“The family of a miner who died years after an experiment with asbestos coating in a pit have won compensation three years after his death.”
BBC News, 10th March 2011
from the Inner Temple Library
In re Employers’ Liability “Trigger” Litigation; Durham v BAI (Run-off) Ltd; Freming & Eddlestone v Independent Insurance Co Ltd; Edwards v Excess Insurance Co Ltd; Thomas Bates & Son Ltd v BAI (Run-off) Ltd; Akzo; Nobel UK Ltd and another v Excess Insurance Co Ltd; Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd v Zurich Insurance Co and others  EWCA Civ 1096;  WLR (D) 256
“In any year in which an employee underwent substantial exposure to asbestos and subsequently developed mesothelioma, the mesothelioma was ’caused’ by the exposure during that year. An insurance policy which was worded to indemnify the employer against disease ’caused’ during employment thus responded to the mesothelioma. However, employers’ liability policies framed in terms of the employee suffering or sustaining an injury did not have the same effect. Employees did not suffer or sustain an injury within the meaning of the policies when they were exposed to asbestos. Injury was not suffered until the onset of malignancy, and policies with that type of wording did not indemnify the employer. Mesothelioma might also be ‘contracted’ when exposure occurred.”
WLR Daily, 19th October 2010
Please note once a case has been fully reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.