Hot-works precautions in liability wording are absolute, High Court rules

• The High Court held that a hot-works condition in a QBE UK contractors' liability policy creates "an absolute obligation" to take the precautions it lists.
• A negligent or innocent failure to take those precautions can therefore defeat cover, not only a reckless one.
• This was a preliminary issue only. The court has not decided whether Attleys Roofing breached the condition, whether any breach caused the loss, or how section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015 applies.

A contractor that negligently misses a fire precaution listed in its liability policy can lose cover, the High Court has ruled, in a decision that narrows the usual protection insureds get from "reasonable precautions" wording.

In Attleys Roofing Ltd v QBE UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 2742 (Comm), handed down on 26 October, HHJ Pearce decided a preliminary issue on clause 6.5.4 of QBE's Advantage Contractors Liability policy. The clause makes indemnity for work with a naked flame or other heat source away from the insured's premises conditional on taking "all 'reasonable precautions'", and then lists minimum steps. These include naming a person responsible for fire safety, examining property within six metres (or as far as reasonably practicable) and, where possible, removing combustible material, and monitoring the area for an hour after work stops.

The case follows a fire on 27 April 2023 at a building at Horris Hill Preparatory School in Newbury, after the roofer's workers used an oxyacetylene torch on lead detailing, according to the judgment. The property's freeholder and leaseholder are threatening claims, and Attleys is seeking a declaration that QBE must indemnify it. QBE denies liability. Construction News reported that the claims total £3.1m, citing court documents; that figure does not appear in the judgment.

Under long-standing case law, a general reasonable precautions clause defeats cover only if the insured itself was reckless. It is common ground that Attleys did not act recklessly. The judge rejected Attleys' argument that the same test applied. He found that the single inverted commas tied the phrase to the listed steps, and that it would be "strange" if a subcontractor's failure to follow them removed cover regardless of fault while the insured's own failure counted only if reckless.

He said the drafting was "less clear than it might have been", but concluded that clause 6.5.4 creates "an absolute obligation to take the precautions specified therein such that a negligent or innocent failure to take the precautions engages the exception".

The judgment also records that a 2020 article on the website of Fenchurch Law, Attleys' own solicitors, said the recklessness threshold does not apply where a policy contains a specific obligation such as a hot works condition. Attleys accepted that the article accurately summarised the law.

The dispute now moves to whether Attleys breached the condition and, if so, whether section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015 applies. Section 11 can prevent an insurer relying on a breached term if the insured shows the breach could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred. Daniel Shapiro KC and Sophie Ashford appeared for Attleys, and Crispin Winser KC for QBE.

Related coverage: Marsh index shows UK commercial insurance rates fell 8% in Q3.

Sources

• Attleys Roofing Ltd v QBE UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 2742 (Comm), judgment handed down 26 October 2026 (The National Archives, Find Case Law)
• Construction News: Roofing firm loses key insurance ruling over school fire (2 November 2026)
• Insurance Act 2015, section 11 (legislation.gov.uk)

CoverWire is a news and information service. Nothing here is investment advice.