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
(Not) the new LEG clauses.
Let me start by making something clear. The clauses referred to below are NOT the new LEG clauses.
Whilst I have made no secret of my view that the LEG committee does need to amend LEG3 (and, perhaps, should have done so before now), and that the decisions in SCB and Archer have provided a golden opportunity to overhaul not just the LEG clauses, but the DE clauses too, I have no involvement in the decision about whether the LEG committee will, in fact, produce new versions of the LEG clauses or, if they do decide to do so, in determining what those clauses will look like. As a result, what is set out below represents nothing more than my own suggestions about how the existing LEG clauses could be amended in order to preserve what I believe to be the general market understanding of their meaning, whilst being expressed in clear language that would be easily understood not only by those who specialise in CAR / Builder’s Risk, but also by those who have no involvement in this particularly fascinating area of insurance.
I have been asked, not unreasonably, whether it is misleading of me even to refer to my own draft clauses by reference to the official LEG clauses. However, after careful consideration I have maintained the view that I originally took instinctively, that it is appropriate for me to do so, for two reasons.
The first is that my proposed clauses are not intended to alter the meaning of the existing clauses but, rather, to express what I regard as the meaning of the existing clauses in a clear way. Whilst I am happy to be challenged about my understanding of the meaning of the existing clauses, it would make no sense for me not to explicitly link my drafts to the current clauses, because my re-drafts of each clause only make sense when considered in the context of the original. I don’t consider it to be my place, as a lawyer, to be suggesting that the intention of the existing clauses should be changed in order to provide more (or less) cover. That is for underwriters and brokers to decide.
The second reason is that, although the LEG clauses are officially maintained by the London Engineering Group (i.e. “LEG”), the existing clauses have become, in my view, public property as a result of their popularity, and by their wide usage across the world. For better or for worse, the scope of cover provided by Builder’s Risk policies in every insurance market needs to be considered in the context of the defects exclusions produced by the LEG committee, whether an official LEG clause is used, or whether a different form of defects exclusion is used (whether from the DE suite, or bespoke clauses).
That being the case, it seems to me that anyone with a serious interest in the health of the Builder’s Risk market has the right to contribute to the debate about what the market-leading suite of defects exclusions (which is what the LEG clauses are) should look like in the next generation of Builder’s Risk policies. I don’t claim to have any unique insight into that debate, or to be writing the last word on the subject, but I do hope that what I say can be a useful contribution to what should be a market-wide conversation about these important clauses.
What would be worse even than the unsatisfactory position that we are in today (where SCB and Archer have raised considerable uncertainty about the meaning of the clauses, and arguably called into question whether their meaning can reliably be ascertained at all), would be for insurers to fragment and begin to provide a multiplicity of their own defects exclusions. These clauses have layers of meaning, and there is beauty in their individual and collective complexity. But if we move away from standard defects exclusions, then beautiful complexity may give rise to unfathomable chaos in which brokers, policyholders and, if we’re honest, even the Builder’s Risk underwriters themselves, will have little chance of achieving a clear common understanding of the cover that their policies are providing. In that situation it would only be the lawyers who would be the only winners, and no-one wants that.
So, what is the problem with the existing clauses?
Firstly, they are overly long and convoluted. There are numerous phrases (most notably, but not only, the words in brackets in the 2006 version of LEG3) which I understand to have been introduced “for the avoidance of doubt”, but which have had precisely the opposite effect. Rather than bringing clarity to the meaning of the clauses, these superfluous phrases have instead obscured that meaning.
Secondly, the word “defect” is used to describe two quite different things in different contexts. Sometimes the word defect is intended to describe the condition of the insured property. At other times it appears to be intended to refer to a mistake (whether a mistake concerning design, or workmanship, etc).
Thirdly, the clauses have encouraged some users to take the view that they treat “damage” on the one hand, and a “defect” on the other, as binary concepts, so that one should be concerned with the question of whether insured property is damaged OR defective. However, that is plainly not right. As I remember being explained to me when I began to work with Builder’s Risk policies, when you refer to “damage” you are concerned with a happening, whereas when you refer to a “defect” you are concerned with a condition.
Knowing that insured property is in a condition that the owner would preferred it not to be in, today (so that it can therefore be described as being defective, today), tells you nothing at all about whether the insured property underwent an adverse change in physical condition which impaired the value or usefulness of the property. If it did undergo that change (i.e. it suffered damage in order to reach its defective state or, to put it another way, it become “damaged”), then that would trigger the insuring clause of a Builder’s Risk policy. If, on the other hand, the insured property was simply built badly, it should never trigger the insuring clause of a Builder’s Risk policy.
So, what am I intending to achieve in my proposed re-drafts of the clauses? As set out above I am not intending to suggest any alteration of the cover which I believe is intended by the existing clauses. Rather, my only intention is to express, in as clear language as possible, my understanding of the meaning of the existing clauses.
With that in mind, my re-drafts have largely retained the existing language of the current LEG clauses, and primarily removed the words which in my view serve to obscure the meaning of the existing clauses. The exception to that approach is in my proposed amendment to LEG1, where in order to avoid using the word “defect” to refer to a mistake, I have instead introduced that word into the clause even though it doesn’t appear anywhere in the existing suite of exclusions. However, in my view, the natural and ordinary meaning of the word “mistake” accurately reflects the meaning of the (in my view) misleading word that it replaces in the original clause.
A final point in relation to the clauses. As I explained in my article on the SCB decision, the urgent need to amend LEG3 (and, by extension, the other LEG clauses) presents an opportunity to move away from the current unhelpful position where we have two separate suites of defects exclusions (LEG, and DE).
Each suite can be broken down in three categories: clauses that are concerned with causation (LEG1 and DE1); clauses that are concerned with improvements (LEG3 and DE5); and clauses that are concerned with the condition of the insured property before damage occurred (DE2-4, and LEG2). Of those three categories, the clauses relating to two of them are materially the same in each suite, despite differences in drafting (i.e. LEG1 and DE1 do the same thing, as do LEG3 and DE5 - there may be technical arguments that they operate slightly differently, but those technical arguments should not, in my view, be taken seriously).
The only difference between the two suites is in the intermediate clauses which are concerned with the condition of the property before the damage occurred. In that regard LEG2 operates materially differently from DE2-4. That is due to the different origin of the two suites: the DE clauses were intended to be general Builder’s Risk clauses, whereas the LEG clauses were introduced specifically to cater for engineering risks (i.e. EAR as opposed to CAR). Unfortunately, the DE clauses have not been as successfully exported as the LEG clauses (perhaps because there are more of the DE clauses and so they are perceived as being more difficult to understand), with the result that in some important markets, including the US, the LEG clauses are used as standard for civils projects, whereas the DE clauses would be more appropriate for projects of that type.
So, rather than simply amending the LEG clauses, it seems to me to be much more sensible to introduce a single suite of clauses which are based on the existing LEG clauses, but which re-brand LEG2 in the way it was intended (i.e. as applying to EAR) and amending DE3 as a civils alternative to LEG2.
And with that rather long introduction, and with thanks for the patience of anyone who has taken the time to read this far rather than jumping straight to the draft clauses themselves, here are my suggestions for a new single suite of defects exclusions, modelled on the current LEG clauses, but with an amended version of DE3 introduced as an alternative to LEG2 (and branded LEG2 (CAR)).
| Original clauses | My draft clauses |
| LEG1
“The Insurer(s) shall not be liable for Loss or Damage due to defects of material workmanship design plan or specification.” |
LEG1
The Insurer shall not be liable for the cost of fixing any damage caused by mistakes of any kind. |
| LEG2
“The Insurer(s) shall not be liable in respect of: All costs rendered necessary by defects of material workmanship design plan or specification and should damage occur to any portion of the Insured Property containing any of the said defects the cost of replacement or rectification which is hereby excluded is that cost which would have been incurred if replacement or rectification of the said portion of the Insured Property had been put in hand immediately prior to the said damage. For the purpose of this policy and not merely this exclusion it is understood and agreed that any portion of the Insured Property … shall not be regarded as damaged solely by virtue of the existence of any defect or material workmanship design plan of specification”. |
LEG2 (EAR)
Should damage occur to any portion of the Insured Property which was in a defective condition before the damage occurred the Insurer shall not be liable for the cost that would have been incurred to fix the defects in that portion of the Insured Property immediately before the damage occurred.
|
| DE3
“This policy excludes loss of or damage to and the cost necessary to replace repair or rectify: i. Property insured which is in a defective condition due to a defect in design plan specification materials or workmanship of such property insured or any part thereof; ii. Property insured lost or damaged to enable the replacement repair or rectification of Property insured excluded by (i) above. Exclusion (i) above shall not apply to other Property insured which is free of the defective condition but is damaged in consequence thereof.” |
LEG2 (CAR)
The Insurer shall not be liable for the cost incurred to fix any portion of the Insured Property which was in a defective condition immediately before the damage occurred.
|
| LEG 3/06
“The Insurer(s) shall not be liable in respect of: All costs rendered necessary by defects of material workmanship design plan or specification and should damage (which for the purposes of this exclusion shall include any patent detrimental change in the physical condition of the Insured Property) occur to any portion of the Insured Property containing any of the said defects the cost of replacement or rectification which is hereby excluded is that cost incurred to improve the original material workmanship design plan or specification. For the purpose of the policy and not merely this exclusion it is understood and agreed that any portion of the Insured Property shall not be regarded as damaged solely by virtue of the existence of any defect of material workmanship design plan or specification.” |
LEG 3
The insurer shall not be liable for the cost incurred to improve the original material workmanship design plan or specification.
|
I would love to hear from anyone who either agrees or disagrees with what I’ve set out above. The market would benefit from a debate on this important issue, and we have an opportunity to create a better situation than the one in which we find ourselves today. Please feel free to email me either at david.pryce@fenchurchlaw.co.uk, or at david.pryce@fenchurchlaw.com.sg.
David Pryce is a Senior Partner at Fenchurch Law.
Climate Risks Series, Part 1: Climate litigation and severe weather fuelling insurance coverage disputes
The global rise in climate litigation looks set to continue, with oil and gas companies increasingly accused of causing environmental damage, failing to prevent losses occurring, and improperly managing or disclosing climate risks. Implementation of decarbonisation and climate strategies is subject to scrutiny across all industry sectors, with claims proceeding in many jurisdictions seeking compensation for environmental harm as well as strategic influence over future regulatory, corporate or investment decisions.
Evolving risks associated with rising temperatures have significant implications for the (re)insurance market as commercial policyholders seek to mitigate exposure to physical damage caused by severe weather events; financial loss arising from business interruption; liability claims for environmental pollution, harmful products or ‘greenwashing’; reputational risks; and challenges associated with the transition towards clean energy sources and net zero emissions.
Litigation Trends
Cases in which climate change or its impacts are disputed have been brought by a wide range of claimants, across a broad spectrum of legal actions including nuisance, product liability, negligence, fiduciary duty, human rights and statutory planning regimes. Approximately 75% of cases so far have been commenced in the US, alongside a large number in Australia, the EU and UK.
Science plays a central role and can be critical to determining whether litigants have standing to sue. The emerging field of climate physics allows for quantification of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emitters’ responsibility, with around 90 private and state-owned entities found to be responsible for approximately two-thirds of global carbon dioxide and methane emissions. Recent advances in scientific attribution may provide evidence for legal causation in claims relating to loss from climate change or severe storms, flooding or drought.
Directors of high-profile companies may be personally targeted in such claims as liable for breach of fiduciary duties to the company or its members, in failing to take action to respond to climate change, or approving policies that contribute to harmful emissions.
Recent Cases
An explosion of ‘climate lawfare’ has kicked off in recent years, with the cases highlighted below indicative of key themes.
Smith v Fonterra [2024]
The New Zealand Supreme Court reinstated claims, struck out by lower courts, allowing the claimant Māori leader with an interest in customary land to proceed with tort claims against seven of the country’s largest GHG emitting corporations, including a novel cause of action involving a duty to cease materially contributing to damage to the climate system. This was an interlocutory application and the refusal to strike out does not mean that the pleaded claims will ultimately succeed on the merits. However, the judgment is significant in demonstrating appellate courts’ willingness to respond to the existential threat of climate change by allowing innovative claims to be advanced and tested through evidence at trials.
R v Surrey County Council [2024]
In a case brought by Sarah Finch fighting the construction of a new oil well in Surrey, the UK Supreme Court (by a 3:2 majority) ruled that authorities must consider downstream GHG emissions created by use of a company’s products, when evaluating planning approvals. The Council’s decision to grant permission to a developer was held to be unlawful because the environmental impact assessment for the project did not include consideration of these “Scope 3” emissions, when it was clear that oil from the wells would be burned.
Verein KlimaSeniorinnen [2024]
An association of over 2,000 older Swiss women complained that authorities had not acted appropriately to develop and implement legislation and measures to mitigate the effects of climate change. The Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Article 8 of the European Convention encompasses a right for individuals to effective protection by state authorities from serious adverse effects of climate change on their life, health and wellbeing. Grand Chamber rulings are final and cannot be appealed: Switzerland is now required to take suitable measures to comply. While not binding on national courts elsewhere, the decision will be influential.
ClientEarth v Shell [2023]
The English High Court dismissed ClientEarth’s attempt to launch a derivative action against the directors of Shell plc in respect of their alleged failure to properly address the risks of climate change, indicating that claims of this nature brought by minority shareholders will face significant challenges. The Court noted that directors (especially those of large multinationals) need to balance a myriad of competing considerations in seeking to promote the success of the company, and courts will be reluctant to interfere with that discretion, making it harder to establish that directors have breached their statutory duties.
US Big Oil lawsuits
Following lengthy disputes over forum, proceedings against oil and gas companies in the US are gaining momentum, paving the way for the claims to be substantively examined in state courts. Many actions against the fossil fuel industry seek to establish that defendants knew the dangers posed by their products and deliberately concealed and misrepresented the facts, akin to deceptive promotion and failure to warn arguments relied upon in other mass tort claims in the US, arising from the supply of tobacco, firearms or opioids.
Implications for Policyholders
With increasing volatility and accumulation risk, insurers will look to mitigate exposures through wordings, exclusions, sub-limits and endorsements. The duty to defend is the first issue for liability insurers, given the number of policyholders affected and the potential sums at stake in indemnity and defence costs.
In 2021, the Lloyd’s Market Association published a model Climate Change Exclusion clause (LMA5570). Property policies exclude gradual deterioration, with express wording or impliedly by the requirement of fortuity, and liability insurance typically excludes claims arising from pollution.
Lawsuits have been filed in the US over insurance coverage for climate harm, including Aloha Petroleum v NUF Insurance Co of Pittsburgh (2022), arising from claims by Honolulu and Maui, and Everest v Gulf Oil (2022), involving energy operations in Connecticut. Policy coverage may depend on whether an “occurrence” or accident has taken place, as opposed to intentional acts or their reasonably anticipated consequences (Steadfast v AES Corp (2011).
Policyholders should review their insurance programmes with the benefit of professional advice to ensure adequate cover for potential property damage, liability exposures and legal defence costs.
In the following instalments of our Climate Risks Series, we will examine the impact of reinsurance schemes and parametric solutions, and coverage for storm and flood-related perils in light of recent claims experience.
Authors
Amy Lacey, Partner
Ayo Babatunde, Associate
Queenie Wong, Associate
Fenchurch Law announces key leadership changes as it enters next phase of growth
Fenchurch Law has announced that Joanna Grant has been appointed Managing Partner of the firm, with predecessor and founder David Pryce taking on new Senior Partner role, leading the firm’s expansion into Singapore. In addition, Daniel Robin will step into the role of Deputy Managing Partner.
Joanna Grant joined Fenchurch Law as Partner in 2016 and has since led the firm’s expert Construction and Property Risks team, advising clients on some of the most high-profile commercial insurance disputes in the UK. She steps into the role of Managing Partner following the 14-year tenure of founder and predecessor David Pryce. David now takes up the role of Senior Partner, where he will oversee the firm’s global expansion strategy, starting with the opening of its recently-announced Singapore office later this year.
Joining Joanna on the firm’s senior management team is the head of the firm’s Leeds Office Daniel Robin, who becomes Deputy Managing Partner, supporting and overseeing Fenchurch Law’s continued growth strategy in the UK market.
These leadership changes signify an exciting growth milestone for the firm, which has represented clients in some of the most high-profile and complex policy disputes in recent years, including Stonegate Pub Company’s Covid-19 Business Interruption (BI) claim, which remains the highest-value Covid-19-related BI claim to pass through the English courts.
This announcement also follows recent news that the firm has transitioned to an employee-owned business model through the launch of an Employee Ownership Trust (EOT), which saw 60% of its shares awarded to its people.
Fenchurch Law becomes one of the few female-led law firms in the UK.
David Pryce, Senior Partner at Fenchurch Law, commented: “It’s a hugely exciting time for Fenchurch Law, and I’m so proud of what we’ve achieved since our inception in 2010. I’m absolutely delighted that Joanna and Daniel will be leading the firm into its next stage of growth, as we look to expand our footprint even further.”
Joanna Grant, Managing Partner at Fenchurch Law, added: “I’m delighted to be leading the charge for Fenchurch Law in its ongoing mission to level the playing field for policyholders, with a particular focus on complex and high value coverage disputes in the UK.”
Daniel Robin, added: “I’m very proud to be able to support the further growth of Fenchurch Law and give even more policyholders in the UK access to the wealth of expertise we have across the team.”
Archer v Ace (or, The Demise Of LEG3?)
Introduction
In the London Market there is, by and large, a common understanding about how LEG3 and the other defects exclusions operate, and what they are intended to do. That doesn’t mean that disagreements don’t arise about how a particular defects exclusion might apply to a particular set of facts, but those disagreements tend to be relatively rare, and the London Market tends to deal with what we call Construction All Risks claims (or what would be known in the US as Builders’ Risk claims), quite well on the whole.
As a result, those using the defects exclusions in the London Market, whether that is insurers, brokers, or the more sophisticated policyholders, tend to overlook the fact that several of the clauses, in both the LEG and DE suites of exclusions, are actually very difficult to understand for those who come to the clauses with the (surely reasonable) aspiration of wanting to determine the meaning of the clauses from the words that they contain.
Towards the end of last year I wrote about the potential impact of the first Court decision anywhere in the world which considered the meaning of the defects exclusion which (along with DE5, which is much less commonly used outside the UK) is intended to preserve the most generous coverage for damage to works under construction, LEG3, in the case of South Capitol Bridgebuilders v Lexington. That case was decided by a Court in the District of Columbia, but applied the Law of Illinois. Now, like buses, a second decision has been handed down in the US which considers LEG3, this time applying the Law of Florida, in the case Archer Western - De Moya Joint Venture v Ace American Insurance Co.
The decision in SCB sounded alarm bells for the Builder’s Risk community in the US, and presumably also for the LEG Committee, who are responsible for the LEG defects exclusion clauses. It raised at least two questions of significance: what constitutes damage for the purpose of triggering a Builder’s Risk policy; and what is the meaning of the LEG3 clause? Its answers to those questions were striking: property that from an English law perspective would have certainly been regarded as merely being in a defective condition was held by the Court in SCB to have suffered damage. With regard to the meaning of LEG3, the Court in SCB appeared to be unable to form a view, and held that the clause was ambiguous: “egregiously so”.
The big question for those who, like me, have an interest in the health of the Builder’s Risk market, was whether SCB would come to be regarded as an outlier decision, or one that would have a meaningful impact? Archer v Ace suggests the latter.
The judgment in Archer concerns an application for summary judgment by the insurer which was denied, and so the issues in the case will continue towards a substantive trial in due course. However, the judgment runs to some 66 pages, and so the issues were considered in some detail. I am not going to try to cover all of the detail but, as with my article on SCB, am going to focus instead of what the most important elements might mean for the Builder’s Risk market.
The facts
Again, I’ll start with a very brief description of the facts, which up to a point may create a sense of Deja Vu for those familiar with the SCB decision. Once more we have a Builder’s Risk claim relating to inadequate concrete in a bridge under construction. We have a disagreement about whether the works under construction were damaged (so as to trigger the Builder’s Risk policy), or whether the works were merely defective (which would not trigger the policy). We have a policy that contains a LEG3 defects exclusion. And we have disagreements about what LEG3 means, and about how one might establish what constitutes the “improvements” with which LEG3 is concerned.
In Archer the policyholder was a design and build contractor for the snappily titled “I-395/SR 836 Reconstruction / Rehabilitation Project” in Miami, Florida, which included the construction of a “signature bridge”. The design of the bridge involved batches of concrete, the production of which included the addition of “fly ash” from a pressurised fly ash silo, which had a mechanical system which was intended to allow specified amounts of fly ash to be added to the concrete batches. At some point between August and November 2020 the pressure relief valve of the silo failed, so that certain batches were “adulterated by an excessive amount of fly ash”.
I am not my firm’s expert on concrete (the “I ❤️ concrete” mug on my colleague Joanna Grant’s desk probably tells you who is) but, as the Court explained in Archer, although cement and concrete are terms that are often used interchangeably, they aren’t the same. Rather, cement is one of the ingredients of concrete, with the other common ingredients of concrete being fly ash, water, and aggregates. So, the presence of fly ash in concrete is not a problem in and of itself. In fact, in one sense, the more fly ash there is in the concrete, the better, as long as using additional amounts of fly ash does not come at the expense of the amount of cement used. High proportions of both fly ash and cement “generally increases the overall compressive strength of the concrete”. The problem comes when, as in Archer, additional amounts of fly ash are used at the expense of the amount of cement used. Then the compressive strength of the concrete is impaired.
When the policyholder became aware that some of the concrete had inadequate compressive strength, it submitted a claim for indemnity for the cost of repairing the concrete. The insurer denied coverage “reasoning the concrete constituted a defective material due to to the excess fly ash, and `because of this defect the material was never in a satisfactory state and therefore was not damaged’”.
Based on the above, the Court was required to address the following questions:
- Did the insured property suffer damage?
- Is LEG3 ambiguous?
In approaching those questions, the Court applied the test for summary judgment under the Law of Florida, which is that “summary judgment is appropriate where there is ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact’, and the moving party is ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law’” (per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56), and that “when deciding whether summary judgment is appropriate, the court views all facts and resolves all doubts in favour of the non-moving party”.
It also applied the test for ambiguity under the Law of Florida, which is that “a policy is ambiguous only when ‘its terms make the contract susceptible to different reasonable interpretations, one resulting in coverage and one resulting in exclusion’”, and that “if there is an ambiguity, then it is construed against the insurer and in favour of coverage”.
As I did in my SCB article, I’ll explain what the Court held in relation to each issue, and add some comments of my own.
Did the insured property suffer damage?
As with SCB, the policy in Archer didn’t define the term “damage”. However, rather than just going to the dictionary, as the judge had done in SCB, the judge in Archer held that the test for damage had been determined by previous cases, and that it “requires a tangible alteration to the covered property”. That test is largely consistent with the test under English law, which requires a change in the physical condition of the insured property, which impairs the value or the usefulness of that property.
On the facts, and based on the high bar required to give summary requirement, the judge was “not prepared to accept the insurer’s argument that damage to the cement did not involve a physical alteration” and so that issue will remain to be determined at trial.
From an English law perspective, the issue is an interesting one, and the correct answer is not obvious. The correct answer will, in my view, turn on what is considered to be the relevant property: the concrete, or the cement?
If I was representing the policyholder, I would be arguing that the relevant property is the cement, and that the cement has become damaged by being overlaid with excessive quantities of fly ash. We know, from cases such as Hunter v Canary Wharf and R v Henderson, that the deposit onto insured property of excessive quantities of benign substances is capable of constituting damage, where the excessive quantities of those substances cost more money to remove than if ordinary quantities of those substances were present. On that basis, I would argue that the cement has undergone an adverse change in physical condition, that impairs both its value and its usefulness by coming into contact with excessive amounts of fly ash: the policyholder started out with cement which had a particular value, and as a result of the change in physical condition that occurred when the fly ash was added, it no longer retains that value.
If, on the other hand, I was representing the insurer, I would be arguing that the relevant property is the concrete, and that it was in a defective condition from the moment it was created (by the mixing of the cement and the fly ash). I would argue that from that point onwards it didn’t undergo any further “tangible alteration”, meaning that the test for damage hasn’t been satisfied. We know from the Bacardi case that, in English law, the creation of a defective finished product doesn’t constitute damage. Although Tioxide tells us that damage does occur when a defective finished product undergoes a change in physical condition that constitutes a further impairment of value or usefulness, that hasn’t happened in Archer, where the concrete was under-strength as soon as it came into existence, and remained that way until discovery.
So, which material should the Court be concerning itself with, the cement or the concrete? Although, as a policyholder representative, I would like to say that the Court should be concerning itself with the cement, I don’t think that’s right. The property which needs fixing is the concrete. The claim is not for the cost of repairing the cement, but for the cost of repairing the concrete.
On the basis of the above, although the insurer wasn’t successful in obtaining summary judgment on the proposition that the insured property hadn’t suffered damage, I expect the insurer to succeed on that issue at trial.
Is LEG3 ambiguous?
As in SCB, the Court in Archer first considered whether it was ambiguous as to whether LEG3 was an extension or an exclusion. The policyholder had argued that LEG3 is “both a coverage grant and an exclusion”, and the Court held that LEG3 “generates a functional extension, or broadening, of coverage”, as compared with the narrower exclusion which LEG3 had replaced by endorsement.
That doesn’t sound right to me, and in my view that doesn’t reflect the position under English Law. Tesco v Constable makes clear that the main insuring clause of a policy can only be widened by other clauses in the policy by using the clearest terms (and ABN Amro then gave an illustration of just how clear those terms needed to be, i.e very).
The second potential ambiguity in LEG3 was what it means to “‘improve’ the original workmanship”. Here, the Court in Archer didn’t develop the arguments any further than in SCB, and simply agreed that LEG3 was ambiguous in that regard.
So, where does that leave us?
In a few short months two different Courts, applying the law of two different States, have both held that LEG3 is ambiguous. In fact that’s being somewhat diplomatic, and it’s probably more true to say that neither Court could work out what on earth LEG3 was supposed to mean. That being the case, if SCB suggested that there was an opportunity for the LEG Committee to take a fresh look at the drafting of LEG3 and the other defects exclusions, Archer suggests that it really has no option, and that it must do so as a matter of urgency.
If LEG3 is going to be amended (as, in my view, it must), then the LEG Committee also has an opportunity to overhaul the other defects exclusions.
Although the DE clauses and the LEG clauses have different origins, it is not helpful for there to be two different suites of clauses which are so similar to each other. In my view it would be much better for there to be a single suite of clauses which captures the best elements of the current clauses.
So:
- There should be a clause which is concerned with causation, and which excludes the cost of repairing any damage caused by mistakes (which would essentially be a re-drafted, simplified, version of DE1 and LEG1, which both do the same thing);
- There should then be two clauses which are concerned with the condition of the relevant property before the damage occurs. One of those clauses would exclude the cost that would have been incurred to repair any defects which were present in property that has become damaged, if those defects had been discovered immediately before the damage occurred (i.e. a re-drafted, simplified, version of LEG2). The other clause would exclude entirely the cost of fixing damage to property which was in a defective condition immediately before the damage occurred (i.e. a re-drafted, simplified, version of DE3, which one might call LEG2A in the new suite);
- The final clause would exclude only the cost of improvements (i.e. a re-drafted, simplified, version of LEG3). My SCB article proposed an amended version of LEG3, and a few months later I would still stand behind that draft.
Those clauses would be made to be bought together. So, a policy with the most limited cover would contain only LEG1. A policy with wider cover would contain both LEG1, and also either LEG2 or LEG2A (whichever is most appropriate for the type of project involved). A policy with the widest cover would contain LEG1, plus one of LEG2 or LEG2A, and also LEG3. Where a policy contains more than one of the new defects exclusions, the policyholder should be able to choose which to apply in the event of a claim, with each exclusion coming with a different deductible. LEG1 would have the lowest deductible. LEG2 or LEG2A would have a higher deductible, and LEG3 would have the highest deductible of all.
That, in my view, would represent a very healthy outcome for insurers, brokers, and policyholders alike, and constitute a positive response to the issues raised by SCB and Archer: a single suite of defects exclusions; which are simply drafted and easy to understand; and which fit together with each other, and are intended to be used in conjunction with each other.
David Pryce is the Managing Partner at Fenchurch Law