header-logo header-logo

21 October 2010 / Brian Goodwin
Issue: 7438 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

An unfortunate conclusion

Brian Goodwin reflects on the EL Trigger ruling

The recent Court of Appeal decision in the EL Trigger Litigation represents the latest attempt by the courts to tussle with this vexed question: which insurance policy should respond when a policyholder faces a claim for an industrial disease which has only recently occurred, but which, owing to a long latency period, was caused many years earlier? The classic example of this phenomenon is mesothelioma, a malignant tumour affecting the pleura (the lining of the lung) which invariably proves fatal. As the tumour can take anything from a few years to 60 years or more to develop, after the exposure to asbestos fibres has occurred, employers and their insurers continue to face a rising cohort of sizeable claims which numerically are not expected to peak for at least another five years.

The enormous financial legacy created by culpable exposure—the vast majority of which had ceased over 20 years ago—has led to insurers looking closely at the wordings of the insuring clauses in their policies to

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll