S.1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“the DPA”) requires those involved in building and designing new dwellings to work in a professional or workmanlike manner, to use proper materials and to see that the completed dwelling is fit for habitation. This session will provide a refresher on some of the key principles under S.1 of the DPA, together with an update on recent case law; namely, URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] which establishes that the duty under S.1 is also owed to developers, and Vainker v Marbank Construction Ltd [2024], which reinforces the well-established fitness for habitation test.

Alex Rosenfield, Associate Partner

A Court in the USA has delivered the world’s first legal decision on the most generous of the three London Engineering Group (LEG) clauses related to defect exclusions, LEG3, in the case of South Capitol Bridgebuilders v Lexington Insurance Company. The fact that the Construction All Risks (CAR) market has been waiting for a LEG3 decision for this long means that SCB v Lexington was always going to receive a lot of attention. However, the unrestrained and intemperate language used by the Judge means that there is a risk that the decision will create more heat than light, and has the potential to lead to a reaction by CAR insurers which could negatively affect the interests of policyholders. This case study therefore attempts to take a step back from the eye-catching language used by the Judge in SCB, and to discuss what the future for LEG3 might look like.

David Pryce, Senior Partner

Belfast Coverage Symposium
Venue: Grand Central Hotel, Bedford St, Belfast BT2 7FF
Date: 5 December 2024

S.1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“the DPA”) requires those involved in building and designing new dwellings to work in a professional or workmanlike manner, to use proper materials and to see that the completed dwelling is fit for habitation. This session will provide a refresher on some of the key principles under S.1 of the DPA, together with an update on recent case law; namely, URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] which establishes that the duty under S.1 is also owed to developers, and Vainker v Marbank Construction Ltd [2024], which reinforces the well-established fitness for habitation test.

Alex Rosenfield, Associate Partner

A look at the key issues, in relation to subrogation, that can arise as well as some recent decisions on this area, including Dassault Aviation SA v Mitsui Sumitomo and RSA v Textainer.

Anthony McGeough, Senior Associate

A Court in the USA has delivered the world’s first legal decision on the most generous of the three London Engineering Group (LEG) clauses related to defect exclusions, LEG3, in the case of South Capitol Bridgebuilders v Lexington Insurance Company. The fact that the Construction All Risks (CAR) market has been waiting for a LEG3 decision for this long means that SCB v Lexington was always going to receive a lot of attention. However, the unrestrained and intemperate language used by the Judge means that there is a risk that the decision will create more heat than light, and has the potential to lead to a reaction by CAR insurers which could negatively affect the interests of policyholders. This case study therefore attempts to take a step back from the eye-catching language used by the Judge in SCB, and to discuss what the future for LEG3 might look like.

David Pryce, Senior Partner

Southern Coverage Symposium
Venue: The Merchants’ Taylor Hall
Date: 14 November 2024

s.1 of the Defective Premises Act 1972 (“the DPA”) requires those involved in building and designing new dwellings to work in a professional or workmanlike manner, to use proper materials and to see that the completed dwelling is fit for habitation. This session will provide a refresher on some of the key principles under Section 1 of the DPA, together with an update on recent case law; namely, URS Corporation Limited v BDW Trading Limited [2023] EWCA Civ 772 which establishes that the duty under section 1 of the DPA is also owed to developers, and (2) Vainker v Marbank Construction Ltd [2024] EWHC 667 [TCC], which reinforces the well-established fitness for habitation test.

Alex Rosenfield, Associate Partner

Covid 19 BI claims continue to dominate the legal landscape with ongoing uncertainty as to the extent of cover.

In this update we review the current state of play by reference to:

• The “At the Premises” litigation and the forthcoming appeal;
• The next steps arising out of the recent “Non-Damage Denial of Access” judgments;
• Notifiable Disease extensions and the Court of Appeal hearing in Bellini v Brit
• Furlough

Joanna Grant, Managing Partner

A Court in the USA has delivered the world’s first legal decision on the most generous of the three London Engineering Group (LEG) clauses related to defect exclusions, LEG3, in the case of South Capitol Bridgebuilders v Lexington Insurance Company. The fact that the Construction All Risks (CAR) market (otherwise known as the Builders’ Risk market) has been waiting for a LEG3 decision for this long means that SCB v Lexington was always going to receive a lot of attention. However, the unrestrained and intemperate language used by the Judge means that there is a risk that the decision will create more heat than light, and has the potential to lead to a reaction by CAR insurers which could negatively affect the interests of policyholders. This case study therefore attempts to take a step back from the eye-catching language used by the Judge in SCB, and to discuss what the future for LEG3 might look like.

David Pryce, Senior Partner

Join us at our Leeds office (less than a 10-minute walk from Aspire Leeds) for a delightful evening at our fine wine tasting. Explore the subtle nuances and complex flavours of specially curated wines, complemented by a delicious selection of cheeses and charcuterie.

Northern Coverage Symposium
Venue: Aspire Leeds
Date: 6 June 2024