[
Insurers recently sought to clarify their stance on the fire performance of sandwich panels by amending their key guidance on the subject. But Peter Jones asks whether they have gone far enough.
BRE recently made a statement on its LPS 1181 series of standards, for sandwich panels and built up cladding systems under the headline. LPS 1181 -The Facts. In the introduction the statement referred to “Incorrect and misleading reports on the purpose and application of the LPS 1181 series of standards…causing confusion in the market”. Unfortunately, BRE did not explain what reports were misleading, who said them and why there was confusion.
A series of recent events involving the Association of British Insurers (ABI), MPs, insulated sandwich panel and insulation material manufacturers may shed some light on the subject. Furthermore, I think the confusion and incorrect application highlighted by BRE may have resulted in two major problems. Firstly, in buildings where life safety is paramount, designers might infer through aggressive marketing or confusion that a property protection standard such as LPS 1181 is a means to a safer building. This would be potentially dangerous and life threatening.
The insurance industry has been aware for some time that there is a problem in the use of broad descriptions such as ‘combustible building’. In a 2006 document from the Fire Insurers Fire Research Strategy Scheme (InFIReS) on categories of building construction for fire insurance surveys, the introduction states that “there is some evidence that the broad descriptions are being misused outside the insurance industry”.
The basic distinction in terms of fire safety between current statutory provisions (Building Regulations and the Regulatory Reform (Fire safety) Order) and standards such as LPS 1181 was made clear in a recent answer by the secretary of state for communities and local government to a parliamentary question from Clive Betts, MP. This stated: “Current statutory provisions and supporting standards for fire protection in buildings are made only for the purposes of securing the health and safety of people in and around buildings, not to reduce economic loss.” It went on to say that “LPS 1181 is a loss prevention standard used primarily by the insurance industry. This standard provides a method for assessing the fire performance of cladding systems with respect to potential economic loss in the event of a fire.”
Correct application
The second problem is that designers may have left themselves exposed to possible professional liability claims through the incorrect application of a product. If designers are applying statutory guidance and property protection standards rather than a fire engineering solution such as BS 7974, they will go through a fire risk assessment using simple techniques and check lists. Just a few of the areas to consider for a ‘holistic’ fire risk assessment are:
– building components not to contribute to development and/or spread of fire
– prevention of early collapse and deflections
– fire and smoke spread restricted
– prevention of arson
– prevention of spread from adjoining buildings
– fire safety management
– environmental considerations – water run-off spreading products of combustion to water table
– third party certification – products/systems/installers
A designer may find third party certification and standards such as LPS 1181 to be helpful. However, these can only be a small part of the overall fire risk assessment and design solution. Designers need to clearly understand the limitations of such standards, only use those that are appropriate, and check that each product or construction is fit for purpose in the particular application.
BRE’s announcement gave clear guidance on this subject, saying that when an LPS 1181 certified product is used, checks must be made to ensure the construction that was tested and certified is fit for purpose. Designers cannot limit their liabilities by relying on technical advice from the sales departments of material suppliers that offer fire engineering design and solutions. CDM 2007 Approved Code of Practice Regulation 2 is crystal clear and states: “Manufactures supplying standardised products that can be used on any project are not designers under CDM 2007. The person who selects the product is a designer and must take account of health and safety issues arising from its use.”
If a standard, such as LPS 1181, is being used as part of the ‘holistic’ fire risk assessment it is important to note that different grades, such as EXT-A and EXT-B, are always qualified with the phrase ‘as tested’ and that grades only apply to the system or construction that was fire tested. Check that the details and materials in the full test certificate and Red Book Live are the ones actually specified and installed. If not, there is the real likelihood that there will be no certified fire performance.
Commenting on the legal pitfalls Alison Short, from international law firm Eversheds, has said: “If designers had relied on manufacturer’s literature which stated that the product in question complied with industry accepted standards, but the product did not and they were not able to show that [they] had taken steps at the time of specification to verify the manufacturer’s literature, this might be determined to be a failure to exercise reasonable skill and care.”
Groundswell
Earlier this year, MPs and other non-political stakeholders wrote to ABI raising concerns that some manufacturers were using quotations from the ABI Technical Briefing: Fire Performance of Sandwich Panel Systems
(May 2003) out of context to imply that their product is in some way ‘non-combustible’ and comparable to products that are truly non-combustible. An insurance industry publication was being used to justify fundamental fire engineering claims on product performance. They believed this was potentially misleading and raised issues of life safety. The ABI responded to the concerns and agreed to redraft paragraph 4.4 in their publication.
The ABI Property Committee said that paragraph 4.4 was unclear, could be open to misinterpretation and could benefit from redrafting. The committee said that “the guidance is primarily intended for insurance purposes and it is not intended as a substantive commentary on the combustibility of particular products.”
So revised ABI paragraph 4.4 has a new heading: Insurer Assessment Guidance: External Building Envelope and states:
“For insurance underwriting purposes, insurers use the Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings as a basis for providing guidance on what they require for property protection purposes, subject to a broad based risk assessment. In respect of external composite panels, these must be suitable for the intended end use application and should either have non-combustible cores or be LPCB approved to the appropriate requirements of LPS1181 [see paragraph 3.11] and fully satisfy insurers fire resistance requirements [insulation and integrity] through appropriate testing”
The new wording states that the guidance is for property protection in a fire and not for life safety. ABI guidance has always been for insurance underwriting purposes and not for describing the fire performance of any manufacturer’s product. The new paragraph cannot be used to support claims that the use of any LPS 1181 approved cladding product resulted in a “non-combustible building”.
The new paragraph makes it clear that there are a number of appropriate LPS 1181 grades and emphasises insurers’ requirement for ‘fire resistance’ – a performance that is not necessarily delivered by an LPS 1181 certified product. For example, LPS 1181 Part 1 has grade EXT-B that tests only for initial reaction to fire and EXT-A which offers actual fire resistance. These two grades offer fundamentally different fire performance and it makes a nonsense of the use of the ‘LPS1181 approved’ badge to somehow claim that all approved products are equal.
This article is not intended to criticise any one side such as BRE or ABI. I am the first to accept that fire is a complex phenomenon that can create serious dangers to life and property. I believe that when fire is involved there is a duty of care for all sides to ensure that guidance is clear, accurate and not open to misinterpretation. Personally, I would find it useful if BRE could clarify these “incorrect and misleading reports” to avoid confusion in the future.
Peter Jones is a consultant to mineral wool core panel manufacturer, Eurobond.
[
Insurers recently sought to clarify their stance on the fire performance of sandwich panels by amending their key guidance on the subject. But Peter Jones asks whether they have gone far enough.
BRE recently made a statement on its LPS 1181 series of standards, for sandwich panels and built up cladding systems under the headline. LPS 1181 –The Facts. In the introduction the statement referred to "Incorrect and misleading reports on the purpose and application of the LPS 1181 series of standards…causing confusion in the market". Unfortunately, BRE did not explain what reports were misleading, who said them and why there was confusion.
A series of recent events involving the Association of British Insurers (ABI), MPs, insulated sandwich panel and insulation material manufacturers may shed some light on the subject. Furthermore, I think the confusion and incorrect application highlighted by BRE may have resulted in two major problems. Firstly, in buildings where life safety is paramount, designers might infer through aggressive marketing or confusion that a property protection standard such as LPS 1181 is a means to a safer building. This would be potentially dangerous and life threatening.
The insurance industry has been aware for some time that there is a problem in the use of broad descriptions such as ‘combustible building’. In a 2006 document from the Fire Insurers Fire Research Strategy Scheme (InFIReS) on categories of building construction for fire insurance surveys, the introduction states that "there is some evidence that the broad descriptions are being misused outside the insurance industry".
The basic distinction in terms of fire safety between current statutory provisions (Building Regulations and the Regulatory Reform (Fire safety) Order) and standards such as LPS 1181 was made clear in a recent answer by the secretary of state for communities and local government to a parliamentary question from Clive Betts, MP. This stated: "Current statutory provisions and supporting standards for fire protection in buildings are made only for the purposes of securing the health and safety of people in and around buildings, not to reduce economic loss." It went on to say that "LPS 1181 is a loss prevention standard used primarily by the insurance industry. This standard provides a method for assessing the fire performance of cladding systems with respect to potential economic loss in the event of a fire."
Correct application
The second problem is that designers may have left themselves exposed to possible professional liability claims through the incorrect application of a product. If designers are applying statutory guidance and property protection standards rather than a fire engineering solution such as BS 7974, they will go through a fire risk assessment using simple techniques and check lists. Just a few of the areas to consider for a ‘holistic’ fire risk assessment are:
– building components not to contribute to development and/or spread of fire
– prevention of early collapse and deflections
– fire and smoke spread restricted
– prevention of arson
– prevention of spread from adjoining buildings
– fire safety management
– environmental considerations – water run-off spreading products of combustion to water table
– third party certification – products/systems/installers
A designer may find third party certification and standards such as LPS 1181 to be helpful. However, these can only be a small part of the overall fire risk assessment and design solution. Designers need to clearly understand the limitations of such standards, only use those that are appropriate, and check that each product or construction is fit for purpose in the particular application.
BRE’s announcement gave clear guidance on this subject, saying that when an LPS 1181 certified product is used, checks must be made to ensure the construction that was tested and certified is fit for purpose. Designers cannot limit their liabilities by relying on technical advice from the sales departments of material suppliers that offer fire engineering design and solutions. CDM 2007 Approved Code of Practice Regulation 2 is crystal clear and states: "Manufactures supplying standardised products that can be used on any project are not designers under CDM 2007. The person who selects the product is a designer and must take account of health and safety issues arising from its use."
If a standard, such as LPS 1181, is being used as part of the ‘holistic’ fire risk assessment it is important to note that different grades, such as EXT-A and EXT-B, are always qualified with the phrase ‘as tested’ and that grades only apply to the system or construction that was fire tested. Check that the details and materials in the full test certificate and Red Book Live are the ones actually specified and installed. If not, there is the real likelihood that there will be no certified fire performance.
Commenting on the legal pitfalls Alison Short, from international law firm Eversheds, has said: "If designers had relied on manufacturer’s literature which stated that the product in question complied with industry accepted standards, but the product did not and they were not able to show that [they] had taken steps at the time of specification to verify the manufacturer’s literature, this might be determined to be a failure to exercise reasonable skill and care."
Groundswell
Earlier this year, MPs and other non-political stakeholders wrote to ABI raising concerns that some manufacturers were using quotations from the ABI Technical Briefing: Fire Performance of Sandwich Panel Systems
(May 2003) out of context to imply that their product is in some way ‘non-combustible’ and comparable to products that are truly non-combustible. An insurance industry publication was being used to justify fundamental fire engineering claims on product performance. They believed this was potentially misleading and raised issues of life safety. The ABI responded to the concerns and agreed to redraft paragraph 4.4 in their publication.
The ABI Property Committee said that paragraph 4.4 was unclear, could be open to misinterpretation and could benefit from redrafting. The committee said that "the guidance is primarily intended for insurance purposes and it is not intended as a substantive commentary on the combustibility of particular products."
So revised ABI paragraph 4.4 has a new heading: Insurer Assessment Guidance: External Building Envelope and states:
"For insurance underwriting purposes, insurers use the Design Guide for the Fire Protection of Buildings as a basis for providing guidance on what they require for property protection purposes, subject to a broad based risk assessment. In respect of external composite panels, these must be suitable for the intended end use application and should either have non-combustible cores or be LPCB approved to the appropriate requirements of LPS1181 [see paragraph 3.11] and fully satisfy insurers fire resistance requirements [insulation and integrity] through appropriate testing"
The new wording states that the guidance is for property protection in a fire and not for life safety. ABI guidance has always been for insurance underwriting purposes and not for describing the fire performance of any manufacturer’s product. The new paragraph cannot be used to support claims that the use of any LPS 1181 approved cladding product resulted in a "non-combustible building".
The new paragraph makes it clear that there are a number of appropriate LPS 1181 grades and emphasises insurers’ requirement for ‘fire resistance’ – a performance that is not necessarily delivered by an LPS 1181 certified product. For example, LPS 1181 Part 1 has grade EXT-B that tests only for initial reaction to fire and EXT-A which offers actual fire resistance. These two grades offer fundamentally different fire performance and it makes a nonsense of the use of the ‘LPS1181 approved’ badge to somehow claim that all approved products are equal.
This article is not intended to criticise any one side such as BRE or ABI. I am the first to accept that fire is a complex phenomenon that can create serious dangers to life and property. I believe that when fire is involved there is a duty of care for all sides to ensure that guidance is clear, accurate and not open to misinterpretation. Personally, I would find it useful if BRE could clarify these "incorrect and misleading reports" to avoid confusion in the future.
Peter Jones is a consultant to mineral wool core panel manufacturer, Eurobond.