A High Court ruling on a roofing contractor’s insurance policy has underlined the potential consequences of failing to comply with specified fire-safety precautions during hot works, even where the failure is not reckless.
What did the High Court decide?
In Attleys Roofing Limited v QBE UK Limited [2026] EWHC 2742 (Comm), His Honour Judge Pearce considered a preliminary issue about the meaning and effect of a hot works condition in a public liability insurance policy. The judgment was handed down on 26 October 2026.
The central question was whether the phrase “reasonable precautions” meant that indemnity could be refused only where the insured acted recklessly, or whether the policy required compliance with the specifically listed precautions as a condition of cover. The judge accepted the insurer’s interpretation: a negligent or innocent failure to take a specified precaution could trigger the condition and prevent indemnity.
The decision resolved the preliminary issue about policy construction. It should not be read as a general rule that every failure to take reasonable precautions under every insurance policy automatically defeats cover; the wording and context of the particular policy were central to the decision.
What led to the insurance dispute?
Attleys Roofing Limited carried out roofing work at a building known as “the Bank” at Horris Hill Preparatory School in Newbury on 27 April 2023. The work involved using an oxyacetylene torch on lead detailing. After the work had finished, a fire broke out and caused significant damage to the building.
The property’s freeholder and leaseholder were threatening claims for the fire damage. Attleys argued that QBE UK Limited was required under its Advantage Contractors Liability policy to indemnify it against the resulting legal liability and associated defence costs. QBE denied that it was liable to provide that indemnity.
- Roofing work involving an oxyacetylene torch was carried out; a fire later caused significant damage.
- The preliminary issue was heard by the court.
- The approved judgment was handed down.
What did the hot works condition require?
Clause 6.5.4 of the policy was headed “Heat away from premises – CONDITIONS PRECEDENT”. It applied where work away from premises owned or occupied by the insured involved a naked flame, another heat source, oxyacetylene equipment or similar welding, cutting, grinding or spark-emitting equipment.
The clause required the insured and its employees to take all “reasonable precautions” to prevent damage and required subcontractors or others acting on the insured’s behalf to comply with the listed precautions. These included:
- appointing a person responsible for fire safety before work began;
- making workers aware of the location of fire alarms and firefighting equipment;
- examining the area within six metres of the heat source, so far as reasonably practicable, and removing combustible material where possible;
- following the precautions and systems of work set out in the hot work permit;
- having a person watch for fire while the equipment was being used and suitable firefighting equipment immediately available; and
- continuously monitoring the relevant area for one hour after the work stopped.
The policy stated that the conditions precedent were specifically identified in the wording and that breach meant QBE would not indemnify the insured for any part of the claim.
Why did the court prefer the insurer’s interpretation?
Attleys relied on established authority that a conventional “reasonable precautions” clause in liability insurance is generally breached only by recklessness, rather than mere negligence. It argued that the hot works condition should be read consistently with that principle unless the policy used clear wording to impose a stricter standard.
QBE argued that the clause was different from a general requirement to take reasonable care. It identified particular safeguards for hot works and made them conditions precedent to indemnity. The insurer relied on the policy’s wording, the context of hot works risks and authorities dealing with specific precautions in insurance contracts.
Judge Pearce accepted that the expression “reasonable precautions” has an established meaning in insurance law, but found that the wording and structure of this clause linked the expression to the specific precautions set out later in the provision. Reading “reasonable” as both describing the nature of the precautions and imposing a recklessness threshold would give the word two different functions within the same clause.
The judge also considered the practical consequences of Attleys’ interpretation. It would have created a distinction between failures by the insured or its employees and failures by subcontractors, with no convincing commercial justification for treating those situations differently. In the context of hot works conditions, which commonly specify precautions as conditions precedent, the insurer’s interpretation was preferred.
The court concluded that the specified hot works precautions were conditions of indemnity, so negligent or innocent non-compliance could be sufficient to engage the condition.
What does the judgment mean for contractors and insurers?
For roofing businesses and other contractors who use heat-producing equipment, the decision is a reminder that insurance conditions should be treated as operational requirements, not simply as guidance to consult after an incident. Contractors should ensure that site teams understand the applicable policy terms, permits and fire-safety procedures before hot works begin.
Businesses may wish to maintain clear records of the fire-safety lead, site checks, firefighting equipment, hot work permits and post-work monitoring. They should also ensure that subcontractors are briefed and that responsibility for compliance is clearly allocated.
For insurers and those advising on policy wording, the case demonstrates the importance of drafting the relationship between general reasonable-precautions obligations and specific conditions precedent clearly. The court stressed that better wording could have distinguished the general obligation from the particular safeguards, but imperfect drafting alone did not prevent the insurer’s interpretation from succeeding.
The ruling concerned the construction of this policy’s hot works clause on a preliminary issue. Whether a policy provides cover in another dispute will depend on its own wording and the facts.
Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute in Attleys Roofing Limited v QBE UK Limited?
The case concerned whether QBE had to indemnify a roofing contractor after a fire followed hot works at a school building. The preliminary issue was how the policy’s hot works condition should be interpreted.
Did the court say that negligence always invalidates insurance cover?
No. The decision turned on the wording of this policy, which made specified hot works precautions conditions precedent to indemnity. The judgment distinguished this from a conventional general reasonable-precautions clause.
What precautions did the policy specify?
They included appointing a fire-safety responsible person, checking the surrounding area, following the hot work permit, providing fire monitoring and firefighting equipment, and monitoring the area for one hour after work ended.
When was the judgment handed down?
The approved judgment in [2026] EWHC 2742 (Comm) was handed down on 26 October 2026.