Judgment for status quo in “Trigger Issue” case

Jason Addy

Asbestos Victims Support Groups welcome the judgment announced which confirms that insurers who were “on” risk at the time someone was exposed to asbestos are liable to pay compensation.

In this test case some insurers argued that the wording of employers’ liability insurance policies says that the insurance is only “triggered” when an asbestos disease develops and not when the asbestos victims was exposed to asbestos.

Essentially, this is an argument between insurers about who should pay. But, the interpretation of the effective date of an insurance policy is crucial to asbestos victims. Because asbestos disease does not develop until decades after exposure to asbestos occurred, it is likely that the employers will no longer be trading and there will no longer be an insurer to pay compensation when an asbestos disease develops. This would have a devastating effect on asbestos victims.

This judgment puts things back to the way they were: insurers who were on risk at the time of exposure must pay compensation.

Cases delayed pending this judgment. Payment of compensation has been delayed pending the outcome of this case and many mesothelioma sufferers have died while waiting for the Court’s decision.

Save Spodden Valley Co-ordinator Jason Addy said: "It was a common sense judgment that has delivered some justice. The concern is of course that the insurers will appeal (Court of Appeal and/or then House of Lords), this could cause years of further delay, expense and uncertainly to innocent and very vulnerable people dying of a cancer caused by simply going to work.

"This judgment does not directly affect T&N workers and those environmentally exposed. (that is a separate injustice not covered in today 's ruling), but it will affect people in Rochdale and throughout the country."

Rochdale MP, Paul Rowen said: “This is great news for the poor people who have campaigned hard for this decision. The only problem now is the ‘fat cat’ insurance who will probably appeal. This is a common sense decision and I will continue to put pressure on Government ministers to ensure people get properly compensated.”

Mrs Byrnes, whose husband Ronald died from mesothelioma, and whose compensation has been held back pending the outcome of this case says: “Sadly my husband never lived to see his employers accept responsibility for his suffering. He would have wanted to see justice done on my behalf, even if not for him.

“My heartache has been prolonged by the insurers who refused to pay compensation.

“The decision is good news. The insurers should take responsibility and leave it atvictims like pawns in a game.”

Insurers continue to escape liability. This judgment does nothing to alter the underlying injustice where insurers continue to avoid liability for paying compensation simply because employers liability insurance cannot be traced as there is no central
register of insurance, as there is for example for TV licenses or motor insurance.

Tony Whitston, Chair Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum said: “This welcome judgment averts the catastrophic effect this case might have had on asbestos victims as ‘collateral damage’ in an insurers’ war.

But the battle for compensation goes on every day as insurers escape liability for insurance they sold simply because the policies cannot be traced as there is no system to centrally register the policies.

Meanwhile, the government steps into the insurers’ shoes by paying small lump sum payments instead of insurers paying full compensation.

This scandalous situation should cease. Insurers should be required to set up a fund of last resort to pay asbestos victims, as they do for motor traffic victims. Then asbestos victims would not be affected by a case like this.”