A Seminar by 4 Pump Court With Burgoynes
29 JUNE 2009
PARLIAMENT CHAMBER, INNER TEMPLE, 5.30pm to 7.00pm
Proving The Cause Of Fire
Forensic Investigation
Insurance Against Loss By Fire – Recent Developments
Specialist insurance claims barristers from commercial and construction set 4 Pump Court, in London, teamed up with forensic investigators from Burgoynes to host a seminar on fire claims.
Around 150 delegates from insurance solicitors, loss adjusters and insurers involved in fire claims attended the jointly organised event held at Inner Temple. The seminar was devised and chaired by Nick Vineall QC, who highlighted the importance of understanding the legal and forensic approaches to fire causation.
He said: "Even in claims where the insurer does not have to prove the breach caused the fire be entitled to decline the claim, it is often essential to establish the precise cause of fire in order to prove that the warranty has in fact been breached".
Michael Davie, of 4 Pump Court, who appeared for the successful claimant in the Court of Appeal case Drake v Harbour, spoke about the "Sherlock Holmes approach" to causation. The famous detective told Dr Watson: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". But, Davie asked, is that a proper approach for a court to take?
He said no court would conclude an ultimately improbable cause was the cause of a fire. But if other causes could be excluded a court can properly infer a prima face improbable cause was, on all the evidence, in fact the likely cause of a particular fire.
Burgoynes' partner and fire and explosion expert, Dr Neil Sanders, explained the forensic techniques available, even after catastrophic fire damage, and the importance of early site investigations. Delegates were particularly interested in the use of electrical evidence to identify the likely location of the seat of fire, even when the fire did not have an electrical cause.
His colleague, Ian Griffiths, explained how the investigation of the Cutty Sark fire had concluded the likely cause was an industrial vacuum cleaner that had been left on over the weekend and had burst into flames.
Finally, 4 Pump Court's Alex Charlton QC, an insurance and construction law specialist, reviewed the law on Waste warranties and Hot Work warranties and conditions, focusing on the cases of Bennett v Axa, Comhill v Stamp and Ecclesiastical v Axa.
The panel was asked whether, bearing in mind the backdrop of recession, there had been a noticeable increase in fraudulent fire claims. The answer was... not yet.
