emplaw.co.uk
Employment Law Web Updater
05 June 2008
Employment Law Web Updater
05 June 2008
Unite backs High Court test case on behalf of thousands of asbestos victims - Unison 2.6.08
Times Online - 03/06/2008
An important test case began in the High Court on 3 June 2008 against insurance companies which are denying liability to pay compensation in mesothelioma cases. The case is likely to continue for up to 9 weeks.
The key issue is what "triggers" liability. The insurers argue that under the wording of policies taken out by employers to cover themselves against liability to workers who become ill due to their work, liability is "triggered" by the onset of asbestos related disease rather than by the exposure to asbestos. On that basis, insurers say they have no liability under policies covering the time when employees were exposed to asbestos. As the time lapse between exposure to asbestos and developing mesothelioma can be as much as 40 years a lot of mesothelioma sufferers and/or their families will lose out if the insurers win this argument.
A substantial reason for the near collapse of Lloyds of London in the 1990's was exposure to asbestos related claims which, depending on policy wordings, may turn out to be non-existent if the insurance companies win this present case. That would be likely to mean a substantial profit for Warren Buffet, who in 2006 bought Equitas, the run-off rescue vehicle set up to save Lloyd's.
The present test case follows from the death of Charles O'Farrell. His family are suing Excess Insurance, which covered his former employer, Humphreys & Glasgow. Other test cases are Fern v BAI; Bates v BAI; Fleming v Independent; Akzo Nobel & Amec Plc v Excess Ins. Co; and MMI v Zurich & Adur DC & ors. Lovells provides some useful background in a note dated 1st August 2007 and there is a relevant Unite press release of 2nd June 2008 from the trade union which is supporting the claims being made.
The key issue is what "triggers" liability. The insurers argue that under the wording of policies taken out by employers to cover themselves against liability to workers who become ill due to their work, liability is "triggered" by the onset of asbestos related disease rather than by the exposure to asbestos. On that basis, insurers say they have no liability under policies covering the time when employees were exposed to asbestos. As the time lapse between exposure to asbestos and developing mesothelioma can be as much as 40 years a lot of mesothelioma sufferers and/or their families will lose out if the insurers win this argument.
A substantial reason for the near collapse of Lloyds of London in the 1990's was exposure to asbestos related claims which, depending on policy wordings, may turn out to be non-existent if the insurance companies win this present case. That would be likely to mean a substantial profit for Warren Buffet, who in 2006 bought Equitas, the run-off rescue vehicle set up to save Lloyd's.
The present test case follows from the death of Charles O'Farrell. His family are suing Excess Insurance, which covered his former employer, Humphreys & Glasgow. Other test cases are Fern v BAI; Bates v BAI; Fleming v Independent; Akzo Nobel & Amec Plc v Excess Ins. Co; and MMI v Zurich & Adur DC & ors. Lovells provides some useful background in a note dated 1st August 2007 and there is a relevant Unite press release of 2nd June 2008 from the trade union which is supporting the claims being made.
Emplaw Links:
- Emplaw factcard Subscribers, Non-Subscribers