An English manor house once owned by Ford Motor Company boss Henry Ford II is at the centre of an insurance dispute after its Pool House was destroyed by fire in 2009.
Ford’s widow, Kathleen DuRoss Ford’s Palm Beach based company Turville Heath Inc, the freehold owner of Grade II listed Turville Grange, Turville Heath, Henley on Thames, is claiming more than £2.6m in demolition and rebuilding costs and professional fees from insurers Chartis Insurance UK Ltd.
However, Chartis say that demolition of the whole Pool House was not required, and that part of its substructure could have been retained and reused, saving costs.
It commenced the arbitration process under a clause in the insurance contract, but Turville – frustrated by delays in the arbitration – sought to have the case resolved by the courts.
Now Edwards-Stuart J has ruled that the court proceedings should be stayed, and the case dealt with by arbitration.
He said that the parties are more than £1m apart on the value of the loss, mainly in relation to professional fees, and have already spent significant sums on the services of independent appraisers in the arbitration, but rejected Turville’s claims that delays to the process meant that it had effectively broken down and the case should be dealt with by the courts.
He said: “I do not consider that Turville has begun to show that the machinery of the arbitration clause has broken down or is incapable of being operated. I do not doubt that Turville has found it frustrating and more protracted than it had expected, but that is a different matter. I see no reason why the process should not continue: the independent appraisers must now be in a position to appoint an arbitrator who should be able to deal with the matter fairly swiftly.”
Turville had also argued that the issues in the dispute were not limited to the amount of the loss, and so the arbitration clause did not apply.
However, the judge said that the question of whether total demolition of the Pool House was required “concerns the amount of the loss, not whether Chartis is or is not liable in principle to pay for the cost of rebuilding”.
He said: “I reject the submission that this claim involves anything more than a dispute about the amount of the loss. It therefore falls within the terms of the arbitration clause.”
Turville Heath Inc v Chartis Insurance UK Ltd Technology and Construction (Edwards-Stuart J) 1 November 2012
Peter Fraser QC (instructed by Russell-Cooke) for the claimant
Adam Constable QC (instructed by Kennedys) for the defendant