Asbestos victims wait in hope

A case before the Supreme Court next week could end years of uncertainty over whether the victims of a rare form of cancer linked to asbestos exposure at work are entitled to compensation.

Unite the union will appeal to England’s highest court after insurance companies were partly successful in a test case in challenging their liability for victims of mesothelioma.

The Court of Appeal overturned a 2008 High Court ruling last year which had said that all insurers who provided cover to the employer at the time of the asbestos exposure should pay up.

The Court of Appeal decided that in certain cases the employers’ liability insurance is triggered not by the exposure to asbestos but by the development of the disease.

Unite points out that the disease invariably develops decades later, by which time there is no insurance in place to respond to the claim.

The ruling has meant that in every subsequent case the exact wording of the insurance contract would have to be studied and in some cases victims have been left without compensation.

The union is bringing the appeal 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.

The firm was insured at the time by Excess Insurance Company Limited but 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 appeal court decided that Mr 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.

Unite general secretary Len McCluskey (pictured) 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.”

He said it was illogical that the right to compensation depended on the wording used in insurance contracts.

paddym@peoples-press.com