At what point does a claimant “sustain or contract” the disease?

Mesothelioma is a “long latency” disease. In other words, it can be many years before the symptoms show themselves. In Durham v BAI (Run Off) Limited [2012] SC 14, the Supreme Court ruled that a worker “sustains or contracts” the disease at the moment that they are exposed to the asbestos fibres, not when the symptoms appear, which could be years later. This case involved a group of insurers who tried, unsuccessfully, to resist paying up under an insurance policy.

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2012/14.html

Compensation should not be cut to reflect shorter life expectancy

In Haxton v Philips Electronics Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 4, Mrs Haxton’s husband tragically died from mesothelioma as a result of exposure at work. However, she also contracted the disease from washing his work clothes and, as a result, her own life expectancy was reduced. Insurers argued that her claim for losses based on her husband’s death should be cut to reflect her own shortened life expectancy. The Court of Appeal refused to allow this, awarding her £700,000 of compensation.

Haxton v Philips Electronics Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 4

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/4.html

Compensation for pain and suffering should not be cut to reflect age of victims

In Dennis Ball v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012] EWHC 145, the claimant, Dennis Ball, was aged 92 when he was awarded £50,000 of compensation for pain and suffering after developing the disease as a result of his work for the National Coal Board. The Secretary of State argued that his compensation for pain and suffering should be cut to reflect the fact that he was unlikely to live very long following his diagnosis. The High Court disagreed. No matter how long their life expectancy following diagnosis, a claimant should be adequately compensated for their pain and suffering, the Court said.

Dennis Ball v Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2012] EWHC 145

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/145.html

Employers liable for “low-level” exposure

In March 2011, the Supreme Court upheld awards of compensation to the families of Dianne Willmore and Enid Costello, who died from mesothelioma after exposure to low levels of asbestos. Dianne Willmore died aged 49, following exposure while a pupil at school, and Enid Costello was exposed while working as a secretary. The Court confirmed that employers will still be liable, even if the exposure is to “low levels” of asbestos, as long as the asbestos made a “material contribution” to the cause of death.

Sienkiewicz (Administratrix of the Estate of Enid Costello (deceased) v Greif (UK) Limited and Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council v Willmore [2011] UK SC10

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/10.html

Parent company can be liable for asbestos claim against subsidiary

In Chandler v Cape PLC [2012] EWCA Civ 525, the Court of Appeal confirmed that in some circumstances, a parent company can be liable for a personal injury claim, including mesothelioma, even though the claimant was employed by the subsidiary not the parent. A parent company is more likely to be liable in these circumstances where there is evidence that managers from the parent company have involved themselves directly in health and safety decision making at the subsidiary and where (as in this case) executives at the parent company had a high level of knowledge about the risks at the time of the exposure to asbestos.

Chandler v Cape PLC [2012] EWCA Civ 525

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/525.html