Burst water-pipe — Desiccated clay subsoil — Period of insurance policy — Damage to house — Whether insurers liable for damage — Whether insurers liable only in respect of insured perils — Whether risk occurred during period of insurance — Insured’s appeal dismissed
In 1971 the appellant purchased a bungalow in Wickford, Essex, which was built in the 1920s. It was insured under a comprehensive policy with the respondent company of insurers between October 1977 and October 1981. Under the terms of the policy, the perils of bursting pipes and subsidence were covered.
In early 1977 the lead to copper joint on the main water supply failed; the appellant repaired it himself. In 1978 the pipe failed at the same point; the appellant had it properly repaired and was advised to reduce the pressure. A further “weep” at the joint was noticed in 1980, and thereafter the appellant turned off the supply when it was not required. In March 1981 the appellant made a claim on the insurers in respect of cracks and other damage to the building which the respondents refused to accept. Although the experts at first attributed the damage to subsidence, they later considered it was due to “heave” in the desiccated clay subsoil caused by the leaking water and His Honour Judge Butler QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court, at the Chelmsford district registry, March 16 1987) so held in dismissing the appellant’s claim.
As it was not possible to attribute damage as between the first leak in 1977 and that in 1980, to succeed in his claim against the respondents, the appellant had to show that the first leak in early 1977 was covered by the policy effected from October 1977, the second leak in 1980 being within the period covered by the policy.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
In the absence of any legal authority the validity of any claim had to be established on basic principles and on the language of the contract. First, an insurer is not liable to an insured unless the contract of insurance policy says so and there arises an “insured peril”. Second, the risk must take place during the period of the insurance cover. Third, the risk covered by the policy is not “damage” but an “event”, namely one of the perils occurring during the period of insurance which the insurers undertake to indemnify. Although the building was damaged by “heave” due to leaking water, the insured “peril” was the burst pipe in 1977 and this occurred before the period of the policy. The judge was correct in deciding against the appellant.
Anthony Speaight (instructed by Gepp & Sons, of Chelmsford) appeared for the appellant; and John Samuels QC and Andrew Burr (instructed by Budd Martin Burrett, of Chelmsford) appeared for the respondents.
