Australian Court of Appeal considers welding exclusion
In Ritchie v Insurance Australia Ltd [2022] NSWCA 278, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has upheld the first instance judgment on the meaning of a public liability policy.
The appeal concerned only one element of the judgment, the construction of a ‘Welding Endorsement’.
Facts
The case concerned a bush fire which was caused when employees of Advanced Plumbing & Drains Pty Ltd (in liquidation) were cutting reinforced steel with a power cutter. The friction between the steel and cutting blade produced sparks, and the sparks ignited a bush fire.
The claimant brought proceedings on behalf of group members who suffered property damage or personal injury as a result of that fire. Advanced Plumbing went into liquidation and so the claimant sought leave to bring the claim directly against insurers.
The relevant insurance policy contained a “Welding Endorsement” which stipulated that the insurer would not pay any liability arising out of or in any way connected with:
“….arc or flame cutting, flame heating, arc or gas welding… and/or spark producing equipment… unless such activity is conducted in strict compliance with the Australian Standard AS 1674, Part 1 - 1997 'Safety in Welding and Allied Processes – Fire Precautions”.
NSW Court of Appeal decision
The words “spark producing equipment” were interpreted as referring not only to equipment which generated sparks as part of its purpose, but also equipment which generated sparks when used in a specific way.
The purpose of the Welding Endorsement was to exclude a list of activities carrying a risk of fire unless they were carried out in strict compliance with fire precaution standards. On that basis, there was no cover, and the appeal was dismissed.
Comment
Although a decision of the Australian court, and so persuasive but not binding on an English court, this case serves as a useful reminder of the need for strict compliance by insureds with the terms of any ‘hot works’ conditions in their policy if liability is to attach.
Contents
- Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter - October 2023
- Insurance considerations following use of RAAC concrete
- Underlying contracts remain key in arguments over scope of co-insurance
- Recklessness not ‘accidental’ when it comes to trespass
- Property damage oil spills, reliance and duties of delivery drivers
- The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
- Incorrectly named insured policy dispute - was the broker or insurer liable?
- Contractors' liability and contract works exclusion
- FOS: complaints involving damage to underground pipes
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Flooded with doubt: Court assesses fraud allegations in Malhotra Leisure
Legal Update
Representations, warranties and conditions precedent: Lonham Group v Scotbeef
Legal Update
Martyn’s Law: When remembrance meets the market
Legal Update
Covid-19 BI claims update: Are furlough payments a BI loss?
Legal Update
When frozen pipes crack legal certainty: Land Energy Girvan v Aspen Insurance
Legal Update
Another look at the meaning 'property damage': Capral Ltd v Insurance Australia
Legal Update
Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter, Summer 2025
Legal Update
How accurate are your IPIDs?
Legal Update
The LA fires: Counting the insurance cost
Legal Update
North Carolina Supreme Court COVID-19 decision in North State Deli v Cincinnati Insurance Co
Legal Update
Weather protection parametric insurance: A sign of things to come?
Legal Update
Smooth sailing ahead: The LMA's new Open Form Default Clause
Legal Update
Oklahoma earthquake: Racial discrimination in adjudication
Legal Update
Words matter: Another case on the importance of accurate drafting
Legal Update
Parametric flood policies - Insurers no longer in uncharted waters?
Legal Update
Insurance and the escalating situation in Suez Canal
Legal Update
Energy insurance: Technip Saudi Arabia Limited v The Mediterranean and Gulf Cooperative Insurance and Reinsurance Company ('Medgulf')
Published Article
Deal over jets stranded in Russia may serve as blueprint
Legal Update
The Luton Airport car park fire – implications for insurers
Legal Update
Australian Court of Appeal considers welding exclusion
Legal Update
Contractors' liability and contract works exclusion
Legal Update
FOS: complaints involving damage to underground pipes
Legal Update
Incorrectly named insured policy dispute - was the broker or insurer liable?
Legal Update
Property damage oil spills, reliance and duties of delivery drivers
Legal Update
Recklessness not ‘accidental’ when it comes to trespass
Legal Update
Underlying contracts remain key in arguments over scope of co-insurance
Legal Update
Insurance considerations following use of RAAC concrete
Legal Update
Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter - October 2023
Legal Update
Extreme weather leading to a rise in property claims
Legal Update
The recent judgment in MacPhail v Allianz Insurance Plc
Legal Update - RAAC
Insurance considerations of RAAC failures - air bubbles belong in chocolate, not concrete!
Legal Update - RAAC
The RAAC crisis: Is it really back-to-school this September?
Legal Update
A ‘slick’ result for Shell: the Supreme Court considers limitation in Jalla v Shell
Legal Update
Parties are in hot water over hot works dispute: proceedings issued in Britannia Hotels (No.2) v Aviva Insurance Limited
Legal Update
The perfect financial storm: top 5 trends making a mischief with BI adjustments
Legal Update
COVID-19 BI Claims rumble on
Legal Update
The risk of encroachment is not a nuisance: Davies v Bridgend County Council
Legal Update
Visual intrusion is oppressive: Fearn v Tate Gallery
Legal Update
Proximate cause focus: Brian Leighton Garages v Allianz and Allianz v University of Exeter
