Contractors Beware: Defects Liability and Project Insurance Coverage
Energy firm SSE Generation has been awarded in excess of £100m damages on appeal over a tunnel collapse nearly ten years ago at the Glendoe hydroelectric power scheme in Scotland (SSE Generation v Hochtief Solutions [2018] CSIH 26). The Inner House, Court of Session, decided by a majority of 2:1 that the contractor was liable for costs of repair due to breach of the requirement that erodible rock encountered in the tunnel be shotcreted if not otherwise protected, despite having exercised reasonable skill and care, as defects were in existence at take-over by the employer. The contractor could not rely on a contractual limitation of liability for design defects as the damage was caused by implementation of the design (i.e. workmanship).
Further, there was no implied term preventing the employer from bringing proceedings against the contractor, notwithstanding a joint names construction all risks policy, in view of express contract terms apportioning liability for claims due to an event at each party’s risk. Consistent with Gard Marine v China National Chartering Co [2017] UKSC 35, it was acknowledged that a requirement for joint insurance could lead to an implied term that claims between contracting parties were not permitted, and the Supreme Court’s use of language in that case such as “inconceivable” and “absurd” when referring to the possibility of a subrogated claim were “powerful contra-indicators”. However, the joint insurance required under the Glendoe contract indemnified loss or damage to the works, not breach of contract by the contractor in failing to carry out repairs, so the policy would not cover the employer’s claim on the facts in any event.
The decision is also notable in considering the Works Information requirement for a “design life” of 75 years. Following the Supreme Court decision in MT Højgaard v Eon [2017] UKSC 59, it did not mean the contractor was warranting that the works would in fact last for the specified period without “major refurbishment or significant expenditure”. Rather, the obligation was met if the contractor handed over the works with such a design life and the employer had the whole of the defects period to determine whether the works did in fact have that design life. The question of compliance therefore fell to be determined at the defects date, which may be difficult to assess in some instances, but not here, as the tunnel collapse had already occurred.
This comes hot on the heels of Haberdashers Aske v Lakehouse [2018] EWHC 588 (TCC), providing welcome clarification on the issue of how sub-contractors in the construction industry obtain the benefit of project policies. The Judge identified three different ways of analysing the situation - based on agency principles, a standing offer, or acceptance by conduct - and decided that in any case the roofing sub-contractor did not benefit from cover under the project policy (which included a waiver of subrogation term), given that it had obtained separate liability insurance with a limit of £5m in accordance with express contract terms. It was accepted that cover would otherwise be available under the project insurance to sub-contractors as additional insureds for specified perils including fire damage. The project insurers had funded settlement of claims against the main contractor for £8.75m and the subrogated claim was limited to the extent of the sub-contractor’s insurance, leaving open the question of whether a project policy might (partially) respond to losses claimed against a sub-contractor in excess of separate policy limits.
Performance obligations and insurance requirements in construction contracts must be carefully considered to ensure appropriate allocation of risk, scope of cover and limits of indemnity. If the parties intend to create an insurance fund as the sole avenue for making good the relevant loss, this should be expressed in clear and unambiguous terms. Subject to interpretation in individual cases, a sub-contractor agreeing to obtain separate liability insurance may be exposed to subrogated claims from any project insurer, even if the loss in question was covered by the project policy.
Amy Lacey is a partner 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
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
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
Construction and Professional Indemnity expert Amy Lacey joins Fenchurch Law
Insurance coverage specialists, Fenchurch Law, have announced that Amy Lacey has joined as a partner from Rosling King. Amy will concentrate on insurance disputes with a particular focus on construction and professional indemnity
Acting for brokers and policyholders across a variety of industry sectors, she has considerable experience of complex international litigation and arbitration and regularly advises on coverage issues and policy drafting.
Amy is a member of the British Insurance Law Association and the Society of Construction Law.
In her spare time Amy is a keen equestrian and enjoys sailing with Lloyd‘s Yacht Club.
"We are delighted that Amy has agreed to join our growing team at Fenchurch Law. We welcome the rich mix of new skills and expertise she brings and this is part of a wider objective of improving outcomes for policyholders, and putting policyholders first in everything we do," said David Pryce Managing Partner.
Founded in 2010 Fenchurch Law is a specialist firm of City solicitors providing insurance advice and handling insurance disputes. Based in the heart of the London Insurance Market at 40 Lime Street, they represent policyholders in complex and high value coverage disputes with their insurers.