Unite seeks to end compensation uncertainty for asbestos victims at
supreme court on 5 December
1 December 2011
Supreme court judges will be asked on Monday 5 December to end
the uncertainty about whether people dying from the asbestos
illness, mesothelioma, and their families will be entitled to
compensation.
Unite’s appeal to the UK’s highest court comes after insurance
companies were partly successful in a test case about whether
insurers are liable to pay claims for the fatal asbestos illness,
mesothelioma.
The most recent Health & Safety Executive figures revealed
that there were 2,321 mesothelioma deaths in 2009, of which nearly
400 were women.
The court of appeal (CA) ruled in October last year that the
high court was wrong when it decided, in 2008, that all insurers
who provided cover to the employer at the time of the asbestos
exposure should pay.
Unite general secretary Len McCluskey said: ”Unite is determined
to restore justice for our members and all victims of asbestos. The
court of appeal decision has left a black hole in the protection
that employers’ liability insurance was intended to provide.
Insurance companies sold policies to cover risk. When the risk
became a reality some resorted to picking apart the words in their
own policies.
”It is illogical that some victims of asbestos will receive
compensation and others won’t, depending on words such as “injury
sustained” or “disease contracted” used in insurance contracts
written decades ago. Try explaining that to someone diagnosed
with a fatal disease caused by the negligence of their
employers.”
The CA decided that in some cases the employers’ liability
insurance is “triggered” not by the exposure to asbestos, but by
the development of the disease which is always decades later, by
which time there is no insurance in place to respond to the
claim.
The ruling has meant that in every case the exact words used in
the insurance contract would have to be studied and some victims
have been left without compensation.
Unite’s appeal is on behalf of the family of Charles O’Farrell,
a retired member who died in 2003 having been exposed to asbestos
while working as a steel erector from 1964 to 1967 for Humphreys
& Glasgow Limited who were insured at the time by Excess
Insurance Company Limited. The employer ceased trading in 1992.
Excess Insurance argued that it was not liable to pay out
because, according to the wording of its policy, employees had to
“sustain injury” at the time they were working for the employer and
within the 12 month period of the insurance policy.
The CA decided that Charles O’Farrell did not “sustain injury”
until he developed mesothelioma many years later, after his
employment had ended and long after the insurance policies in place
at the times of his exposure to asbestos had expired.
The union’s lawyers say that the CA was wrong to detach the
meaning of “injury sustained” from when the disease was caused.
Charles O’Farrell's daughter Maureen Edwards said: ”My dad died
a painful death from mesothelioma. Watching him suffer was
agonising for all of his family. His employer’s insurers forced
this fight to avoid paying out compensation he had already been
awarded. The insurers’ attitude is difficult for us to
understand.
”My dad would have been disgusted by the lengths Excess
Insurance has gone to get out of paying. For his sake and the
thousands of others like him we hope the supreme court will accept
our appeal.”
ENDS
Notes for news editors:
For further information please contact Unite press officers
Ciaran Naidoo on 07768 931315 and/or Shaun Noble on 07768
693940
Mesothelioma is cancer of the lining of the lung caused by
exposure to asbestos. There is no cure and around 2,000 people a
year are currently diagnosed with the disease in the UK.
Email to a friend
