A Victory For Those With Mesothelioma

A test case that could mean good news for mesothelioma victims has
been fought in the courts, with the outcome being described as a
"hugely important victory" by those affected by the asbestos related
cancer.

The case centred on which insurance policy providers were liable to
pay out in the event of a victim developing the disease - the insurers
covering the company at the time of exposure or the insurers involved
at the time of diagnosis. Mesothelioma has a prolonged development
period, with most cases not becoming apparent until at least 20 to 40
years after exposure to deadly asbestos dust. The case argued that it
was the insurers who covered the company at the time of exposure whom
were responsible for paying compensation, not the insurers who may
hold policies at the time of diagnosis. Asbestosis and other asbestos
related diseases such as mesothelioma are the biggest cause of work
related deaths in the UK, with around 2,000 people being diagnosed
with the disease in 2008. The insurers have been watching this test
case very closely, as it is thought that the number of cases will
increase over the next 20 years with workers exposed to asbestos in
the 1970's developing the disease. The disease is expected to peak in
2015.

Employers took out liability insurance to protect themselves against
the cost of mesothelioma or asbestosis compensation claims and legal
action taken out by workers injured at work. But as the disease (which
has been described as a 'silent killer') has a long development stage,
many companies that employed asbestos workers 20 to 30 years ago have
since ceased trading. The argument by some insurance companies was
that the victims could have worked for several companies during their
working lives and that it would be difficult to apportion blame to any
one company for the exposure to asbestos that subsequently triggers
the disease some 30 years later. In their argument this would
therefore make it impossible to say which insurer was liable for any
compensation claims that may be brought and that the onus should rest
with the insurers involved at the time of diagnosis, and not at the
time of exposure.

The 'trigger case' lasted for nine weeks in the summer of 2008 and
eventually the courts disagreed with this argument, saying that the
insurers at the time of exposure were liable. Solicitors representing
families involved said that the argument would make it harder for
victims and their families to secure compensation, particularly as
many modern insurance policies have exemption clauses for asbestos
related diseases including mesothelioma and asbestosis. This would
mean that families would have to pursue the companies themselves for
compensation and as many of these firms have since gone out of
business, the families would have no recourse and no chance of
compensation.

The families and solicitors of the victims, as well as those watching
anxiously to see if compensation funds will finally be released for
mesothelioma victims, have welcomed the clarification of the law.
Specialist solicitors dealing with asbestos exposure cases have also
welcomed the decision, seeing it as an indicator of a more positive
approach by the courts to what is an ongoing battle for thousands of
new victims.