Project insurance – does it always cover sub-contractors?
Project insurance is becoming increasingly popular on major projects. However, the recent case of Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation Trust Limited v Lakehouse Contracts Limited could cause concern to contractors who may have assumed that they would always be covered by such project insurance.
Facts
This case arose out of a fire at a school being constructed in Lewisham. The building was owned by Lewisham Borough Council. The school was operated by Haberdashers.
Lakehouse was the main contractor for works to extend and refurbish the buildings at the school. Cambridge Polymer Roofing (CPR) was a subcontractor of Lakehouse. Lakehouse also entered into a Duty of Care Deed with Haberdashers. A project insurance policy had been taken out.
CPR was carrying out “hot work” using a blowtorch to stick down roofing membrane. A fire occurred in the area of the hot work, which spread and caused extensive damage to the buildings.
The Claim
Haberdashers and Lewisham claimed over £11m from Lakehouse and CPR. Lakehouse also brought contribution proceedings against CPR and CPR brought contribution proceedings against the project insurers. These essentially claimed that CPR was entitled to the benefit of that insurance and that this provided CPR with a defence to the claim brought by Lakehouse.
The claim against Lakehouse was settled pursuant to which Lakehouse agreed to pay £8.75m, inclusive of costs, interest and damages in respect of the fire. In reality, these funds came from the project insurers.
The only outstanding issue was between Lakehouse, CPR and the project insurers.
The main contract required construction all risks insurance to be taken out that covered Lewisham Council, Haberdashers, Lakehouse, and subcontractors (or which CPR was one) “of any tier”.
The parties’ positions
The project insurers accepted that, absent the existence of the express requirement for (and existence of) the separate public liability insurance held by CPR under the roofing sub-contract, CPR would be entitled to the benefit of the project insurance.
However, the project insurers argued that in this case CPR was not a member of the class of insureds because CPR and Lakehouse had separately and expressly agreed that CPR would have its own insurance. The project insurers argued that, given the legal device adopted to include any sub-contractor within project insurance is an implied term in the subcontract, an express term to the contrary in such a sub-contract necessarily excludes the existence (and/or the scope) of any such implied term. In essence, CPR argued that there should be no ability for the project insurers to bring a subrogated claim against CPR in this case.
The Court’s decision
The Court analysed that the correct way in which project insurance came to provide insurance to any particular sub-contractor was by a “standing offer”.
The offer is “made by the insurer to insure persons who are subsequently ascertained as members of the defined grouping”. The offer would be accepted by a sub-contractor joining, upon execution of the sub-contract, the “defined grouping”.
The acceptance of that offer leads to the implication of a term in the contract between Lakehouse and CPR. That is the only contract in existence in which a term could be implied that could benefit CPR. However, a term could not be implied into the CPR sub-contract that directly contradicted the express requirement on CPR to hold public liability cover of £5m.
Therefore, the Court held that CPR could not benefit from the project insurance to the extent that it was required by the subcontract to hold (and did hold) public liability insurance of £5m. The Court briefly considered what the position would be if the claim had not been limited to the £5m public liability insurance required by the sub-contract, i.e. could the presence of an express term requiring insurance of a particular limit negate the implication of any term in relation to the whole insurance cover, leading to a claim in excess of the sub-contractor’s insurance cover. The Court doubted that such an argument would succeed.
Conclusion
This case emphasises the importance of the wording of the underlying contract in determining the extent of any insurance and waiver of subrogation rights that may occur. It shows that the terms of the insurance policy may be trumped by the terms of the parties underlying contract. The underlying contract could limit the relevant insurance that would otherwise be available if the express terms of the underlying contract are contrary to such insurance cover. Importantly, subcontractors should not agree terms requiring them to hold their own insurance when the intention is that they will benefit from the project insurance.
Written by James Worthington. For more information please get in touch via james.worthington@crsblaw.com or +44 (0)20 7427 6626
Our thinking
IBA Annual Conference
The IBA heads to Miami for its 2022 Annual Conference bringing together thousands hundreds of lawyers from around the world.
Martin Wright
Joint Venture Opportunities
Join our panel where we will discuss various topics including Joint Venture structuring and Partner procurement.
Sarah Anticoni
FT Wealth quotes Sarah Anticoni on forum shopping
"Being the first to file for divorce is not a foolproof way of securing an English hearing"
Louise Ward
What can UK investors interested in Life Sciences learn from their more experienced, including US, counterparts?
The recent tie-up between Canary Wharf and Kadans demonstrates the enthusiasm to access the lucrative UK life sciences market.
Helen Coward
Helen Coward writes for Tax Journal on the main purpose test for SDLT group relief
Mainly ignored? The main purpose test for SDLT group relief
Patricia Nathan-Amissah
The Ayes have it - Collateral Warranties can be a ‘Construction Contract’
The Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the case of Abbey Healthcare (Mill Hill) Limited v Simply Construct (UK) LLP
Jonathan Morley
Charles Russell Speechlys advising Battery Ventures on the sale of SPT Labtech for £650 million.
Battery Ventures has raised over $9 billion to invest in software and services, enterprise infrastructure, and much more around the world.
Sarah Farrelly
Windrush Day 2022 – supporting access to justice
Charles Russell Speechlys is proud to continue supporting survivors of the Windrush scandal in their fight for justice.
Laura Bushaway
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022: Landlords and developers beware serious sanctions for non-compliance
The Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Act 2022 received Royal Assent on 8 February 2022 and will come into force on 30 June 2022.
David Coates
Charles Russell Speechlys has advised long-standing client Stonegate on a series A investment into Peckwater Brands
Stonegate is one of the largest pub companies in the UK with a rich portfolio that covers over 4,500 sites.
Sarah Farrelly
Pro bono support for major office premises move for charity in Stoke-on-Trent
Emmaus entities provide safe homes, community support and meaningful work to formerly homeless people across the UK.
Rachel Warren
Financier Worldwide quotes Rachel Warren on the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Evaluating the UK’s Economic Crime Act
Samuel Lear
Property Patter: Reasonable Endeavours
What does it mean to use ‘best’, ‘all’ or ‘reasonable’ endeavours?
Glenn Bull
The balance between Fairness and Certainty in UAE Construction Contracts
Articles 106 and 390(20) arguably make the UAE more focused on fairness than some of its counterparts in the GCC.
Rose Carey
Could the UK’s Life Sciences Vision be restricted by its Immigration Policy?
We explore some of the visa options that may be open to businesses in the sector and their relative pros and cons.
Joshua Green
Joshua Green writes for Spear's Magazine on Wagatha Christie’s lessons for HNWs
Wagatha Christie’s lessons for HNWs
Stephanie Bonnello
Stephanie Bonnello writes for the Practical Law Dispute Resolution blog on witness evidence
When are witness summaries permitted instead of witness statements and when should material be struck out from a witness statement?
Emma Humphreys
Emma Humphreys and Paul McCarthy write for Property Week on the new landlord digital ID checks
Emma Humphreys and Paul McCarthy write for Property Week on new landlord digital ID checks
Carolyn Davies
Carolyn Davies and Oliver Park write for Property Week on the key property points in the Building Safety Act
The key property points in the Building Safety Act
Oliver Auld
Unexplained Wealth Orders & Trustees
Learn about Unexplained Wealth Orders, what they are, who can obtain them and the implications that exist for trustees.