Oakapple Homes (Glossop) Ltd v DTR (2009) Ltd & Ors

Oakapple Homes (Glossop) Ltd v DTR (2009) Ltd & Ors

DTR would not be entitled to defend claims by beneficiaries to the warranties on the basis of Oakapple Construction’s contributory negligence, and Exclusion 5.9 does not entitle insurers to decline indemnity for liability under the collateral warranties, as the scope of liability is not greater than under the original appointment.

Parties
Claimant: Oakapple Homes (Glossop) Limited; First Defendant: DTR (2009) Limited (In Liquidation); Second Defendant: Ian Robert (Liquidator of DTR (2009) Limited); Third Defendant: SJ Catlin Syndicate 2003 at Lloyd’s, QBE Casualty Syndicate 386 at Lloyd’s and Mitsui Syndicate 3210 at Lloyd’s
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (insurance/construction) / Judgment on Preliminary Insurance Coverage Issues
Outcome
Declaratory judgment in favour of Claimant (Oakapple Homes) on insurance coverage issues
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance, Collateral Warranties, Contributory Negligence, Novation of Contracts
Insurance Law Construction Law Contract Law Professional Indemnity Insurance Collateral Warranties Contributory Negligence Novation of Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oakapple Homes (Glossop) Limited

Claimant

DTR (2009) Limited (In Liquidation)

First Defendant

Ian Robert (Liquidator of DTR (2009) Limited)

Second Defendant

SJ Catlin Syndicate 2003 at Lloyd’s, QBE Casualty Syndicate 386 at Lloyd’s and Mitsui Syndicate 3210 at Lloyd’s

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (insurance/construction) / Judgment on Preliminary Insurance Coverage Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DTR would be entitled to defend claims by beneficiaries to the warranties on the basis of Oakapple Construction’s contributory negligence as contractor
  2. 2 Whether Exclusion 5.9 of the insurance policy entitles insurers to decline to indemnify DTR for liability to beneficiaries under the collateral warranties

Ratio Decidendi

DTR would not be entitled to defend claims by beneficiaries to the warranties on the basis of Oakapple Construction’s contributory negligence, and Exclusion 5.9 does not entitle insurers to decline indemnity for liability under the collateral warranties, as the scope of liability is not greater than under the original appointment.

Court Disposition

Declaratory judgment in favour of Claimant (Oakapple Homes) on insurance coverage issues

Orders

  • There is insurance coverage under the policy for liability arising under the collateral warranties to be executed by DTR in favour of the lessees of the 71 residential apartments at Wren Nest Mill, Glossop.