Cornhill Insurance Plc v DE Stamp Felt Roofing Contractors Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLORD JUSTICE PILL,Lord Justice Longmore,LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE,SIR DENIS HENRY
Judgment Date15 March 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] EWCA Civ 395
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date15 March 2002
Docket NumberA3/2001/0845

[2002] EWCA Civ 395

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE BRISTOL MERCANTILE COURT

(HER HONOUR JUDGE KIRKHAM (Sitting as a Mercantile Judge))

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand

London WC2A 2LL

Before

Lord Justice Pill

Lord Justice Longmore

Sir Denis Henry

A3/2001/0845

Cornhill Insurance Plc
Claimant/Respondent
and
D E Stamp Felt Roofing Contractors Ltd
Defendant/Appellant

MR D PLATT (Instructed by Messrs Laytons, Bristol, BS1 2NH) appeared on behalf of the Appellant

MR GRAHAM EKLUND (Instructed by Messrs Beachcroft Wansbroughs, Bristol, BS99 7UD) appeared on behalf of the Respondent

LORD JUSTICE PILL
1

Lord Justice Longmore will give the first judgment.

LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
2

This case concerns a fire at the Beacon Rise Primary School in Bristol on 14 October 1999 and a claim made by roof contractors, during work there, against their public liability insurers. A new single storey building was to be constructed to join the existing two-storey buildings. The existing buildings had been constructed in 1905 and were a typical Edwardian structure of that date. The main contractor engaged by the school authorities was AEJ Williams. In about September 1999 they subcontracted to the appellants, D E Stamp Felt Roofing Contractors Limited ("Stamp") for the work of laying felt roofing on the roof of the new building. Stamp are a family company who carry out roofing contracting work. They have had a substantial business in the area for about 20 years and have an excellent insurance record.

3

The main contractor, Williams, had laid a flat plywood deck on top of the new construction. Stamp were to cover this with three layers of roofing felt. The materials to be laid were a proprietary product supplied by a company called D Anderson and Son Limited. The felt roofing comprised three layers. The first layer was what has been called a venting base layer, or ventilation layer. It comprised a sheet of proprietary felt with regular perforations; the second layer was to be a layer of universal underlay; the third and top layer was to be a mineral surface capsheet.

4

Structural engineers had prepared a specification for work to the roof for the new building. That specification required the ventilation layer to be "fully bonded torched on". On the day before work began (13 October 1999) Mr Middle, a director of Stamp who gave evidence at the trial, visited the site to check what was to be done and sort out any difficulties. He was accompanied by Anderson's local representative. By then Williams had laid the plywood deck. Mr Middle noted that Stamp would first have to fit timber fillets and battens on certain parts of the roof and alter some of the lead work. Subject to that, the roof was ready for Stamp's work.

5

The next day (14 October) Mr Neil Stamp, a director of Stamp, trained and approved by Anderson to lay their products (who also gave evidence at the trial), and Mr Bell, a felt roof fixer employed by Stamp for 15 years, went to the school to lay the felt layers. They were accompanied by Mr Hilton who acted as labourer for the job.

6

Before Mr Stamp and Mr Bell started laying the felt itself, it was, as I have said, necessary to install battens on to the vertical edge of the roof perimeter and wooden triangular fillets against the walls and abutments where the new flat roof adjoined the existing building. Part of the new roof abutted three large windows on the southern elevation of the existing building. It seems that there had already been fitted some timber boards across those windows so that the felt could be dressed up at that point. They are known as the window up-stands.

7

In an area near the chimney, the sloping roof of the existing building came down close to the new extension roof. Here there were two wooden bargeboards. It was necessary for a fillet to be installed to enable the felt to be dressed up and under the existing sloping slate roof of the existing school building. This was an awkward area. The judge found that Stamp fitted a complex detail in the area comprising the two wooden blocks nailed to an upright barge board with the wooden fillet fixed to the lower of the two blocks. This timber arrangement was fitted in what may be called the alcove adjacent to the existing chimney. I can refer to the area (viz where the existing sloping slate roof came down close to the new flat roof in the corner between the elevation of the chimney) as the alcove and to the timber arrangement itself as the alcove detail. We have been provided, as was the judge, with a very neat model which, when viewed, makes what I have attempted to describe much easier to understand.

8

Mr Stamp and Mr Bell began laying the base layer at about midday on 14 October. The felt comes in rolls and is manoeuvred so it rolls out on its own. The workmen torches the back of the felt as it rolls out using a propane blow torch. The flame softens the bitumen on the back of the felt and that adheres to the plywood deck. Mr Stamp completed applying the first layer by approximately 2.30 on that day and, without any substantial break, work began on laying the underlay layer. After about 20 or 30 minutes, Mr Stamp ran out of material. All three men, Mr Stamp, Mr Bell and Mr Hilton, then went down to their van to collect more material. The van was parked about 50 yards away. While the men were off the roof, they heard one of Williams' employees shout that smoke was coming from a vent on the easternmost gable end wall adjacent to the flat roof area. They ran back to the roof and found smouldering in the alcove area. They had a powder filled fire extinguisher on the roof and tried to put out the fire with that. Flames came out of the gable vent and it became unsafe to remain on the roof. They left the roof, the school was evacuated, the Fire Brigade arrived and eventually the fire was extinguished. However, the fire caused extensive damage to the school.

9

Mr A R Bryce, an experienced forensic scientist specialising in the investigation of fires, whose evidence the judge substantially accepted, visited the site later in 1999. He found in the debris remains of the alcove detail which I have described viz the bargeboard, which had been attached to the two blocks of wood and a section of the triangular wooden fillet. They could be pieced together precisely by locating nails and nail holes. He concluded that the seat of the fire was in the area close to the alcove. The fire probably started as a consequence of a naked flame, from a propane blow torch which was being used to apply the ventilation layer, igniting a smouldering fire on a section of wooden bargeboard and wall plate. The area was partially hidden from view by the structure of the roof and by the alcove detail.

10

Mr Bryce was able to reposition the timbers comprising the alcove detail. He concluded that the flame from the blow torch would have been able to reach the area where the smouldering occurred through a gap about 2 1/2 cm wide between the building wall and the edge of the wooden blocks. The fire had been able to smoulder in that area for some period of time without being noticed. Because the area in question was partially hidden by the overhanging slates and the alcove detail, a detailed inspection would have been required in order to have seen that smouldering.

11

Mr Bryce believed that the timbers which were first ignited were existing old timbers. In general, old timber is more easily ignited than new, especially if it is friable. He conjectured that it was also possible that loose debris, such as dust, small leaves etc could have been blown into the gap by the wind. Such material would have been easily ignited by the flame from the blow torch.

12

The school authorities regarded the fire as being the fault of the appellant roofing contractors. They have written Stamp a letter before action to that effect. Stamp, of course, looked to their insurers who have declined to indemnify them, relying on condition 3 in that part of the policy which covers contractors' public liability. I read condition 3 which is headed in capital letters "FIRE CONDITIONS":

"It is a condition precedent to any liability of Cornhill [the insurers] that the Insured shall have arranged for the following precautions to be taken whenever carrying out any work involving the application of heat

A.When blow torches blow lamps or electric oxy-acetylene or other welding or flame cutting equipment are to be used

i.a thorough examination of the immediate vicinity of the work (including the area on the other side of any wall or partition) shall be made to see whether any combustible material (other than the material to be worked on) is in danger of ignition either directly or by conduction of heat

ii.all moveable and/or combustible materials shall be removed from the immediate vicinity of the work (to a distance of not less than fifteen metres from the point of application of heat when welding or flame cutting equipment is used)

iii.all combustible materials which cannot be moved shall be covered and fully protected by overlapping sheets or screens of non-combustible material

….

F For one hour after completion of each period of work involving the application of heat the site shall not be left unattended and a thorough inspection of the area surrounding the work (including that described in paragraph Ai above) shall be made at frequent intervals up to the end of the period of one hour to ensure that nothing is smouldering and there is no risk of fire."

13

The judge decided, first, that the insurers had not proved that Stamp did not carry out a thorough examination of the immediate vicinity...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • US Trading Ltd v Axa Insurance Company Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Commercial Court)
    • Invalid date
  • Kelly Builders (Rosemount) Ltd v HCC Underwriting Agency Ltd
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 1 Febrero 2016
    ...the insurer from liability’. 9 Finally, the plaintiff relied on Cornhill Insurance plc v. D.E. Stamp Felt Roofing Contractors Limited [2002] EWCA Civ. 395. In that case, a subcontractor was sued for causing damage to a school extension when a fire broke out following the use of a propane ga......
1 books & journal articles
  • Insurance
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume III - Third Edition
    • 13 Abril 2020
    ...to a policy responding: see, eg, Harbourne v Brett [1998] EWCA Civ 26, Cornhill Insurance plc v DE Stamp Felt Rooing Contractors Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 395 (where the policies under consideration made it a condition precedent to each policy responding that before starting work which involved u......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT