The employer and main contractor had contracted under the JCT conditions. The employer had been obliged to insure the property for fire in their joint names, but had not done so. After a fire caused by the negligence of a sub-contractor, he sued.
Held: The judge should have concluded that the effect of the contract was that the parties had agreed to exclude liability for negligence. The employer had an explicit obligation to insure in joint names and without subrogation, as part of an agreement allocating risks under the contract
Ward, Longmore LJJ, Aikens J
Times 28-Jan-2003, Gazette 20-Mar-2003,  EWCA Civ 16
England and Wales
Cited – Scottish Special Housing Association v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd HL 1986
The court acknowledged the practice in construction contracts making an express link between the liability imposed on the contractor, the specific aspect of such liability which iwas excluded and the existence of insurance (intended to benefit both . .
Cited – Co-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
Cited – Mark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178770