Pilgrims Management Company Ltd v Birlem Limited [2023] EWHC 508 (TCC)
During a delivery of oil to residential flats the oil tank was overfilled causing a spillage and damage to the property. The court examined whether the defendant’s delivery driver was at fault or the claimant’s managing agent (Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward) who supplied incorrect information to the delivery driver.
The key issue was whether a professional delivery driver could rely on representations from a professional managing agent and/or whether they had to undertake their own investigations.
Facts
The claimant was the freehold management company who employed Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward as its managing agent. When tenants complained about cold water, Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward investigated and took the view that the oil tank of the boiler was empty. Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward arranged for a delivery of oil to the property to refill the tank, with a delivery company (the defendant) who had not delivered oil to the property before and was therefore not familiar with it.
An employee of Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward informed the defendant that the oil tank was empty and had a capacity of 6,000 litres when in fact it only had a capacity of 4,546 litres.
It was a disputed fact as to whether the defendant’s delivery driver called Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward when he arrived at the property to access the boiler room.
The defendant’s driver tested the overflow system of the tank, which had an alarm that sounded when it was full. He filled the tank and stopped when the alarm sounded, noting that only 4,523 litres were delivered.
The question for the experts was, what was expected of a reasonably competent delivery driver in that situation? They agreed that the driver’s own investigations should cover three matters, when filling a tank from an external fill point:
- The oil tank and associated equipment was in a suitable condition to receive the delivery;
- The tank had sufficient ullage (i.e. unfilled capacity) to receive the oil without overflowing;
- Suitable safety devices were installed at the external fill point including an overfill alarm system.
As to reliance on the claimant’s managing agent’s instructions, the experts agreed that:
“in a commercial setting, a delivery driver may rely on assurances provided by a suitably qualified competent person nominated by the recipient property owner/occupier”.
The experts differed as to whether the Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward employee should be regarded as a competent person for these purposes.
Court’s decision
The court was satisfied that the defendant’s driver had made the calls to Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward and was told by their employee to fill the tank from an external filling point (i.e. not to enter the boiler room).
The court was also satisfied that Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward had held their employee out as being competent to direct the oil delivery and that the defendants’ delivery driver was entitled to rely on the representations made by her/ Kinleigh Folkhard and Hayward.
The court also agreed with the defendant’s expert that:
“if a delivery of oil has been ordered by a professional firm, as occurred in this case, the driver was entitled to carry out the filling process at the external fill point once he had checked the functioning of the alarm.”
The court therefore held that the defendant was not in breach of its duty and the claim failed.
Comment
Although fact specific the case is a useful examination of responsibilities for damage in circumstances where property owners have employed professional managing agents who then in turn direct independent contractors / workmen to undertake certain work, in a certain way, and where those directions are relied upon by the contractors / workmen.
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
- The Supreme Court considers limitation in environmental nuisance claims
- Incorrectly named insured policy dispute - was the broker or insurer liable?
- Australian Court of Appeal considers welding exclusion
- Contractors' liability and contract works exclusion
- FOS: complaints involving damage to underground pipes
Alice Elliott-Foster
Associate
alice.elliottfoster@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2211
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
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 newsletter
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
Legal Update
Perils: Property insurance claims newsletter - May 2023
Legal Update
It’s “Bomb’s Away” for Allianz as they receive a declaration on proximate cause: Allianz Insurance Plc v University of Exeter
Legal Update
“Being on display in a zoo” is oppressive for luxury flat owners as the Tate Modern is found to be liable in nuisance
Legal Update
Court of Appeal considers ‘proximate cause’ for Pollution or Contamination exclusion in All Risks policy
Legal Update
The Ukraine War: Aviation and cyber issues
Legal Update
Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute
On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.
Legal Update
Building cost increases and the impact of underinsurance
Legal Update
Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic
The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.
Legal Update
Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?
The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.
Legal Update
Coronavirus (COVID-19) insurance considerations
With instances of COVID-19 rapidly increasing throughout the UK, many businesses are considering the options available to limit staff and customer exposure to Coronavirus.
Published Article
Duval v 11-13 Randolph Crescent Ltd: a landlord’s breach of promise
It cannot be often that the Court of Appeal has had to resort to obscure Victorian cases on breach of promise to marry to assist with a modern landlord and tenant issue.