header-logo header-logo

​More regulations, more problems

05 September 2018 / David Pugh
Categories: Features , Profession , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

David Pugh reports on a deeply unsatisfying statutory intervention

  • The impact of the new Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018 on compensation for asbestos disease.

Compensation for asbestos disease continues to drive legal reform, many decades after the use of asbestos stopped in the UK. The latest statutory intervention comes with the new Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (Consequential Amendment of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2018.

As is often the way with asbestos, these regulations seek to resolve a problem caused by a solution to a different problem.

Latency period

The latency period between exposure to asbestos fibres and disease is normally around 30-40 years. Almost all asbestos claims are brought against former employers – but in reality their insurers. The latency period means that about half of those employers no longer exist. Under the 1930 Third Party Rights Against Insurers Act, an action can be brought directly against an insurer, but only after liability has been established against the insured company.

Where

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

Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Quillon Law—Neil Dooley

Disputes firm expands fraud and investigations practice with partner hire

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Charles Russell Speechlys—Vadim Romanoff

Firm strengthens corporate tax and incentives team with partner hire

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Burges Salmon—Gary Delderfield & Alec Bennett

Partner and senior associate join pensions team

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why
back-to-top-scroll