B-Gold Interior Design v Zurich Insurance: Contractors' All-Risks Policy & Exclusion Clauses
B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd (“B-Gold”) appealed against the decision of the district judge dismissing B-Gold’s claim in a third party action against Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Zurich”). B-Gold was engaged by MediaCorp Pte Ltd (“MediaCorp”) as term contractor in respect of repair and renovation works. A fire broke out at the AHU room, resulting in damage to MediaCorp’s property. MediaCorp commenced proceedings against B-Gold in respect of the Damage. This led to the third party proceedings by B-Gold against Zurich under the Policy. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding Zurich liable to indemnify B-Gold.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a Contractors’ All-Risks Policy. The court addressed whether damage was covered and the efficacy of exclusion clauses. Appeal allowed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Philip Ling | Peter Low Partnership |
| Eu Hai Meng | United Legal Alliance LLC |
4. Facts
- B-Gold was engaged by MediaCorp for repair and renovation works.
- The contract required B-Gold to take out insurance policies.
- B-Gold took out a Contractors’ All Risk Policy with Zurich Insurance.
- A fire broke out at the AHU room during spalling concrete repair works.
- The fire caused damage to MediaCorp’s property.
- MediaCorp sued B-Gold for breach of contract and negligence.
- B-Gold initiated third-party proceedings against Zurich Insurance.
5. Formal Citations
- B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd v Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd, DA 50/2006, [2007] SGHC 126
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contractors’ All Risk Policy of Insurance taken out with Zurich Insurance. | |
| Contract in writing between B-Gold and MediaCorp. | |
| Contract period commenced. | |
| B-Gold engaged Regius Engineering as its sub-contractor. | |
| Fire broke out at the AHU room. | |
| Contract period ended. | |
| District judge dismissed B-Gold’s claim. | |
| High Court allowed the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of Insurance Policy
- Outcome: The court held that the damage was not covered under Section I of the policy, but Section II applied, and Special Exclusion 4(b) was inoperable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of all-risks policy
- Efficacy of exclusion clauses
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 2 SLR 777
- Applicability of Exclusion Clauses
- Outcome: The court found Special Exclusion 2 inapplicable and Special Exclusion 4(b) inoperable, considering the genesis of the policy and the intent to provide cover for the appellant's obligations under the contract with MediaCorp.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of Special Exclusion 2
- Interpretation of Special Exclusion 4(b)
- Related Cases:
- [1988] VR 349
- [1907] AC 59
- [1895] 1 QB 500
8. Remedies Sought
- Indemnification
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Insurance Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
- Media
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siang Hoa Goldsmith Pte Ltd v The Wing On Fire & Marine Insurance Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 777 | Singapore | Cited to establish that an all-risks policy does not literally cover all risks and is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. |
| Carlingford Australia General Insurance Ltd v EZ Industries Ltd | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1988] VR 349 | Australia | Cited for the principle that an exclusion clause should not be construed in a way that does violence to the policy as a whole and produces an unexpected and irrational result. |
| Home Insurance Co of New York v Victoria Montreal Fire Insurance Co | Privy Council | Yes | [1907] AC 59 | Canada | Cited for the principle that a standard printed clause in a contract may be ignored for inapplicability where it runs counter to the object or subject matter of the insurance. |
| Hydarnes Steamship Company v Indemnity Mutual Marine Assurance Company | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1895] 1 QB 500 | England | Cited for the principle that a clause in an insurance policy may be held inapplicable where the circumstances of the case render it inconsistent with the main object of the insurance. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Contractors’ All Risk Policy
- Material Damage
- Public Liability
- Special Exclusion
- Indemnification
- AHU room
- Spalling concrete repair
15.2 Keywords
- insurance
- contractors all risk
- exclusion clause
- construction
- indemnity
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contractors’ All Risk Policy | 95 |
| Insurance | 90 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Contracts | 60 |
| Construction Contracts | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Insurance
- Construction
- Contract Law