When is there damage to “the thing itself”?
A RECENT English High Court ruling has been helpful in developing the previously problematic area of English law in respect of Murphy v Brentwood and the rule that a sub-contractor does not owe a duty of care for pure economic loss incurred as a result of a “thing damaging itself”, report Victor Rae-Reeves and Monique Brostek of Clyde & Co LLP who acted for Southern, which was insured by Brit Insurance.