Haberdashers' Aske's Federation Trust Ltd v Lakehouse Contracts Ltd & Ors

Haberdashers' Aske's Federation Trust Ltd v Lakehouse Contracts Ltd & Ors

CPR is not entitled to the benefit of the Project Insurance as a co-insured because the express term in the roofing sub-contract requiring CPR to obtain its own insurance precludes the implication of a term to the contrary. Therefore, the Project Insurers are entitled to pursue a subrogated claim against CPR to the extent of CPR's own insurance cover. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 does not assist CPR due to an express exclusion in the policy.

Parties
Claimant: Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation Trust Limited; Claimant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham; Defendant: Lakehouse Contracts Limited; Defendant: Cambridge Polymer Roofing Limited; Third Party: Zurich Insurance PLC; Third Party: QBE Casualty Syndicate 386; Third Party: CNA Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (insurance/construction) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
CPR is not entitled to the declaration sought; Project Insurers may pursue a subrogated claim against CPR to the extent of its insurance cover.
Legal Topics
Project Insurance, Subrogation, Co Insurance, Implied Terms, Standing Offer, Agency, Third Party Rights, Contra Proferentem, Double Insurance
Insurance Law Construction Law Contract Law Project Insurance Subrogation Co Insurance Implied Terms Standing Offer +4 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Haberdashers’ Aske’s Federation Trust Limited

Claimant

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Lewisham

Claimant

Lakehouse Contracts Limited

Defendant

Cambridge Polymer Roofing Limited

Defendant

Zurich Insurance PLC

Third Party

QBE Casualty Syndicate 386

Third Party

CNA Insurance Company Limited

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (insurance/construction) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CPR is entitled to the benefit of project-wide insurance as a co-insured despite an express term requiring its own insurance
  2. 2 Whether the Project Insurers are entitled to pursue a subrogated claim against CPR for losses covered by CPR's own insurance
  3. 3 Whether the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 confers enforceable rights on CPR under the Project Insurance

Ratio Decidendi

CPR is not entitled to the benefit of the Project Insurance as a co-insured because the express term in the roofing sub-contract requiring CPR to obtain its own insurance precludes the implication of a term to the contrary. Therefore, the Project Insurers are entitled to pursue a subrogated claim against CPR to the extent of CPR's own insurance cover. The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 does not assist CPR due to an express exclusion in the policy.

Court Disposition

CPR is not entitled to the declaration sought; Project Insurers may pursue a subrogated claim against CPR to the extent of its insurance cover.