News
Pleural plaques is not a compensable condition, the House of Lords ruled last week.
Upholding the Court of Appeal’s January 2006 ruling, the law lords held that under current law, sufferers, whose cases have not yet been settled, can not claim compensation on the grounds of negligent exposure to asbestos ([2007] UKHL 39).
Martin Bare, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, admitted he was staggered by the law lords’ decision and says he feels extreme sympathy and sadness for the victims.
“The ruling effectively tells sufferers they have not been injured, yet their bodies have been invaded by asbestos and each day the clock is ticking.
“While the insurance industry will undoubtedly celebrate this financial victory, it has come at the expense of all those victims who had faith in our justice system,” he says.
He adds that this is the final, devastating blow for pleural plaques victims in their fight for justice.
However, Brendan Baxter, a lawyer at Reynolds Porter Chamberlain, says that although the law lords have taken an unexpected tack, the judgment is unlikely to be the end of the story.
“The House of Lords may have closed the door on pleural plaque compensation claims made on the basis of negligence or breach of statutory duty, but at the same time they have also opened the window, by unexpectedly flagging up a potential new line of argument—that claimants could sue for breach of contract,” he says.
Baxter adds that there is an implied term in employment contracts that staff will have a safe working environment and that exposing them to asbestos dust would breach this term.
“Claimants may decide to go down this contractual route rather than fight on with their existing cases. If this happens, it could be bad news for insurers. Although the extent of damages for claims with a contractual basis is unclear, in theory, far more people could decide to take legal action because they wouldn’t need to prove they had developed pleural plaques to sue for contractual damages.
“If claimants assert that the usual limitation period on claims for breach of contract should not apply then we could see new arguments relating to asbestos exposure start all over again in the lower courts,” he says.
Stephen Haddrill, director general of the Association of British Insurers, says the judgment brings clarity for claimants and insurers. “The insurance industry is fully committed to paying compensation to claimants who suffer from mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases.
“This judgment on pleural plaques is not concerned with those diseases. The House of Lords has unanimously upheld the Court of Appeal ruling that pleural plaques are not compensable because they have no effect on health or ability to work, produce no symptoms and do not cause other asbestos-related diseases,” he says.
