Protections warranties

AC Ward & Sons Ltd v Catlin (Five) (No 2) [2009] EWHC 3122 (Comm) is an unusual case in two respects. It is the first reported decision to consider the meaning of protections and burglar alarm warranties since that of Woolf J inMelik v Norwich Union [1980] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 523. And on the facts, a variation to the insurance was avoided rather than the insurance itself. The case is discussed by Brendan McGurk of 4 New Square.

The facts

In March 2007 cigarettes and alcohol (‘the goods’) to the value of £400,000 were stolen from a mezzanine security cage (‘the cage’) in the insured’s warehouse in Thurrock, Essex (‘the Thurrock warehouse’). Despite the existence of a number of anti-theft alarms and protections, none was activated until roughly 18 hours after the theft began. The insured sought a full indemnity under a composite multiline policy which provided cover for theft.