaufort wind force scale, ABI definition of storm, or previous case law, to support arguments limiting the scope of policy cover depending on the particular facts.
Recent decisions from the US have held that flood exclusions did not apply to: water damage from backed-up drainage following Hurricane Ida (GEMS Partners LLC v AmGUARD Ins Co (2024), in the New Jersey district court); and water accumulating on a parapet roof after a severe storm (Zurich v Medical Properties Trust Inc (2024), in the Massachusetts Supreme Court); based on the meaning of “flood” and “surface waters” in the relevant policy wordings.
In FCA v Arch Insurance Limited [2021] UKSC 1, the UK Supreme Court confirmed that, when looking at the construction of a policy, it is necessary to consider how a reasonable person would understand the meaning of the words used, in light of the commercial context. Therefore, policyholders should ensure, prior to inception, that the policy contains appropriate and clear definitions of “flood” and/or “storm”, to prevent ambiguity in the event of a claim.
Where the weather event is a combination of “flood” and “storm”
Where a weather event may appear to be a combination of both a flood and a storm, identifying the proximate cause of the loss, i.e. the dominant cause, may be difficult without meteorological expert evidence. This can raise two separate issues.
Firstly, policies contain different sub-limits for flood or storm damage. For example, if “flood” has a lower sub-limit compared to “storm” perils, a policyholder would likely seek to argue that storm damage has occurred, to maximise cover under the policy.
Secondly, if a policy excludes either flood or storm damage, the principles derived from Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corp Ltd [1974] QB 57 and The Miss Jay Jay [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep 32 may apply. This means that where two concurrent proximate causes operate together to bring about a loss, if one is insured under the policy and one is excluded, the loss will not be covered. If one concurrent proximate cause is an insured peril and the other is not insured, but not excluded, the loss will be covered.
Flood management measures
After the damage to its pitch, AFC Wimbledon was reportedly exploring ways to improve its flood management and infrastructure, to reduce the risk of future floods. It is likely that insurers will seek to introduce more conditions within property insurance policies, requiring certain flood management measures to be in place as a prerequisite to cover.
Flood resistance measures aim to “resist” or reduce the amount of water that enters a property. This can include the installation of flood gates or airbrick covers. Flood resilience measures purely mitigate the level of damage to property. This would include having concrete floor tiles, as opposed to carpets, and placing plug sockets away from entrances close to water.
Some property policies will contain a stillage condition precedent to liability. This will state that a policyholder will not be covered for loss caused by a flood, storm or escape of water, if it does not keep stock or other items a certain distance above floor level.
Furthermore, insurers could potentially restrict cover offered to policyholders whose buildings are situated in areas at a higher risk of flooding, or where businesses do not have mechanisms in place to deal with potential flood damage.
Why is Climate Change causing more Floors and Storms?
It is thought that the increase in the number of extreme weather events is a result of climate change.
Climate change contributes to more floods and storms because the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has allowed carbon dioxide to trap the sun’s rays. This has resulted in an increase in the planet’s temperature and the level of moisture that is held in the atmosphere. The warmer the atmosphere, the quicker the water can evaporate and fall, resulting in more intense and voluminous rainfall.
Improving Industry Resilience to Floor and Storm
The increase in natural disasters such as earthquakes, floods and hurricanes has led to some insurers pulling out of international catastrophe insurance markets. This is because of the unpredictable nature of these events and the severity of the losses suffered. This has resulted in limited options and more expensive premiums for catastrophe policies available to policyholders.
Similarly, insurers in the UK are becoming more reluctant to provide cover for damage caused by storm and flood, as the number of these types of claims increases, giving rise to the risk of a protection gap for policyholders.
Parametric Insurance
One of the tools available to help mitigate this effect is parametric insurance. This is a type of insurance cover where claims are paid on a predetermined basis. For example, cover for a storm would have parameters such that, if there is damage to property and a certain wind-speed or water depth is reached, then the policy would be triggered.
Traditional insurance policies are based on the actual loss that is sustained by the policyholder, whereas parametric insurance policies are triggered by the occurrence of an event and when certain parameters are reached. One of the main benefits of parametric insurance is the greater certainty of insurers paying out. This is especially important where there is a need for an urgent financial resource, allowing for a quicker payment to be made to policyholders.
Flood/Storm specific reinsurance schemes
For flood damage in the UK, there is a scheme in place for homeowners known as Flood Re. This scheme operates in a way where insurers can pay a premium to reinsurers and they would have access to a “pool” of indemnity when a claim arises. If the pool is exhausted, then the government can step in to pay the remainder of any losses.
The scheme is expected to provide cover until 2039 as Flood Re anticipates there will then be a “free market” for flood risk insurance. However, one can argue that this is unlikely if we see a similar pattern in the increase in extreme weather events and insurance claims over the next decade. Therefore, an alternative scheme may be needed, for businesses as well as homeowners, to ensure all policyholders have a safety net in the event of claims arising out of floods and storms.
Broader Risk Management
Increased industry resilience is likely to come from broader risk management. Currently, the UK does not have a robust plan in place to tackle flood risk. It is the responsibility of organisations such as the Environment Agency, the UK Climate Change Committee and DEFRA to collaborate and mitigate flood risk.
There have been calls for the Government to set specific flood risk targets as a result of climate change and the increase in extreme weather events. This would be an example of an initiative where input from a variety of organisations could help to reduce the risk of property damage and lead to increased resilience.
Conclusion
With the rise in extreme weather events, insurers will look to mitigate exposures and robustly defend claims arising from flood and storm damage, leaving policyholders in a potentially vulnerable position.
A collaborative response is needed to ensure that the insurance industry can adapt to emerging risks and ensure that appropriate cover is available for policyholders, in the event of floods and storms.
Author
Ayo Babatunde, Associate
