Avoid getting out of your depth with notifications – the Court considers the scope of notification in Euro Pools plc v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc
In Euro Pools Plc v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Plc[1] the Court considered (amongst other things) the scope of notifications made to two successive design and construct professional indemnity policies.
The Insured
The Insured, Euro Pools plc, was in the business of designing and constructing swimming pools. The pools were designed with moveable floors, so that their depth could be increased and decreased, as well as moveable booms by which the length of the pool could be altered. (By raising the boom, a large swimming pool could be divided into two smaller pools.)
The Policies
The Insured had a professional indemnity policy with RSA for the period June 2006 to June 2007 (the “2006/07 Policy”), and a subsequent policy for the period June 2007 to June 2008 (the “2007/08 Policy”). As is usual with professional indemnity policies, they were written on a claims-made basis, with both policies providing that the Insured should notify the insurers:
“as soon as possible after becoming aware of circumstances…..which might reasonably be expected to produce a Claim”.
The Policies provided that any Claim arising from such notified circumstances would be deemed to have been made in the period of insurance in which the notice had been given.
The February 2007 notification to the 2006/07 Policy
The booms operated by way of an “air-drive” system, by which they were raised and lowered by applying or decreasing the air pressure in the booms.
In February 2007 a defect became apparent, whereby air was escaping from the booms and water was entering, resulting in the booms failing to raise and lower as intended. The Insured at this time did not consider that there was any issue with the air-drive system itself, and that instead the issue could be resolved within the Policy excess by inserting inflatable bags into the booms. The Insured made a notification to that effect (“the February 2007 notification”).
The Insured also notified an issue in respect of the moveable floors, which needed urgent attention at a cost which exhausted the 2006/07 Policy limit of £5 million.
The May 2008 notification to the 2007/08 Policy
By May 2008 the Insured had experienced problems with the inflatable bags that had been used in the air-drive system and reached the conclusion that there was an issue with the air-drive system itself, which would need to be replaced with a hydraulic system. The Insured notified this issue to the 2007/08 Policy year (“the May 2008 notification”).
Attachment
The Court considered whether the claim for the costs of replacing the boom system attached to the 2006/07 Policy by virtue of the February 2007 notification or the 2007/08 Policy by virtue of the May 2008 notification. As the 2006/07 Policy limit was already exhausted it was in insurers’ interests for the claim to attach to the 2006/07 year, but was not in the Insured’s.
What was necessary was for there to be both a causal, as opposed to a coincidental, link between the claim as made and the circumstance previously notified (as set out in Kajima UK Engineering Ltd v Underwriter Insurance Co Ltd[2]). In addition, the Insured was only able to notify circumstances of which it was aware at the time of notification.
The Court held that the Insured was not aware of the need to switch to a hydraulic system for the booms at the time of the February 2007 notification, and so could not have notified this issue as a circumstance. In addition, there was also not a causal link between what was notified to the 2006/07 year (an issue with the boom which could be remedied easily and not an issue with the air-drive system itself) and the subsequent claim relating to replacing the air-drive system with a hydraulic one.
The Court upheld the principle of a “hornet’s nest” or “can of worms” notification: where there is uncertainty at the time of the notification as to the precise problems or potential problems, the insured can make a notification of wide scope, to which numerous types of claims may ultimately attach. However, such a notification had not been made in this instance.
Lessons for policyholders
The case again highlights the issues that can arise in respect of notifications of circumstances, especially when made during a developing investigation. The overarching message is that in each case the extent and ambit of the notification and the claims that will be covered by such notification will depend on the particular facts and terms of the notification.
Although in this instance the Insured was aware of an issue with the booms in February 2007, the notification was held to be limited as a result of the Insured’s view that this was not a problem with the air-drive system itself, which was not considered to be the issue until the 2007/08 Policy year and the May 2008 notification. Applying a narrow interpretation of Kajima, the Court determined that it was not enough that the issue with the air-drive system was discovered as part of the continuum of investigations instigated following the initial discovery of issues in 2007.
In Kajima the insured had notified distortion of external walkways and balconies in a housing development due to settlement and, subsequently and following further investigation, discovered separate defects at the development (for instance in relation to the kitchens and bathrooms). The Court held that the defects that were discovered after the notification did not arise from the defect notified as a circumstance so as to attach to the Policy, as there was not a sufficient relationship between the defects notified and the separate defects discovered subsequently. Whilst the same reasoning was applied in the current case, arguably the position differed in Euro Pools as the Insured was aware of the defect (the malfunctioning boom) at the time of the notification, and did notify circumstances in relation to it. It was the cause of the defect of which the Insured was not aware at the time of notification.
This narrow interpretation worked in the Insured’s favour, given that the May 2008 notification was deemed to be valid and insurers did not seek to rely upon a clause within the 2007/08 Policy which excluded the consequences of any circumstances notified under any prior insurance or known to the insured at the inception of the insurance. However, the narrow interpretation of the scope of the May 2007 notification will not be to an insured’s benefit in other circumstances where, for instance, they do not have cover under a subsequent policy.
Policyholders can seek to avoid uncertainty by ensuring that careful consideration is given to the wording of any notification. If the policyholder intends the notification to have a wide scope so as to cover the widest possible range of claims arising out of a circumstance in a “can of worms” style, then the notification should be drafted in as broad a manner as possible so as to achieve this, subject to the overarching criterion that an insured can only notify a circumstance of which it is aware.
[1] [2018] EWHC 46 (Comm)
[2] [2008] EWHC 83 (TCC)
Tom Hunter is an associate at Fenchurch Law
Bluebon Ltd (in liquidation) – v – (1) Ageas (UK) Ltd (2) Aviva Insurance Ltd (3) Towergate Underwriting Group Ltd (2017)
What was the proper construction of an electrical installation inspection warranty?
Bluebon Limited (‘Bluebon’) brought proceedings against their insurers, Ageas and Aviva (‘the Insurers’), and their broker, Towergate, following a fire at their premises at the Star Garter Hotel, West Lothian (‘the Hotel’) on 15 October 2010.
Bluebon had purchased the Hotel in December 2007, and the relevant insurance policy (‘the Policy’) incepted on 3 December 2009, for a period of 12 months.
The Policy contained the following Electrical Installation Inspection Warranty (‘the Warranty’):
“It is warranted that the electrical installation be inspected and tested every five years by a contractor approved by the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation (NICEIC) and that any defects be remedied forthwith in accordance with the Regulations of the Institute of Electrical Engineers.”
The last electrical inspection at the Hotel had taken place in September 2003.
The insurers asserted that there had been a breach of the Warranty since no inspection had been carried out in the 5-year period immediately prior to inception, with the result that the Policy was either voided or suspended from inception.
At a hearing of preliminary issues, the Judge, Mr Justice Bryan, was required to determine the following:
- The proper construction of the Warranty – was the five-year period to be calculated from the date of the last electrical inspection, or from Policy inception?
- Was the Warranty a True Warranty, a Suspensive Warranty, or a Risk Specific Condition Precedent, and what was the consequence of a breach?
The First Issue
The Insurers argued that the natural meaning of the Warranty was that the 5-year period had to be calculated from the date of the last inspection, and, if no inspection had been carried out in the last 5 years, the inspection would have to be undertaken prior to or immediately upon inception (with there being no cover until such inspection had taken place). In support of that analysis, they said that the Warranty did not require the inspection to occur within 5 years of inception, and that a reasonable person, having all the background knowledge available to the parties, would know that inspections needed to be undertaken regularly.
Bluebon argued, perhaps optimistically, that the proper construction of the words “be inspected and tested every five years” meant “every five years starting with the date of imposition of the stipulation” i.e. from Policy inception. In support, Bluebon said that the language of the Warranty was “forward-looking”, and that if the Insurers had intended otherwise, the Policy could have stated “has been inspected and tested” or “is inspected and tested.”
The Judge found that Bluebon’s construction made no commercial sense in the context of a 12-month policy, and rendered the Warranty meaningless, since there would be no requirement for an electrical inspection until (at least) after the fourth annual renewal. This provided no protection from the risk of fire and, unsurprisingly, Bluebon’s construction was rejected. It followed that Bluebon had not complied with the Warranty.
The Second Issue
The Insurers’ primary case was that the Warranty was a True Warranty i.e. a term which took effect as a condition precedent to the existence of any cover, such that the breach rendered the Policy void from inception. Alternatively, they said the warranty was a Suspensive Warranty, which had the effect of suspending cover during the period of the breach. Neither construction required a causal link between the breach and the fire, and, accordingly, the Insurers asserted that they had no liability to Bluebon.
Bluebon, by contrast, argued that the Warranty was a ‘Risk-Specific Condition Precedent’ i.e. a term which required compliance as a condition precedent to the Insurers’ liability to provide cover in respect of risks relating to the electrical installation. Put another way, Bluebon said that unless the fire was caused by the electrical installation, their breach was irrelevant.
The Judge again rejected Bluebon’s argument, finding that it would be entirely unbusinesslike for the Warranty to suspend cover in respect of losses arising from defects in the electrical installation (pending inspection of the installation), but not for losses arising out of the fire generally. The Judge’s interpretation was that, while the Warranty was breached, there could be no cover for any losses arising out of fire.
Having regard to his findings on the proper meaning of the Warranty, the Judge found that the Warranty was a Suspensive Condition.
Insurance Act 2015 implications
Although the outcome in Bluebon may not be particularly surprising, it is interesting to consider whether it would have been decided differently under the Insurance Act (‘the Act’).
The Act does not change what an insurance warranty is, but does change the effect if breached. Under Section 11 of the Act, an insured will be protected in the event of a breach of warranty. Providing that it can show that the term was ‘totally irrelevant to the loss’ i.e. the breach “could not have increased the risk of the loss which actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.”
There are two interpretations of how Section 11 might have applied in Bluebon (or for that matter generally), both of which have been postulated by the Law Commission.
Under the ‘non-causation’ interpretation, the Insurers would have been entitled to rely upon the breach of the Warranty, because the absence of an electrical inspection might have made a difference, given the type of loss that occurred i.e. a fire. It would not have been open to Bluebon to argue that the fire would have started even if the electrical inspection had taken place.
Under the ‘causation’ interpretation, it would have been open to Bluebon to establish that the fire was due to some other cause, so that the Insurers would be liable under the Policy. That is because, in that scenario, the ‘circumstances’ of the loss were such that compliance with the Warranty would not have made any difference.
Of course, unless and until the true meaning of Section 11 is determined by the Courts (and, given its importance, the point is likely eventually to end up at the Supreme Court), the interpretation will doubtless remain a matter for debate.
Alexander Rosenfield is an associate at Fenchurch Law
Fenchurch Law recognised for claims dispute expertise with tier one ranking in Legal 500
Fenchurch Law, the leading UK firm working exclusively for policyholders and brokers on complex insurance disputes, has received a tier 1 ranking in the latest Legal 500, marking an important milestone in the firm’s commitment to improving policyholder outcomes.
David Pryce, managing partner, said: “From the very launch of the firm seven years ago, our aim has been to provide insurance policyholders with access to the same levels of legal expertise and support that insurers have in dealing with complex claims disputes.
“To be recognised for both our policyholder litigation expertise and our client-focused ethos is testament to the commitment of the team to ensuring there is a level playing field in the resolution of disputes.”
“This recognition also comes in no small part thanks to the support and shared commitment of the insurance broking community to improving outcomes for policyholders. We will continue to work with them to develop our services and capabilities to reflect the evolving needs of policyholders to support their clients through complex disputes.”
Legal 500 recognised the Fenchurch Law team’s legal and policyholder litigation capabilities and expertise and its client-focused ethos. David Pryce was recognised as a leading individual in insurance litigation and partners Daniel Brooks and Amy Lacey were also rated as next generation lawyers.
Has the Enterprise Act Expanded the Duty of Fair Presentation?
For more than a century after the Marine Insurance Act of 1906, the law relating to insurance contracts was a territory into which parliament did not venture, ceding it instead to the courts. By 2015, though, Parliament was launching a full-scale invasion. The Insurance Act of that year replaced the old duty of disclosure with a new “Duty of Fair Presentation” and fundamentally reformed the remedies prescribed by law both for breach of the Duty of Fair Presentation (by introducing the concept of proportionality) and for breach of warranties.
A year later the Enterprise Act 2016 introduced a brand new right to claim damages from insurers for unreasonable delay in the payment of claims. On the face of it, each of the two Acts creates its own seemingly unrelated code of rights, obligations and remedies with no obvious interplay or knock-on effect. However, the question arises as to whether circumstances particular to the insured, which make the insurer vulnerable to a damages action if it delays in paying claims, are circumstances which, in the wake of the Enterprise Act 2016, fall within the Duty of Fair Presentation created by the Insurance Act 2015.
Legal Ingredients of a Claim for Damages for Late Payment
In assessing whether the information encompassed within the Duty of Fair Presentation has been broadened by the Enterprise Act, one first has to consider what is needed to found a claim for late payment.
A number of ingredients must be present if an insured is to be entitled to damages for loss caused by breach of an insurer’s duty to pay claims within a reasonable period. Aside from showing it has a valid claim under the policy in the first place, that the insurer’s delay was unreasonable, that the loss for which compensation is sought was caused by the insurer’s delay and that it has taken steps to mitigate its loss, the insured also has to show that the loss suffered as a result of the delay was foreseeable or contemplated by the parties at the time the policy was entered into.
The classic case for late payment damages is likely to be a property loss - e.g. at industrial premises where, say, a particular item of machinery is crucial to production and, unless it is quickly replaced following an insured event, the insured will suffer significant loss of production or even be put out of business. To found a claim for late payment damages, such eventualities must have been forseeable as at the date the policy was entered into. The insured would have to show, for example, that it was or should have been in the contemplation of the insurer at the time the policy was taken out that production turned on the availability of a particular machine and that the insured would rely on insurance proceeds if that machine were damaged because it would not be able to finance replacement through any other means. This means that the prospects of establishing a claim for damages will be greatly enhanced if the insured informed the insurer of these particular vulnerabilities when the policy was taken out.
Impact on the Duty of Fair Presentation
The question then arises as to whether it is simply prudent to tell the insurer about such vulnerabilities or whether the insured has a duty to do so.
The information that must be contained within the “Fair Presentation” of the risk by the insured is defined in section 7(3) of the Insurance Act 2015 as that which would “influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether to take the risk and, if so, on what terms”.
The “risk” in question is the risk of damage from an insured peril. In our classic case it is the risk of damage to or destruction of the insured property from insured perils. On the face of it, the importance of the property to the insured’s business or the ability of the insured to raise finance for replacement of the property if damaged has no bearing on the risk of damage from an insured peril occurring (although different considerations could well apply if the insurance had business interruption cover attached to it). These particular vulnerabilities wouldn’t seem to have any bearing on the pure underwriting decision as to the susceptibility of the insured to suffer damage from an insured peril.
What these vulnerabilities do have a bearing on is the insurer’s risk of exposure to a late payment damages claim. The key point is whether the risk of exposure to such a claim is part of the “risk” contemplated by section 7(3), so that the insured has a duty to disclose such circumstances to the insurer (rather than simply being well advised to do so in order to enhance the prospects of a claim for late payment damages should such a claim become necessary).
Until the courts look at the question there is no clear answer. On the one hand section 7(3) is ostensibly dealing purely with the insured risk. This is the risk upon which the judgment of the underwriter is exercised, be that the risk of flood, fire or storm. Since the risk of exposure to late payment damages is not an insured risk and instead one to which the insurer exposes itself by its own unreasonable delay rather than by reason of some fortuity over which neither insured nor insurer has control, there is good reason for saying that section 7(3) does not extend to circumstances relevant only to the recoverability of late payment damages.
On the other hand, section 7(3) contemplates the provision by the insured of any and all information relevant to the insurer’s willingness to provide a policy at all or, if so, on what terms. It may be that an insured with particular vulnerabilities that would set up a late payment damages claim is not the sort of insured the insurer would want to write cover for at all, making such information “material”. Even if the insurer would still be prepared to write cover notwithstanding such knowledge it might be prompted to require a term in the policy excluding the application of the Enterprise Act (the Act allows an insurer to contract out when not insuring consumers) or a term that caps exposure to late payment damages or it might simply charge a higher premium.
Perhaps the most significant consideration is the provision in section 7(4) which defines as material “any particular concerns which led the insured to seek insurance cover for the risk”. In some cases the vulnerabilities of the insured that would be the basis for a claim for late payment damages may be precisely what led the insured to take out the insurance in the first place.
Conclusion
Certain brokers are recommending that their clients tell insurers about circumstances that would make them vulnerable if claim payments were delayed because it helps lay the foundation for any late payment damages claim that might become necessary. In light of the uncertainty around whether such circumstances are material to the “risk” for the purposes of section 7(3) of the Insurance Act and thus encompassed by the insured’s Duty of Fair Presentation (and since insurance policies are riddled with conditionalities as it is), insureds should err on the side of caution and include information about such vulnerabilities in their presentation of the risk.
John Curran is a partner at Fenchurch Law
Not Too Slender a Thread - Supreme Court decision in MT Højgaard v E.ON
The Supreme Court has upheld an appeal concerning liability to comply with fitness for purpose obligations in a design and build contract, in a case with significant ramifications for policyholders involved in construction projects. The judgment highlights the difficulties which arise when accepted industry practices are exposed as inadequate and reinforces the importance of precise drafting of contract terms, and associated policy wordings, given the literal interpretation likely to be applied notwithstanding potentially harsh consequences for unwary contractors.
The dispute arose from a significant error in an international standard for the design of offshore wind turbines known as J101. The contractor, MT Højgaard (“MTH”), relied on J101 whilst engaged by E.ON to design, fabricate and install foundations for the Robin Rigg wind farm in the Solway Firth, Scotland. Following completion of the works, it was discovered that J101 contained an inaccuracy such that the load-bearing capacity of grouted connections had been substantially over-estimated, resulting in remedial works at a cost of €26 million.
In April 2014, the trial judge held that MTH was liable to E.ON because the foundations were not fit for purpose, in breach of a provision in the Technical Requirements section of the Employer’s Requirements in the contract which imposed an obligation that the design “shall ensure a lifetime of 20 years in every aspect without planned replacement”. This provision applied in addition to less onerous contract terms requiring MTH to exercise reasonable skill and care, and to comply with J101.
The Court of Appeal overturned that decision, concluding that the 20 year service life provision in the Technical Requirements was qualified by compliance with J101 and good industry practice, in light of the inconsistency between that provision and other contractual terms. The relevant wording tucked away in the Technical Requirements was described as “too slender a thread” upon which to hang a finding that MTH gave a warranty of 20 years life for the foundations, viewed in context of the contractual provisions as a whole and commercial implications.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled that MTH was liable for breach of the fitness for purpose obligations, construed either as a warranty that the foundations (1) would have a minimum service life of 20 years, or alternatively (2) be designed to last for 20 years. The court referred to UK and Canadian authorities where contractor warranties to complete works without defects were held to override any prescribed specification, noting: “it is the contractor who can be expected to take the risk if he agreed to work to a design which would render the item incapable of meeting the criteria to which he has agreed”. J101 was expressed to be a minimum standard and the court was not prepared to disregard or give a different meaning to provisions of the Technical Requirements incorporated to the contract.
Construction contracts routinely incorporate schedules and technical documents with less than complete harmonisation as to intended legal standards of design and workmanship. The contract in this case was acknowledged to be of a “complex, diffuse and multi-authored” nature with many “ambiguities, infelicities and inconsistencies”. Nevertheless the court saw no reason to depart from the natural meaning of the fitness for purpose provisions, alongside MTH’s other obligations, in accordance with the prevailing approach of judicial non-interventionism that parties will be taken to mean what they say in their contracts (Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36).
To avoid ambiguity, contracting parties should consider the inclusion of express provisions clarifying whether and how technical schedules are to affect overall obligations as to design and workmanship, clearly distinguishing requirements to exercise skill and care from performance warranties or guarantees of fitness for purpose. This in turn will allow policyholders to properly evaluate the risks assumed under the contract, and liaise with their insurance brokers to ensure adequate professional indemnity and all risks cover for potential liabilities.
MT Højgaard A/S (Respondent) v E.ON Climate & Renewables UK Robin Rigg East Limited and another (Appellants) [2017] UKSC 59
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0115-judgment.pdf
Amy Lacey is a partner at Fenchurch Law
Fenchurch Law continues expansion of insurance claims disputes capability with Hunter appointment
Fenchurch Law, the leading UK firm working exclusively for policyholders and brokers on complex insurance disputes, has further expanded its team of specialist claims dispute lawyers with the appointment of Tom Hunter as an associate.
Tom joins the Fenchurch Law team with experience in financial lines claims defence work and coverage issues including advising on professional indemnity, D&O, E&O and banker’s blanket bond claims. In addition to supporting clients of the firm’s financial & commercial risks practice, he will also work on coverage disputes for clients of their professional risks and construction risks practices.
Managing Partner of Fenchurch Law, David Pryce said: “Tom’s appointment continues the expansion of our coverage dispute capabilities. His experience and knowledge of the financial lines space further strengthens our ability to deliver exceptional service to policyholders and their brokers.”
Tom joins from Reynolds Porter Chamberlain (RPC) where he was an associate in their professional and financial risks group. During his time with RPC he was seconded to Arch Insurance Europe, where he worked within their third-party claims team.
Dalecroft Properties Limited – v – Underwriters
Dalecroft Properties Limited – v – Underwriters subscribing to Certificate Number 755/BA004/2008/OIS/00000282/2008/005
[2017] EWHC 1263 (Comm)
This recent decision by the Commercial Court provides a neat recap of the applicable law pre the Insurance Act 2015, which still applies to many claims brought by policyholders today.
The Claimant, Dalecroft Properties Limited (‘Dalecroft’), owned a property in Margate (‘the property’). The property was a mixture of commercial and residential parts, and was insured with the Defendants (‘the Underwriters’).
The property was a five-storey building, and included a restaurant, a charity shop and an amusement arcade, the upper floor of which had previously been used as a discotheque (‘the disco building’).
The brief insurance history is as follows:
- On 1 August 2007, Tristar (the Underwriters’ Agents) issued Dalecroft with a schedule for the period 1 August 2007 – 31 July 2008 (‘certificate 001’).
- Shortly after, Dalecroft requested an increase to the sums insured. Accordingly, on 16 August 2007, Tristar issued Dalecroft with a new schedule marked CANCEL & REPLACE (‘certificate 002’).
- At the August 2008 renewal, Tristar issued Dalecroft with a schedule for the period 1 August 2008 – 31 July 2009 (‘certificate 003’).
- On 19 November 2008, Dalecroft’s brokers requested that “the property should be registered in the name of Dalecroft Properties Ltd’. On 20 November 2008, Tristar issued Dalecroft with a new schedule marked CANCEL & REPLACE (‘certificate 004’). The period of insurance ran from 19 November 2008 to 31 July 2009, and the premium was stated to be £0.00.
- On the same day, Dalecroft’s broker noted that Tristar had failed to correct Dalecroft’s name on the policy and so, on 21 November 2008, Tristar issued a further schedule marked CANCEL & REPLACE (‘certificate 005’). Again, the insured period ran from 19 November 2008 – 31 July 2009, and the premium was stated to be “£0.00.”
A fire occurred on 16 May 2009, which required the property to be demolished and rebuilt. Dalecroft then made a claim on the policy, which the Underwriters sought to avoid.
In the subsequent proceedings, Dalecroft claimed an indemnity from the Underwriters for its losses arising from the fire. The Underwriters counterclaimed for a declaration that they were entitled to avoid the policy on the grounds of misrepresentation/non-disclosure, and a breach of warranty.
In all but one of allegations of misrepresentation, Dalecroft denied that what it said was untrue. It also said the matters complained of by the Underwriters did not induce the making of the contract, as the relevant contract was not made until 2008, by which point the Underwriters had issued a revised certificate headed “Cancel and Replace.”
The issues to be decided were:
a) Which was the relevant policy?
b) Did Dalecroft misrepresent any matters to the Underwriters?
c) Were there any breaches of warranty?
d) Was the risk divisible into commercial and residential parts?
Which was the relevant policy?
Dalecroft submitted that the relevant policy was contained in certificate 005, this being the policy in force at the date of the fire.
The Underwriters, by contrast, submitted that correct policy was certificate 003 i.e. the policy issued at renewal in August 2008.
The Judge, Mr Richard Salter QC, agreed with the Underwriters. He accepted that certificates 004 and 005 were marked CANCEL & REPLACE; however, neither certificate was a new policy.
Misrepresentation/Non-Disclosure
The Underwriters relied on the following misrepresentations/non-disclosures in the August 2008 Proposal/Statement of Fact:
a) That the residential units were vacant for refurbishment;
b) That the property was in a good state of repair;
c) That the property had no flat roof;
d) That the property had not been subject to malicious acts or vandalism;
e) The non-disclosure of the fact that the property had been the subject of an Emergency Prohibition Order (‘EPO’) dated 6 June 2008.
Apart from point (a), the Underwriters made out their case in respect of each alleged misrepresentation/non-disclosure.
There was compelling evidence that the property had suffered from broken windows, leaking and drainage issues (amongst other issues). Accordingly, Dalecroft had misrepresented that the property was in a good state of repair.
As regards the status of the roof, the Judge noted the experts’ views that the flat proportion of the roof comprised 50.43% of the entire roof area. As such, the representation that there was no flat roof was also incorrect.
As to the alleged malicious acts of vandalism, the Judge found that there was a history of “continual disturbances of vandalism and drug taking”, together with at least one further specific incident where a police officer was assaulted. Therefore, this too had been misrepresented.
Finally, the Judge accepted that the EPO had been misrepresented. There was a long list of defects to the property (which significantly increased the risk of fire), and nothing to suggest that the issues had been remedied. In the circumstances, the Judge found that this was a matter about which a prudent insurer would have wished to know.
The Judge found that each of points (b) – (e) were material, and that the Underwriters had made out their case on inducement. Accordingly, Dalecroft’s claim had to fail.
Although not strictly necessary, the Judge went on to consider the remaining issues.
Were there any breaches of warranty?
The Underwriters alleged that Dalecroft breached a Commercial Unoccupancy Condition in the policy (‘the Condition’) in that it had failed to ensure that:
a) The Basement and disco building were free of combustible materials;
b) The charity’s letterbox was sealed;
c) The Charity Shop and the Basement were properly secured;
On the evidence, the Judge was satisfied that Dalecroft was in breach of the Condition. In particular, it was clear from the available photographs that there were loose combustible materials in the disco building, and that neither the charity shop nor its letterbox were secured against unauthorised entry.
Was the risk divisible into commercial and residential parts?
Dalecroft argued that the risk was divisible, and that, because the alleged misrepresentations/non-disclosures related only to the residential parts, it was entitled to an indemnity for their losses in relation to the commercial part.
The Judge disagreed. The condition broken by Dalecroft was directed at risks which jeopardised the entire property. It followed that the Underwriters were discharged from all liability.
Summary
The Underwriters, on the facts of this case, were entitled to reject all claims made against them. The Judge was keen to emphasise, however, that even if the new law had applied, Dalecroft’s claim would still have failed. In this respect, he was satisfied that Dalecroft made “no real effort” to make a fair presentation, and that Underwriters would still have declined to take on the risk.
Alexander Rosenfield is an associate at Fenchurch Law
Peel Port Shareholding Finance Company Ltd – v – Dornoch Ltd
Can a Claimant obtain an order for pre-action disclosure against a solvent insured?
The Claimant, Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd (‘Peel Port’), suffered a fire at its premises at Sheerness Docks, Kent, on 14 January 2013. Its case was that the damage was caused by the activities of ‘European Active Projects Ltd’ (‘EAPL’).
Peel Port claimed that EAPL had no defence to the claim, and that judgment would be awarded in its favour for sums exceeding £1m. Further, it claimed that EAPL would be unable to meet any judgment, and would be wound up as a result.
EAPL’s insurers, Dornoch Ltd (‘Dornoch’) denied that the claim was covered, on the basis that EAPL did not comply with the “hot working” endorsement to their public liability policy (“the policy”). Dornoch did not, however, disclose a copy of the policy to Peel Port.
Peel Port took issue with Dornoch’s non-disclosure, and argued that sight of the policy was essential to their understanding of (a) whether the endorsement had been properly incorporated into the policy; and (b) the effect of the endorsement when construed in the context of the policy as a whole.
The application
Under the framework provided for in CPR 31.16, Peel Port issued an application for pre-action disclosure against Dornoch for a full copy of the EAPL policy. CPR 31.16 states as follows:
1) This rule applies where an application is made to the court under any Act for disclosure before proceedings have started.
2) The application must be supported by evidence.
3) The court may make an order under this rule only where–
a. the respondent is likely to be a party to subsequent proceedings;
b. the applicant is also likely to be a party to those proceedings;
c. if proceedings had started, the respondent’s duty by way of standard disclosure, set out in rule 31.6, would extend to the documents or classes of documents of which the applicant seeks disclosure; and
d. disclosure before proceedings have started is desirable in order to –
i. dispose fairly of the anticipated proceedings;
ii. assist the dispute to be resolved without proceedings; or
iii. save costs
The parties’ submissions
Peel Port argued that disclosure of the policy should be ordered, as this might obviate the need for any further litigation against EAPL, thereby preventing wasted costs.
Dornoch accepted that the procedural grounds for issuing the application were made out, and that the policy itself was disclosable. However, they resisted the application on the basis that a statutory mechanism for obtaining information about the policy already existed in Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 (‘the Act’).
In light of the above, Dornoch argued that any order for disclosure under CPR 31.16 would undermine and be inconsistent with the Act.
The decision
The Judge, Mrs Justice Jefford, refused Peel Port’s application. In arriving at her decision, the Judge gave weight to the following factors:
1) The advent of the Act meant it was unlikely that Parliament envisaged a situation where litigants could use CPR 31.16 to obtain insurance policies from the insurers of insolvent insureds;
2) There had never been an express statutory mechanism which entitled a litigant to obtain the policy of a solvent insured;
3) CPR 31.16 would not come to a prospective litigant’s avail in proceedings against the insured, as the policy could not fall within the parameters of standard disclosure i.e. it was not relevant to the case.
It was central to the Judge’s decision that EAPL was not insolvent. Peel Port tried to deflect this point by saying that EAPL would not be able to meet a judgment awarded against it. However, the Judge found that the circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional. Accordingly, there was no basis to depart from the established practice against disclosure of a solvent insured’s policy.
Alexander Rosenfield is an associate at Fenchurch Law
When is an individual a consumer for insurance purposes?
The law distinguishes between businesses and consumers in many areas, with the consumer benefiting from a more favourable regime as a result of their need for greater protection in the commercial market place.
In the insurance arena, consumers can look to a number of statutory and regulatory provisions designed to protect their rights, including those contained in the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), and the Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook (ICOBS) rules.
Often the distinction between a consumer and a business will be readily apparent. Occasionally the line is more blurred, and it is recognised that private individuals can act in a number of capacities. A recent Court of Appeal case, Mohammed Ashfaq v International Insurance Company of Hannover plc, has provided guidance on how to ascertain whether an individual is acting as a consumer when taking out an insurance policy.
In that case, the insured was seeking to have set aside a judgment of the Technology and Construction Court dismissing his claim for indemnity following a fire at a property he owned in Huddersfield. He argued that the court should have taken into account his consumer status, and that if it had, it would have reached a different conclusion.
The insured had incorrectly given a negative answer in his online proposal form for residential let property insurance to the question as to whether he had ever been convicted or had any prosecutions pending. The policy contained a ‘basis of contract’ clause as a result of which any incorrect information provided in the proposal form could amount to a breach of warranty. The insured had in fact a pending prosecution for common assault. When this was discovered insurers sought to avoid liability under the policy on a number of grounds including breach of warranty. The insured argued that had the consumer protections contained in UTCCR and ICOBS been taken into account the insurers would not have been so entitled.
The UTCCR defines a consumer as “any natural person who, in contracts governed by these Regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.” ICOBS similarly defines a consumer as “any natural person who is acting for purposes which are outside his trade or profession. Further, where the individual is acting in more than one capacity, ICOBS provides that, if in relation to particular contract of insurance, the customer entered into it mainly for purposes unrelated to his trade or profession, the customer is a consumer.
The insured submitted that his trade or profession was that of a company director of three companies whose business was IT not property ownership or letting. He further submitted that the main purpose of taking out the insurance was to protect his property asset against fire and other risks and the insurance against loss of rent was subsidiary. The main purpose of entering into the contract of insurance was therefore unrelated to his trade or profession and he fell within the definition of a consumer.
The Court of Appeal disagreed.
It was clear from the face of the policy documentation that the purpose for which the insurance was taken out was to protect the property which the insured was using for the business of letting to students for rent, against fire and other risks. The purpose of the insurance was therefore related to the insured’s trade, business or profession of property letting. Further, part of the cover sought was loss of rent for up to 12 months: this was not an application for ordinary domestic house insurance.
The fact that insured was a company director and carried on the trade or profession of company director did not mean that he was not also carrying on the trade business or profession of a building owner letting out property for profit.
This finding is consistent with guidance given by the FCA as to how individuals acting in certain capacities should be categorised. One of the examples it gives of a commercial customer is a person taking out a policy covering property bought under a buy-to-let mortgage.
The judge did not consider whether the appellant would have been considered a consumer under the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 which was not in force at the relevant time for the purposes of this case. On the basis that that Act takes a similar approach, defining a consumer insurance contract as one between an individual who enters into the contract wholly or mainly for purposes unrelated to the individual’s trade business or profession, it would seem unlikely that a different conclusion would have been reached.
This case serves as a reminder that a person’s status as a consumer is not synonymous with that of being an individual. Any business activity undertaken, including as an adjunct to that individual’s usual trade or profession, may make them a commercial consumer for insurance purposes.
See Mohammed Ashfaq v International Insurance Company of Hannover plc [2017] EWCA Civ 357.
Joanna Grant is a partner at Fenchurch Law.
Leeds Beckett University – v – Travelers Insurance Co Ltd
A recent decision by the Technology and Construction Court has considered causation issues in the context of a property insurance claim. Was the damage accidental or inevitable?
The insured, Leeds Beckett University (‘the University’), acquired the site of a former brewery on which to build a number of accommodation blocks in 1993. The blocks were completed by 1996.
In December 2011, large cracks appeared in the largest of the buildings (“the building”). Subsequent investigations revealed that the concrete walls below ground-level had turned to mush. The building was then demolished in 2012.
The University insured the building with Travelers, who declined the claim in May 2012. In support of their declinature, Travelers said that the building had been subjected to sulphate attack by ground water beneath, and that the exclusions for gradual deterioration, faulty or defective design, or contamination applied.
The University disagreed, and argued that the relevant damage was “accidental” such that it was caught by the policy’s definition of “damage.” Further, it sought to characterise the damage as “flood” damage, so as to bring it within the meaning of “defined peril.”
The issues to be decided at trial were as follows:
a. Could the damage be characterised as “accidental damage” within the meaning of the policy?
b. If so, was it caught by any of the exclusions which the insurers sought to rely upon?
Was the damage accidental?
The Judge, Mr Justice Coulson, began his analysis by setting out the detailed history of the building and the land upon which it was sited. He referred specifically to the fact that the building was built over an existing watercourse, and to the historic geotechnical reports which raised concerns with the sulphate content of the soil and the damage it might cause. The Judge also made reference to the defective design of the groundwater drainage system, remarking that “this was going to be a difficult site to develop because of the numerous water issues.”
The University tried to deflect these issues, and asserted that the watercourse did not show up on every O/S map, and could not be identified when construction commenced. Further, it said that the occurrence of the damage over the watercourse was just a coincidence. The Judge gave short shrift to these points, and rejected any notion that the damage could be described as “flood damage.”
As to whether the damage was accidental; again, the Judge found against the University. His view was that “accidental simply means an event occurs by chance, which is non-deliberate.” In framing his view, he drew a distinction between the risk of something happening, which would usually be covered by a policy, and the inevitability of something happening (such as wear and tear), which would not.
On the facts, the Judge was left with little doubt that the damage was not accidental or fortuitous, a fact on which both parties’ experts agreed. There was not simply a risk that the concrete walls would fail – it was an inevitability. Accordingly, the University could not succeed on causation, and its claim failed.
Did any of the exclusions apply?
1. Gradual deterioration?
The University argued that, if the damage was accidental, the exclusion could not apply. The Judge disagreed, and concluded that there was nothing in the policy which supported such an analysis. Further, he considered the University’s argument to be ‘contrary to commercial common sense.’
As to the meaning of the words “gradual deterioration”, the Judge concluded that “gradual deterioration can be caused by the interaction between the property insured and the circumstances in which the property exists.” In other words, one had to take a holistic view when looking at gradual deterioration – it was wrong to look at the building itself without considering any external influences i.e. the ground and flowing water.
In the present case, the damage was caused by an inherent defect or weakness of the building, and occurred over a period of at least 10 years. Accordingly, the Judge found that the exclusion applied.
2. Faulty design?
The Judge was satisfied that this exclusion also applied. He made reference to the lack of a suitable drainage system (or rather, the lack of one at all), and the fact that the risks were brought to the University’s attention at an early stage. It followed that the design was unfit for purpose, and the exclusion applied.
3. Contamination?
As above, the Judge found in favour of the insurers. The evidence made it clear that there were ‘probably’ old mineshafts underneath the site (albeit they were never found), which was agreed as being the most likely source of the contaminated water which was discovered in December 2011.
The ‘proviso’ clause
The final issue to be decided was whether the University’s claim was capable of being salvaged by the ‘proviso’ to the exclusion clause. This provided that the exclusion could not exclude subsequent damage from a cause not otherwise excluded.
The nub of the University’s argument was that, whilst the original damage was to the blockwork, the subsequent damage was the cracking and the other damage to the superstructure.
The Judge rejected this argument. The damage to the sub-structure and the visible damage to the superstructure above were all part of the same damage, the cause of which was excluded.
Comments
The judgment is a useful yardstick of how the Courts will resolve claims for property damage which was inevitable rather than fortuitous.
It also provides some helpful commentary as to how exclusion for wear and tear or gradual deterioration will be assessed – namely, by considering the interaction between the insured property and its environment.
Alexander Rosenfield is an associate at Fenchurch Law