The defendant, Canary Wharf took out a project insurance policy with the claimant insurance company, Gerling for the construction of several buildings at Canary Wharf. During construction there was a serious accident involving a collapsed tower crane. Following the accident, Canary Wharf decided to use a different method to erect two cranes, which resulted in delay and additional costs to the project.

Under the policy, if damage to the insured property was "imminent", Gerling was required to cover Canary Wharf for any additional costs necessarily and reasonably spent by Canary Wharf to prevent delay to the works resulting from that imminent damage.

Canary Wharf argued that under their project insurance policy, Gerling should cover Canary Wharf for the additional costs incurred. Gerling disagreed and brought an action to establish that the loss suffered by Canary Wharf was not covered by their insurance policy.

Did Canary Wharf's decision to change the crane erection procedure amount to action to prevent delay to the works resulting from "imminent" damage?