Background
Attleys Roofing Limited carried out lead-roof work at Horris Hill Preparatory School using an oxyacetylene torch. After the work ended on 27 April 2023, a fire broke out and caused significant damage to the building. Its freeholder and leaseholder threatened claims, and Attleys sought a declaration that its public-liability insurer, QBE UK Limited, must indemnify it for the resulting liability and defence costs.
QBE relied on clause 6.5.4 of the policy, a hot-works condition labelled as a condition precedent. The clause required Attleys and its employees to take all “reasonable precautions” and listed specific measures before, during, and after hot work. The parties asked the court to decide as a preliminary issue whether innocent or negligent noncompliance with a listed precaution could defeat cover, or whether the established rule governing conventional reasonable-precautions clauses meant that only reckless noncompliance would do so.
The Court’s Holding
His Honour Judge Pearce decided the preliminary issue for QBE. Clause 6.5.4 imposed an absolute obligation to comply with the precautions specifically listed in the clause. Accordingly, an innocent or negligent failure to take one of those precautions could amount to failure of a condition precedent and prevent indemnity just as a reckless failure could.
The court acknowledged that conventional reasonable-precautions clauses ordinarily require recklessness before cover is lost. But this clause used “reasonable precautions” as a defined term linked to a detailed list of safeguards, appeared in a context where hot-works conditions precedent are common, and would operate unnaturally if the listed requirements depended on proof of recklessness. The judgment did not finally determine QBE’s liability: because the preliminary issue was resolved for QBE, the remaining question was whether any breach increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred, under section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015.
Key Takeaways
- A conventional obligation to take reasonable precautions is generally breached only by recklessness, but sufficiently clear policy wording can impose stricter requirements.
- Specific hot-work safeguards identified within a condition precedent may require strict compliance even when the policy describes them as “reasonable precautions.”
- The ruling resolved policy construction only; it did not determine whether Attleys breached the condition or whether section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015 preserved cover.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes general reasonable-precautions clauses from detailed hot-works conditions that prescribe particular safeguards. Contractors and insurers should not assume that negligence-based liability cover necessarily protects an insured that innocently or carelessly fails to comply with expressly listed fire-prevention requirements.
The case also underscores the continuing importance of section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015. Even where a precaution is an absolute condition of cover, the insurer may still need to address whether its breach could have increased the risk of the loss that occurred in the circumstances in which it occurred.