Turner Access Higher Safety Total Access
Total Access Ethentic Chipmunk Data
Chipmunk Data Turner Access Ethentic

INSURERS FACE MASSIVE MESOTHELIOMA DISEASE LIABILITY

Supreme Court ruling on insurer liability favours employers and sufferers

It has been ruled by the Supreme Court that insurance company liability for the asbestos related disease mesothelioma is triggered by the date when the individual is exposed to asbestos fibres and not the date when symptoms of mesothelioma emerge. The potential liability of insurance companies is estimated at between £600m and £5bn. Lord Clarke said:

“The negligent exposure of an employee to asbestos during the [insurance] policy period has a sufficient causal link with subsequently arising mesothelioma to trigger the insurer’s obligation.”

Defence by small group of insurers at odds with UK insurance industry

The Unite trades union welcomed the ruling and general secretary Len McCluskey, said:

“This is a landmark ruling which will affect thousands of victims of asbestos. It is a disgrace that insurance companies went to such lengths to shirk their responsibilities. For callous insurers this means the responsibility holiday is over. Unite fought this case to the highest court to get justice for Charles, his family and all victims of asbestos.”

Nick Starling, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said the ruling:

“confirmed what most in the industry have always understood – that the insurer on cover when the claimant was exposed to asbestos should pay the claim, rather than the insurer on cover when the mesothelioma develops. This case has been pursued by a small group of ‘runoff’ insurers acting independently and at odds with the views of the majority of the UK insurance industry. We are pleased that the supreme court has overruled the court of appeal’s judgment on this point as it ensures that claimants should get the compensation they reasonably expect.”

 

SUMMARY DETAILS OF THE JUDGEMENT 

 

Employers’ Liability Insurance “Trigger” Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Limited (In Scheme of Arrangement) and others v Durham and others [2012] UKSC 14 On appeal from [2010] EWCA Civ 1096

JUSTICES

Lord Phillips (President); Lord Mance; Lord Kerr; Lord Clarke; Lord Dyson

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEALS

These appeals concern the obligations of insurance companies under various contracts of employers’ liability (“EL”) insurance. In particular, the appeals concern the scope of the insurers’ obligations to indemnify employers against their liabilities towards employees who have contracted mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos.

Mesothelioma has an unusually long gestation period, which can be in excess of 40 years between exposure to asbestos and manifestation of the disease. The insurers maintain that the EL policies only cover mesothelioma which manifested as a disease at some point during the relevant policy period. In contrast, the employers submit that the insurance policies respond to mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos during the relevant policy period but which develops and manifests itself sometime later.

The usual rule in negligence cases is that the claimant must establish on the balance of probabilities that the defendant’s negligence caused his injury or disease. In Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22 and Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20 the House of Lords developed an exception to this general principle in cases involving mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos.

The effect of this special rule is that an employer is liable where exposure to asbestos contributed to the risk that the employee would suffer mesothelioma and where the employee in fact develops the disease. The insurers submit that the special rule in Fairchild/Barker is not applicable when deciding, for the purposes of an EL insurance policy, whether an employee’s mesothelioma was caused by exposure to asbestos during a particular policy year.

At first instance Burton J held that the policies should all be interpreted as having a “causation wording”. He therefore held that the liability “trigger” under the EL policy was when the employee inhaled the asbestos and not the date when the malignant lesion developed.

A majority of the Court of Appeal (Rix and Stanley Burnton LJJ) upheld the judge in relation to some of the EL insurance policies (particularly those covering disease “contracted” during the relevant insurance period); however they concluded that other policies (particularly those covering disease “sustained” during the insurance period) responded only on an occurrence or manifestation basis.

These appeals to the Supreme Court raise two issues: (i) On the correct construction of the EL policies, is mesothelioma “sustained” or “contracted” at the moment when the employee is wrongfully exposed to asbestos or at the moment when the disease subsequently manifests in the employee’s body? (ii) Does the special rule in Fairchild/Barker apply when determining whether, for the purposes of the EL policies, an employee “sustained” or “contracted” mesothelioma during a particular policy period?

JUDGMENT

The Supreme Court dismisses the insurers’ appeal by a 4-1 majority; Lord Phillips dissenting on the second issue. Lord Mance gives the main judgment.

REASONS FOR THE JUDGMENT

To resolve the meaning of the EL policies it is necessary to avoid over-concentration on the meaning of single words or phrases viewed in isolation, and to look at the insurance contracts more generally.

Several features point the way to the correct construction. First, the wordings of the policies on their face require the course of employment to be contemporaneous with the sustaining of the injury. Second, the wordings demonstrate a close link between the actual employment undertaken during each period and the premium agreed by the parties for the risks undertaken by the insurers in respect of that period. Third, on the insurers’ case there is a potential gap in cover as regards employers’ breaches of duty towards employees in one period which only lead to disease or injury in another later period. Fourth, on the insurers’ case employers would be vulnerable to any decision by the insurers not to renew the policy. A decision not to renew might arise from the employers complying with their duty to disclose past negligence upon any renewal. Employers who discovered that they had been negligent in the course of past activities in respects that had not yet led to any manifest disease would have such a duty. The insurers could then simply refuse any renewal or further cover. Fifth, the way most of the policies deal with extraterritorial issues throws doubt on any suggestion that the wordings are so carefully chosen that a court should stick literally to whatever might be perceived as their natural meaning.

Section 1 of the Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance Act 1969 also points the way to the correct interpretation. This states that every employer “shall insure, and maintain insurance…against liability for bodily injury or disease sustained by his employees, and arising out of and in the course of their employment”. In order to give proper effect to the protective purpose of that legislation, the Act requires insurance on a causation basis

There is no difficulty in treating the word “contracted” as looking to the causation of a disease, rather than its development or manifestation. The word “contracted” used in conjunction with disease looks to the initiating or causative factor of the disease. While the word “sustained” may initially appear to refer to the manifestation of an injury, the nature and underlying purpose of the EL insurances is one which looks to the initiation or causation of the accident or disease which injured the employee. Accordingly a disease may properly be said to have been “sustained” by an employee in the period when it was caused or initiated, even though it only developed or manifested itself later.

In relation to the second issue, the question is whether the EL policies cover employers’ liability for mesothelioma arising under the special rule in Fairchild/Barker. Under that rule the law accepts a weak or broad causal link between the employer’s negligence and the employee’s mesothelioma. When construing the EL policies the concept of a disease being “caused” during the policy period must be interpreted sufficiently flexibly to embrace the role assigned to exposure by the Fairchild/Barker rule.

The purpose of the EL policies was to insure the employers against liability to their employees. Once it is held that the employers are liable to the employees, it would be remarkable if the insurers were not liable under the policies. Accordingly, for the purposes of the EL policies, the negligent exposure of an employee to asbestos during the policy period has a sufficient causal link with subsequently arising mesothelioma to trigger the insurer’s obligation to indemnify the employer.

Lord Phillips dissents on the second issue. The special approach developed in Fairchild/Barker raises no implication or fictional assumption as to when mesothelioma is initiated. The consequence is that if claimants have to show that mesothelioma was initiated in a particular policy year in order to establish that insurers are liable they are unable to do so. This conclusion is not affected by section 3 of the Compensation Act 2009, which did not alter the jurisprudential basis of the Fairchild/Barker approach

Latest Construction Health and Safety News

NEW EDGE PROTECTION INSTALLATION TRAINING

Trade body launches CSCS backed edge protection installer qualification

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 18th September 2017

GOVERNMENT CALLS FOR ACTION ON ILL-HEALTH

Business leaders accept charge of inaction on work-related ill-health

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 18th September 2017

FIRM FAILED TO ENFORCE FORK LIFT SEAT BELT USE

Operator suffered fatal crush injuries after FLT overturned

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 18th September 2017

DIRECTOR AND FOREMAN JAILED OVER FATAL FALL

Failure to act on HSE advice ended in gross negligence manslaughter

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 18th September 2017

PRISON SENTENCE FOR ROOFING CONTRACTOR

Council H&S officers reported dangerous roof work to HSE

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 14th September 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 14th SEPT 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 14th September 2017

LADDER STANDARDS MOVE UP A RUNG OR TWO

Ladder Association guide to fundamental changes in ladder standard

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 12th September 2017

SILICA (RCS) DUST LIMIT – THE ONLY WAY IS DOWN?

US regulator cuts RCS exposure standard to half UK limit

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 12th September 2017

SAFE2TORCH – REDUCING FLAT ROOF FIRE RISK

Industry body seeks to reduce ‘torch’ triggered fires at design stage

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 8th September 2017

FIRM AND DIRECTOR SENTENCED OVER GAS RISK

Poorly planned extension prevented effective gas venting

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 7th September 2017

£1 MILLION CLIENT FINE FOLLOWS FATAL FALL

Electrician died after fall from step ladder provided by client

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 7th September 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 6th SEPT 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 7th September 2017

HAVS HEALTH CHECK PROMPTS HSE PROSECUTION

Assessment of vibration exposure and control measures found wanting

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 7th September 2017

HSE LUNG DISEASE SUMMIT TARGETS SILICA DUST (RCS)

Regulator starts major initiative on lung disease in construction

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 1st September 2017

HSE COST RECOVERY NOW “FULLY INDEPENDENT”

hselogo1New Fee for Intervention disputes procedure now in place

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 1st September 2017

CLIENT FINED AS CDM 2015 PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR

Failure by client to appoint attracts PC duties by default

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 30th August 2017

JOINER PARALYSED AFTER FALL THROUGH JOISTS

Fall prevention and risk minimisation measures not taken

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 30th August 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 30th AUG 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 30th August 2017

COMPLAINT COSTS CONTRACTOR £145,000 IN FINES

HSE prosecute CDM 2015 Principal Contractor over risk without injury

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 29th August 2017

HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 23rd AUG 2017

hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices weekly update and analysis

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 23rd August 2017

HSE CONSTRUCTION FATALITY RECORDS: Q1 2017/18

Latest HSE fatality records reveal four (4) deaths in first three months

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 23rd August 2017

HSE ON SILICA DUST (RCS): RISK MANAGEMENT UPDATE

New guidance available on key HSE Construction Sector priority

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 23rd August 2017

HOUSEHOLDER EXPOSED TO ASBESTOS RISK

Builder removed AIB during garage conversion in unsafe manner

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 22nd August 2017

ASBESTOS REMOVAL FIRM IN MULTIPLE BREACH

Director sentenced to prison term and company fined £100k

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 22nd August 2017

WORKMAN DIED IN FALL DURING ROOFWORK

Contractors failed to manage risk, communicate and coordinate work

Read the rest of this article »

Posted on 22nd August 2017
Turner Access Chipmunk Data
Total Access Ethentic
Higher Safety Turner Access

3 Responses to “INSURERS FACE MASSIVE MESOTHELIOMA DISEASE LIABILITY”

  1. THE MESOTHELIOMA CURE . INFO » UK court ruling opens door to more asbestos claims - CNN Says:

    […] Construction Health and Safety News […]

  2. THE MESOTHELIOMA CURE . INFO » UK court ruling opens door to more asbestos claims - CNN International Says:

    […] Construction Health and Safety News […]

  3. THE MESOTHELIOMA CURE . INFO » INSURERS FACE MASSIVE MESOTHELIOMA DISEASE LIABILITY - Construction Health and Safety News Says:

    […] Construction Health and Safety News […]