Collapse of cofferdam — Policy of insurance — Exception for bad workmanship — Whether bad design or workmanship “proximate” cause of collapse — Claim against insurer dismissed
The plaintiffs are specialists in the construction of cofferdams and claimed against the first defendants, who are insurers, for loss which they sustained as the result of the partial collapse of a cofferdam being constructed at Grimsby. The first defendants denied liability contending that the claim fell within an exception in the policy of insurance which provided that the first defendants should not indemnify in respect of “the cost of making good … faulty or defective materials or workmanship”. The plaintiffs also claimed against the second defendants, who are specialists in land drainage and employed the plaintiffs to construct the cofferdam, for failing to provide a dewatering system which would have prevented the accident. The second defendants counterclaimed for breaches of contract and/or negligence.
The cofferdam collapsed and the plaintiffs sought to recover from the first defendants the expense they incurred in carrying out remedial works.
Held The plaintiffs’ claim against the first and second defendants failed; the second defendants’ counterclaim against the plaintiffs was allowed. The cofferdam had not been designed to meet the conditions to which it was exposed, that is to say undewatered ground; however it probably would have survived had it been built in accordance with its design. The omission of vertical and knee braces and particularly the inadequate number of bolts weakened it to such an extent that it collapsed. The “proximate” cause of the collapse lay not in design but in workmanship: see Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society [1918] AC 350. Accordingly, the cause of the collapse fell within the exception in the insurance policy and the second defendants were not liable. The contract between the plaintiffs and the second defendants did not impose any express obligation on the second defendants to dewater, although there was an implied term that they would dewater to such an extent as to enable the plaintiffs to provide a cofferdam within the terms of the contract: see Merton London Borough Council v Leach Ltd (1985) 32 BLR 51. The second defendants were in breach of this implied term. However, as the omissions of vertical and knee braces and bolts were all breaches of contract by the plaintiffs, they must bear the cost of the remedial works and cannot recover from the second defendants. The second defendants were entitled to damages from the plaintiffs for the bad workmanship and departure from their own design.
Stephen Dennison (instructed by Clyde & Co) appeared for the plaintiffs; Stephen Powles (instructed by Rayfields) appeared for the first defendants; and Peter Coulson (instructed by Cameron Markby Hewitt) appeared for the second defendants.
