Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd

Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Ltd v Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd

Clause 13.5 of the contract did not operate to relieve Tyco from liability for negligence causing damage to existing structures. The reference to joint names insurance in respect of existing structures did not include Tyco as a co-insured for liability purposes, nor did it exclude Tyco's express indemnity and liability obligations under the contract. The contract did not create a special regime supplanting liability for negligence with insurance recovery for damage to existing structures. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Limited (formerly Wormald Ansul (UK) Limited); Respondent/claimant: Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited (formerly Hireus Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joint Names Insurance, Contractual Indemnity, Negligence Liability, Construction Contracts, Interpretation of Insurance Clauses
Contract Law Insurance Law Construction Law Joint Names Insurance Contractual Indemnity Negligence Liability Construction Contracts Interpretation of Insurance Clauses

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tyco Fire & Integrated Solutions (UK) Limited (formerly Wormald Ansul (UK) Limited)

Appellant/defendant

Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited (formerly Hireus Limited)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (technology and Construction Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 13.5 of the contract relieves Tyco from liability for negligence causing damage to existing structures by virtue of joint names insurance provisions
  2. 2 Whether the contract's insurance and indemnity provisions exclude or preserve Tyco's liability for negligence
  3. 3 Whether the provision for joint names insurance operates as an overriding rule to bar claims between co-insureds

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 13.5 of the contract did not operate to relieve Tyco from liability for negligence causing damage to existing structures. The reference to joint names insurance in respect of existing structures did not include Tyco as a co-insured for liability purposes, nor did it exclude Tyco's express indemnity and liability obligations under the contract. The contract did not create a special regime supplanting liability for negligence with insurance recovery for damage to existing structures. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of the High Court set aside
  • Rolls-Royce's liability to repay Tyco is reversed