High Court Holds a Roofer's 'Reasonable Precautions' Hot-Works Condition Is Absolute, Leaving Attleys Roofing Without Cover for a School Fire Against QBE

A short piece of punctuation sat at the centre of a High Court decision on October 26, 2026, in a case that every roofing and building contractor with a liability policy should read. In Attleys Roofing Ltd v QBE UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 2742 (Comm), the Commercial Court decided a preliminary issue about how to interpret a hot works condition in a contractor's liability policy. The question was whether an obligation to take 'reasonable precautions' is absolute, so that any failure to take them can defeat an indemnity, or whether the insurer must show something more, such as recklessness. The court held that the obligation is absolute and that negligence is enough. The reporting of the case comes from Insurance Business UK, published on October 28 and updated on October 29, and the full judgment should be read for its precise reasoning.

The fire

According to the report, the fire occurred on April 27, 2023 at a building referred to as 'the Bank' at Horris Hill Preparatory School in Newbury. Attleys had been carrying out work involving an oxyacetylene torch on lead detailing. The fire broke out after the work had finished, which is a familiar pattern with hot works: heat applied to a roof or its components can smoulder unseen and ignite materials later. QBE refused to indemnify Attleys under its Advantage Contractors Liability policy, relying on the policy's hot works condition. The dispute then went to the Commercial Court, which was asked to decide a preliminary issue on the meaning of the clause instead of trying all the facts at once.

What the clause said

The relevant provision was clause 6.5.4, which appears under the heading 'CONDITIONS PRECEDENT'. A condition precedent is a term that must be satisfied before the insurer becomes liable, and a breach can relieve the insurer of the obligation to pay the claim regardless of whether the breach caused the loss, subject to statutory limits. The clause required the policyholder to take 'reasonable precautions', with those two words placed in single inverted commas, and it listed eight specific precautions. According to the report, these included having a fire-safety person, clearing combustible material from within six metres of the work area, keeping a fire watch, and monitoring the area for one hour after hot works finished.

Attleys argued that the phrase 'reasonable precautions' made the clause something less than absolute, and it pointed to another clause, 6.5.2, which dealt with burning debris and did not use the word 'reasonable'. The argument was that the difference in wording showed the drafter intended a lower standard in clause 6.5.4, so that the insurer would need to show more than a simple failure to take care. The court was not persuaded by that contrast. According to the report, the judge described Attleys' reading as 'an unnatural reading' and noted its 'apparent illogicality'. The report says that the case of Aspen v Sangster & Annand was cited as a similar authority.

Why the ruling matters

The practical effect is that, under this wording, a contractor who fails to take the listed precautions can lose cover even if the failure was merely careless and not reckless. Policyholders often assume that an insurer must show a serious departure from standards before it can refuse a claim. The decision shows that when a policy sets out express, specific hot works precautions as a condition precedent, the court will apply them as written. The word 'reasonable' qualifies what the precautions must be, but it does not turn the duty to take them into a duty merely to try.

The decision should not be read as a ruling that QBE will win. The preliminary issue concerned interpretation only. According to the report, two matters remain undecided: whether Attleys actually breached the condition on the facts, and whether section 11 of the Insurance Act 2015 affects the insurer's reliance on it. Section 11 deals with terms designed to reduce the risk of a particular kind of loss, and it can prevent an insurer from relying on a breach where the policyholder shows that the non-compliance could not have increased the risk of the loss that actually occurred. Those points were outside the preliminary issue and will be considered later if the case continues.

Practical lessons

For contractors, the first lesson is to treat hot works conditions as obligations that must be met on every job, with records to prove it. Fire watch logs, permits, photographs of cleared work areas and sign-offs after the monitoring period can all become evidence. The second is to read the policy before starting, since a condition precedent buried in the schedule or endorsements may carry the same weight as an exclusion. The third is to speak to the broker about whether cover is available that does not depend on strict compliance, or whether a different wording would better suit the work.

For brokers, the ruling is a prompt to walk clients through hot works conditions in plain language and to check that the insured's site procedures match the policy. For insurers, it confirms that clearly drafted conditions will be enforced, although the lack of a ruling on breach and on the Insurance Act means the outcome in this case is still uncertain.

For anyone interested in how English courts approach policy wording, the case also shows the continued emphasis on the ordinary meaning of words in context. Even small drafting choices, such as quotation marks or whether one clause uses a word that another omits, are examined, but they do not override an otherwise clear obligation.

This article summarises one published report of a first-instance decision on a preliminary issue and is not legal advice. Anyone affected by a hot works condition should consult a solicitor or broker and read the full judgment.