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
The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: 100 cases every policyholder needs to know. #1 (The Bad). Why Wayne Tank is wrongly decided.
Welcome to a new series of blogs from Fenchurch Law: 100 cases every policyholder needs to know. An opinionated and practical guide to the most important insurance decisions relating to the London / English insurance markets, all looked at from a pro-policyholder perspective.
Some cases are correctly decided and positive for policyholders. We celebrate those cases as The Good.
Some cases are, in our view, bad for policyholders, wrongly decided, and in need of being overturned. We highlight those decisions as The Bad.
Other cases are bad for policyholders but seem (even to our policyholder-tinted eyes) to be correctly decided. Those are cases that can trip up even the most honest policyholder with the most genuine claim. We put the hazard lights on those cases as The Ugly.
At Fenchurch Law we love the insurance market. But we love policyholders just a little bit more.
#1 (The Bad)
Concurrent proximate causes and insurance claims: why Wayne Tank is wrongly decided.
As Rob Merkin says in Colinvaux, there is a logical fallacy at the heart of the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wayne Tank and Pump Co v Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation [1974] QB 57. The case concerns concurrent proximate causes of liability / loss sustained by a policyholder in an insurance context. The Court of Appeal, held that whereas the policyholder can recover when one cause is insured and the other is not insured, the policyholder is unable to recover when one cause is covered and the other is excluded.
The problem with that approach is exemplified when a policyholder has two insurance policies which each cover one of the two concurrent causes, and exclude the other. The issue is more common than most policyholders would expect, and arises perhaps most often where physical damage occurs to someone else’s property as a result of both a workmanship failure (commonly insured by public liability policies, but excluded by professional indemnity policies), and a design failure (insured by professional indemnity policies, but commonly excluded by public liability policies).
In that situation Wayne Tank says that the policyholder cannot recover under either policy, despite having paid premiums in respect of both of the risks which have given rise to the loss. For that reason we believe the case is wrongly decided, and should not be followed when the issue next reaches the Supreme Court. In the meantime, while the decision remains good law, here are our thoughts about arguments that policyholders can use if their insurers refuse to pay a claim on the basis of Wayne Tank.
Option 1: to apply the approach taken by the House of Lords in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2003] 1 AC 32, where the usual rules of causation were abandoned in order to ensure that the Claimant was able to recover damages where it could demonstrate that one of two defendants must be at fault, but to determine which one. As has been noted, the Fairchild decision seeks to avoid the very consequence created by “mirroring” exclusions in professional indemnity and public liability policies.
Option 2: to follow the Court’s approach to “other insurance” clauses: i.e. to uphold the clause when an insured has two policies, and one contains an “other insurance” clause and the other policy does not, but to treat the clauses as cancelling each other out when they are present in both policies (It is worth noting that in Wayne Tank the Court only considered the application of a single policy, and so the insured had not paid a premium to cover the full extent of the exposure which gave rise to its loss). The leading authority on “concurrent escape clauses” is Weddell v Road Traffic and General Insurance Co Ltd [1932], where the absurdity of the result that would have been created by giving effect to the escape clauses in each policy was the basis of the Court’s decision:
“The reasonable construction is to exclude from the category of co-existing cover any cover which is expressed to be itself cancelled by such co-existence, and to hold in such cases that
both companies are liable… [otherwise] one would reach the absurd result that whichever policy one looks at it is always the other one which is effective”.