Exeter University heads are waiting for an appeal ruling after Allianz Insurance won a High Court fight over its refusal to pay out on an insurance claim for damage caused by the disposal of a German Second World War bomb.
Contractors working on a construction site near the university campus unearthed the unexploded 1,000kg (2,200lb) bomb in February 2021.
Exeter claimed under an Allianz policy after university property suffered “significant” damage when the bomb was disposed of in a “controlled detonation”, judges heard.
Allianz declined the claim, saying loss fell within the scope of a “war exclusion” clause.
A judge ruled in favour of Allianz in March after a High Court hearing.
Judge Nigel Bird concluded that Allianz was entitled to decline the university’s claim.
Lawyers representing the university on Tuesday challenged Judge Bird’s decision at a Court of Appeal hearing, at the Royal Courts of Justice complex, in London, and argued that it was “wrong”.
Allianz disagreed and said Exeter’s appeal should be dismissed.
Appeal judges Lord Justice Lewison, Lord Justice Coulson and Lord Justice Snowden said they would deliver a ruling on a date to be fixed.
Judges heard that the bomb was thought to have been dropped by the Luftwaffe during raids in 1942.
Military bomb disposal experts had decided that the device could not be safely removed and carried out a “controlled detonation”.
Allianz argued that the dropping of the bomb – an “act of war” – caused the university’s loss.
In my view, the dropping of the bomb was the obvious proximate cause of the damage— Judge Nigel Bird
Exeter said the cause of the loss was “the deliberate act of the bomb disposal team in detonating the bomb”.
Lawyers representing the university said it could not have been intended that policy exemptions would apply to historic conflicts.
Judge Bird had said in a ruling: “If there had been no bomb, there would have been no explosion.
“The bomb provided both the explosive payload and the absolute need for the detonation.
“In my view, the dropping of the bomb was the obvious proximate cause of the damage.”
He said the “dropping of the bomb” was an “act of war” and so the “loss suffered” was “excluded from cover”.
