Gerling General Insurance Co & Ors v Canary Wharf Group Plc

Gerling General Insurance Co & Ors v Canary Wharf Group Plc

The additional costs of working incurred by Canary Wharf due to the change in crane erection method were not recoverable under Extension 16 of Section 1 of the policy because the circumstances did not amount to imminent loss or damage as required by the policy. The costs were incurred as part of the insured's duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the risk from becoming imminent, not to prevent imminent loss. Therefore, the policy did not respond to the assumed heads of loss.

Parties
Claimant: Gerling General Insurance Co.; Claimant: Allianz Cornhill Insurance PLC; Claimant: ACE Insurance S.A-N.V.; Claimant: Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC; Claimant: AXA Global Risks (UK) Limited; Claimant: Great Lakes Reinsurance; Defendant: Canary Wharf Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Policy Interpretation, Imminent Damage, Additional Cost of Working, Notification Requirements, Mitigation of Loss
Insurance Law Construction Law Policy Interpretation Imminent Damage Additional Cost of Working Notification Requirements Mitigation of Loss

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerling General Insurance Co.

Claimant

Allianz Cornhill Insurance PLC

Claimant

ACE Insurance S.A-N.V.

Claimant

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC

Claimant

AXA Global Risks (UK) Limited

Claimant

Great Lakes Reinsurance

Claimant

Canary Wharf Group PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Dispute / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether additional costs incurred by Canary Wharf due to change in crane erection method are recoverable under Extension 16 of Section 1 of the insurance policy
  2. 2 Whether such costs were incurred in consequence of imminent loss or damage for which liability would have been admitted under the policy
  3. 3 Whether notification and mitigation requirements under the policy were satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The additional costs of working incurred by Canary Wharf due to the change in crane erection method were not recoverable under Extension 16 of Section 1 of the policy because the circumstances did not amount to imminent loss or damage as required by the policy. The costs were incurred as part of the insured's duty to take reasonable precautions to prevent the risk from becoming imminent, not to prevent imminent loss. Therefore, the policy did not respond to the assumed heads of loss.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Insurers are not liable to indemnify Canary Wharf Group PLC for the additional costs of working incurred due to the change in crane erection method under Extension 16 of Section 1 of the policy.