‘You get what you pay for’ – the meaning of ‘professional services’ in D&C policies
The recent case of FKP Commercial Developments Pty Ltd v Zurich Australian Insurance Limited considered the meaning of ‘professional services’ within a design and construct policy.
Facts of the case
FKP Commercial Developments Pty Limited was the developer of a building project under a contract with FKP Constructions Pty Limited, a head contractor. FKP Constructions used third party consultants and sub-contractors, choosing not to perform any design or construction works itself.
The registered proprietors of the common property and commercial buildings alleged:
- numerous defects and non-complying construction work; and
- losses arising from breaches of the statutory warranties under the Home Building Act 1989 and/or a common law or statutory duty of care.
The FKP parties sought an indemnity for the claim under their ‘Design and Construction Professional Indemnity’ insurance policy. Insurers rejected the claim on the basis that the potential liability did not arise from the provision of ‘professional services’ as defined under the policy.
Judgment
On the question of whether the claim was a ‘claim for civil liability… based on the insured’s provision of professional services’, the court held the claim fell outside the scope of the policy. The court held that FKP’s liability arose from its position as the owner/developer of the property, and not from the provision of professional services.
The court characterised the liability of the FKP parties as wholly based on or arising from the following, which were not covered under the policy:
- Construction, manufacture, assembly, installation, erection, maintenance or physical alteration of buildings, goods, products or property (which are excluded from the definition of ‘Professional Services’); or
- Defects in or lack of suitability of products and goods used in the construction of the common property of the residential building’ (which are excluded under the policy).
Considerations for underwriters
This case serves as a reminder that, in the words of the judge in the case, ‘a party gets the policy they pay for’.
Contents
- The Word, November 2022
- An update on articles in previous editions of the Word
- ‘Final judgment’ or ‘final adjudication’ - what’s the difference?
- Atlanta adopts Plain Numbers to improve policy readability
- Duty to defend - when is it triggered?
- Date of incident or date of coverage decision – when does the cause of action commence?
Contact
Tim Johnson
Partner
tim.johnson@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6557
You may be interested in...
Legal Update
Walking the fine line: The statutory duty of candour and insurance
Legal Update
FCA launches consultation on broker remuneration for multi-occupancy buildings insurance
Legal Update
AI is creating fraudulent claims
Legal Update
Shoplifting epidemic by organised criminal gangs: The impact for insurers
Legal Update
Death and disgrace policies: What can insurers learn about the allegations against Gregg Wallace?
Legal Update
Insurance complaints surge continues
Legal Update
Embedding social value in procurement
Legal Update
Navigating workplace sexual harassment laws during the festive season
Opinion
Revolutionising the Workforce: Impact of Get Britain Working White Paper
Legal Update - London Market Quarterly
London Market Quarterly December 2024: An eye on what the market needs to know
Published Article
Johnson et al v FirstRand Bank: Judgment sends warning across financial services intermediation
Opinion
Balancing employer flexibility and employee rights
Legal Update
The ‘grate’ cheese robbery: Implications for insurance professionals
Legal Update
Environmental crime and the impact for insurers
Legal Update
Carbon fraud prompts insurance response
Legal Update
What might a Trump victory mean for the UK insurance industry?
Legal Update
Post Office scandal: Lessons for underwriters
Legal Update
Weather protection parametric insurance: A sign of things to come?
Legal Update
Building an inclusive workplace: Strategies for attracting and retaining disabled talent
On-Demand
Kinship care: DJ v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council and SG
Legal Update
After a pause, Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) regulation becomes one step closer
Legal Update
Updates to the UK’s Arbitration Bill
Legal Update
Ozempic: The rising costs and coverage issues of weight loss medication
Legal Update - Employment Rights Bill
What does the Employment Rights Bill mean for employment practices liability insurance?
Legal Update
ICAEW: Changes to PII requirements
Legal Update
Contractor insolvency: Peabody Trust v NHBC
Legal Update
Insurability by design: Increased transparency for vehicle manufacturers and insurers
Legal Update - Building Safety Act
The Building Safety Act 2022: Managing risks for private equity investors and acquirers
Legal Update
By a narrow 2 to 1 majority, the Court of Appeal finds in favour of insurers in the construction of an exclusion clause in a W&I policy
Legal Update
Organisational approaches to ESG and sustainability matters
Legal Update
LMA binders’ consultation
Legal Update
Smooth sailing ahead: The LMA's new Open Form Default Clause
Legal Update
PFAS: The issue that won’t go away
Legal Update
Oklahoma earthquake: Racial discrimination in adjudication
Legal Update
Will the Online Safety Act help reduce Google ad spoofing in insurance?
Legal Update
Vicarious liability for kinship foster carer abuse: Implications for local authority insurers
Legal Update
Latest short-term insurance trends
Legal Update
Motor finance complaints on hold: Why now is the time for strategic action
Published Article
General insurance claims part 3: evidence of the insurance markets’ learnings from the consumer duty
