header-logo header-logo

14 October 2010
Issue: 7437 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Asbestos claim uncertainty

Confusion as appeal judges rule on mesothelioma victims’ claims

Employers, insurers and families of asbestos victims face uncertainty after a “deeply troubling” ruling on mesothelioma liability.

The Court of Appeal judgment in the EL Trigger litigation, handed down last Friday, considers which insurer should meet a mesothelioma claim resulting from historic asbestos exposure.

Confusingly, there was a lack of consensus among the three judges. According to the court, liability will depend on the wording of the policy involved. In some cases the relevant policy will be the one in force when the tumour started to develop, while for others it will be the policy in place at the time of exposure.

Both claimant and defendant lawyers have criticised the judgment.
Henry Bermingham, public sector partner at Berrymans Lace Mawer LLP, who represented defendants in the case, says that private companies, the public sector and their insurers hoped for “clarity and certainty” on who was liable to compensate victims of asbestos exposure.

“However, in the extraordinary judgment which spanned more than 160 pages, the waters have been muddied somewhat.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Haynes Boone—Jeremy Cross

Firm strengthens global fund finance practice with London partner hire.

DWF—Stephen Webb

DWF—Stephen Webb

Partner and head of national planning team appointed

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

mfg Solicitors—Nick Little

Corporate team expands in Birmingham with partner hire

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll