Raft of advisers act as Supreme Court settles insurer liability on asbestos exposure claims
A landmark Supreme Court ruling handed down yesterday (28 March) means insurers could face hundreds of millions in claims from sufferers of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos dust. By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurer indemnifying an employer at the time of exposure of their staff to asbestos - known as the trigger period - was liable for subsequent damages claims, not the insurer providing cover at the time mesothelioma develops.
March 29, 2012 at 10:19 AM
4 minute read
A landmark Supreme Court ruling handed down yesterday (28 March) means insurers could face hundreds of millions in claims from sufferers of mesothelioma, a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos dust.
By a majority of four to one, the Supreme Court ruled that the insurer indemnifying an employer at the time of exposure of their staff to asbestos – known as the trigger period – was liable for subsequent damages claims, not the insurer providing cover at the time mesothelioma develops.
The dispute handed roles to a clutch of firms and QCs, including DLA Piper insurance litigator Leon Taylor for appellants BAI and Independent Insurance Company, and Irwin Mitchell personal injury partner Helen Ashton, who represented respondent Ruth Durham. Durham acted as lead claimant in the case in memory of her father, Leslie Screach, who died in of cancer in 2003 after work-related exposure to asbestos in the 1960s.
Roger Stewart QC and Stephen Robins of 4 New Square were instructed for BAI v Durham and BAI v Thomas Bates and Son, acting against Devereux Chambers' Colin Wynter QC and Outer Temple's Alison McCormick for Durham, and Exchange Chambers' Edward Bartley Jones QC with Exchange Chambers' Digby Jess for Thomas Bates and Son.
It is estimated that the ruling will leave the insurance industry to pay out in the region of £500m-£5bn. However, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) and much of the insurance industry had already supported the stance of paying out from the point of exposure. The ABI, which has sought to distance itself from the insurance firms that fought the claim, yesterday welcomed the ruling.
In total, nine appellants and four respondents were involved in the ruling, represented by QCs from multiple chambers including Devereux, Outer Temple, South Square, Blackstone and Crown Office Row.
The ruling – the culmination of a six-year legal battle – was handed down by Lords Phillips, Mance, Kerr, Clarke and Dyson, with Mance delivering the main judgment.
DLA Piper's Taylor commented: "Today's ruling puts an end to years of uncertainty for everyone, including sufferers and their families, but also policyholders and insurers who had sought clarification from the court, as the justices ruled in a clear majority that insurers who covered employers at the time they exposed their employees to asbestos must pay out.
"Lord Mance's judgment is a model of clarity and should draw a line under the problem in a way which the earlier Court of Appeal decision failed to do," he added.
The ruling partially overturns a 2008 Court of Appeal judgement, which held that some insurers were liable for 'trigger' claims while others were not, depending on the wording of the contract. The Supreme Court's decision is final, with no right of appeal for insurers or other interested parties.
Irwin Mitchell's Ashton said: "There have been repeated challenges to the entitlement to compensation of the asbestos victims by the defendants in this case … This long-awaited judgment provides clarity, consistency and comfort for mesothelioma victims and their families."
Claims put on hold until the outcome of the Supreme Court ruling will now need to be processed by insurers, with Taylor saying it is likely those involved in the ruling will be ordered to pay the claimants the insurance proceeds "within a matter of weeks". Other claims may take longer to finalise.
Click here for the full judgment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSingapore Litigators Shift Competitive Landscape as Another Senior Duo Sets Up Own Shop
Claus von Wobeser: Mexico's ‘Godfather of Arbitration’ Becomes Firm’s Honorary Chair
Slaughter and May Leads As Government Buys Back £6 Billion of Military Homes
2 minute readLatAm Moves: DLA Piper Chile, Brazil’s Demarest Build Out Disputes Muscle
Trending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250