Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic 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

    HSE ENFORCEMENT WEEKLY UPDATE 12th DEC 2018

    hselogo1Prosecutions and enforcement notices register latest version

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 12th December 2018

    HSE SAFETY ALERT: TOWER CRANE BRAKES

    Collapse of tower crane jib in high winds prompts HSE warning

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    VISITING ENGINEER CRUSHED BY SCAFFOLD TUBES

    Principal contractor “signed off” contractor storage arrangements

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th December 2018

    CONCRETE EJECTED BY PUMPING UNIT CLAIMED LIFE

    Company and director failed to train and supervise pumping operations

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 5th December 2018

    REFRESHED GUIDANCE ON FITNESS TO OPERATE PLANT

    Construction plant medical fitness Good Practice Guide

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    MAJOR CONTRACTOR & LUL USED UNSAFE SYSTEM

    Work method to eliminate moving vehicle hazard not adopted

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 4th December 2018

    OVERTURNING LORRY CAUSED DEATH OF DRIVER

    Groundworks project stockpiling arrangements not properly managed

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    FORTH BRIDGE LIFTING OPERATION NOT PLANNED

    Major project PC failed to plan, supervise and carry out lift safely

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 3rd December 2018

    DEVELOPER FAILED ON ASBESTOS ASSESSMENT

    HSE inspection revealed refurb works without asbestos survey

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    POST DRIVER HAMMER CRUSHED HAND OF WORKMAN

    Unsafe system of work for vehicle crash barrier installation

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    WORKER FELL FROM LOFT THROUGH CEILING

    Major house builder lacked understanding of loft fragile surfaces risk

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    NEW SITE DUMPER SAFETY GUIDANCE ISSUED

    Construction plant sector concerns prompts CPA consults on draft

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    CCTV INSTALLER FELL THROUGH FRAGILE ROOFLIGHT

    Contractor failed to properly plan and control the risks

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    VISITOR DIED FALLING INTO CONCEALED BASEMENT

    Contractor failed to protect basement void on domestic project

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 28th November 2018

    RACKING FALL REVEALED UNSAFE SYSTEM OF WORK

    European firm fined £300,000 after UK sub-contractor employee fell

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    FAILURE TO ACT ON VIBRATION AND SILICA HAZARDS

    Worker health put at risk during stripping of furnace lining

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    MAJOR FM FIRM FAILED TO MAINTAIN BACK-UP POWER

    Power loss at laboratory site created potential risk from biological agents

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 18th November 2018

    IGNORING HSE PROHIBITIONS COST FIRM £250,000

    CDM 2015 and work at height requirements repeatedly breached

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 16th November 2018

    ROOF COLLAPSED UNDER EXCESS LOADING

    Director and company fined over roof design failures

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 11th November 2018

    FORK LIFT OVERTURNED IN SCAFFOLDING YARD

    Untrained operator suffered life changing crush injuries

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 10th November 2018

    STRUCTURAL SAFETY ALERT: EFFECTS OF SCALE

    SCOSS issues alert after concerns disclosed over ‘large structures’

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    ASBESTOS EXPOSED BY UNTRAINED WORKERS

    Contractor failed to act properly despite HSE intervention

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    GAS MAIN STRIKE REPAIR CAUSED SEVERE BURNS

    Contractor excavator damage to gas pipe ends in £1.2m fine

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    REBAR FELL FROM FLT IN UNSAFE LIFTING OPERATION

    Multiple fractures caused by inappropriate use of fork lift

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 7th November 2018

    POORLY PLANNED LIFT DISMANTLE INJURED WORKMAN

    Counterweight or suspension rope struck worker in lift shaft

    Read the rest of this article »

    Posted on 1st November 2018
    Ethentic Ethentic Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data
  • Higher Safety Higher Safety Chipmunk Data Chipmunk Data Ethentic Ethentic

    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 […]