When a cap on liability is not what it seems

Dec 13, 2019

The court of appeal have recently handed down a judgment which highlights the importance of ensuring the terms of your contract are clearly drafted. If they are not, you may find yourself in a position where your liability is more than you first thought.[1] 

In this particular case, which involves an insurance contract relating to a new homes warranty, the insurer thought their liability for a particular claim was capped at £3,634,074 however the courts found in this context that the limit was actually £10,846,076.

The courts were quick to point out that the wording of the contract was not clear in this regard and the insurer may have found themselves in a much better position had the drafting been set out in certain terms.

 The Claim

Mr Manchikalapati and others (the leaseholders) were the purchasers of several flats in a new-build residential development known as Lawrence House in Manchester, which consisted of 104 flats in total.

Defects in the development became apparent and the leaseholders and the freeholder commenced legal proceedings in respect of the new homes warranty provider.

The liability of the warranty provider was capped in the contract and one of the questions before the courts was what the exact level of that cap was. This was as a result of the poor drafting in the contract which left two possible interpretations of the relevant clause.

Maximum Liability cap

The insurance policy included a maximum liability cap (MLC) which stated that:

 “for a New Home which is part of a Continuous Structure, the maximum amount payable in respect of the New Home shall be the purchase price declared to us subject to a maximum of £25 million.”

 One of the key findings in the first instance judgement was that leaseholders claims succeeded, but the MLC capped coverage to the purchase price of the leaseholder’s individual properties. The cost of the remedial works was 9.7 million, but the total purchase price of all the leaseholders’ flats was only around £3.6 million, so damages were capped at the lower figure.

 Court of Appeal decision

The leaseholders appealed this decision stating that the correct meaning behind the MLC was that the liability of the warranty holder was capped at the value of all of the flats in the block, and not just those which were presenting the claim.

 In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the leaseholders appeal and the court found that, whilst the MLC is not clear in all respects, it applied to the total overall value of all 104 flats in the development which was £10.8m.

 The Court of Appeal looked at the MLC in great detail, finding that:

  • The MLC was ambiguous and not well drafted. It was therefore necessary to interpret the MLC in the context of other parts of the insurance policy.
  • The court could also have regard to the obvious commercial purpose of the policy
  • The MLC must be interpreted in a manner which is consistent with, not repugnant to, the purpose of the insurance contract.
  • The Court of Appeal made it clear that a single leaseholder should be able to recover the entire cost of rectifying the present or imminent danger to the health and safety of occupants (as was the situation in this case) and that the entire cost of the remedial work could easily exceed the purchase price of an individual flat (as was the case here).

Conclusion

This Court of Appeal’s decision demonstrates the courts approach to interpreting insurance wording and emphasises the importance of a clear and logical approach to drafting and always ensuring that the parties’ intentions are clearly set out in the contract, or, like the warranty provider in this case, you could face more liability than you bargained for. 

How can we help?

We advise all businesses including construction companies and employers on the contractual relationships and their terms and conditions.  For drafting and negotiation advice on your construction contracts, please contact Mark Chapman on 01276 686222 and Cesare McArdle on 0118 977 4045.

 This reflects the law at the date of publication and is written as a general guide. It does not contain definitive legal advice, which should be sought as appropriate in relation to a particular matter.

[1] Manchikalapati & others v Zurich Insurance PLC (T/A Zurich Building Guarantee & Zurich Municipal) and East West Insurance Company LTD [2019] EWCA Civ 2163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sign up

Enter your email address for legal updates on Property & Construction Law.

Please see our privacy policy regarding use of your data.


Top read insights in 2019

Contract Law

Material Breach of Contract

What is a ‘material’ breach of contract by a party to a commercial contract? This is a critical issue regularly considered by the courts. What constitutes a material breach and what are the remedies?

Property Law

Purchasing Land – Option Agreements

A developer and a landowner can enter into an Option Agreement. What are the strategies that can be employed by both landowners and developers to assist in such land deals?

Divorce and Family Law

What are the Tax Implications of a Civil Partnership?

Is there a significant tax saving to be made by a couple who are married or in a civil partnership that cohabitating couples simply don’t qualify for?  

Land & Property Dispute

Restrictive Covenants – The Price of Modification

Having identified that your land is burdened by a restrictive covenant and for the purposes of this article the covenant in question will be that only one residential building can be erected on the land. What do you do next?

Wills, Trusts and Probate

Is my Will applicable to my Spanish property?

You must be careful when relying on an English Will in relation to your Spanish property.

Award winning legal advice

We are solicitors in Camberley, Wokingham and London. In 2019, Herrington Carmichael won ‘Property Law Firm of the Year’ at the Thames Valley Business Magazines Property Awards, ‘Best Medium Sized Business’ at the Surrey Heath Business Awards and we were named IR Global’s ‘Member of the Year’. We are ranked as a Leading Firm 2020 by Legal 500 and Alistair McArthur is ranked in Chambers 2020.

undefined
undefined

London

60 St Martins Lane, Covent Garden, London, WC2N 4JS 

+44 (0) 203 755 0557

 

Camberley

Building 2  Watchmoor Park, Riverside Way, Camberley, Surrey. GU15 3YL

+44 (0)1276 686 222

 

Wokingham

Opening Soon

+44 (0)118 977 4045

info@herrington-carmichael.com

© 2020 Herrington Carmichael LLP. Registered in England and Wales company number OC322293.

Herrington Carmichael LLP is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority.

Privacy   |   Terms and Conditions   |   Cookies   |   Client Feedback