Posts Tagged ‘mesothelioma’

Jackson reform u-turn on mesothelioma claims

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2012

The Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill received Royal Assent on 1 May. Though provisions on legal aid have received the most attention during its passage through Parliament, the part dealing with civil litigation funding sets the stage for sweeping reforms expected in April 2013.

Headline measures are a ban on referral fees together with the ending of recovery of success fees and ATE premiums.

Despite frantic lobbying by some interest groups, Jackson’s proposals for reform of litigation funding have remained largely intact. A Government ‘climb-down’ which has resulted in the exclusion of mesotherlioma cases from the reforms affects a limited proportion of claims.

Reassurances given by the Government, in relation to the operation of QOCS for example, will be tested when the draft rules bringing the scheme into effect are published.

Posted by James Arrowsmith, who specialises in high value personal injury claims, extensive experience of claims relating to head injuries and serious bodily injury, psychiatric damage and injuries to children.

James Arrowsmith

James Arrowsmith
0121 237 3981
jarrowsmith@brownejacobson.com

Supreme Court ruling brings clarity to employers’ liability asbestos claims

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

The Supreme Court has ruled  that insurers on risk at the time of exposure to asbestos are liable to pay out on their employer’s liability (EL) policies.

Insurers in run-off or provisional liquidation argued their specific EL contract wording meant that the policy in force at the time of exposure should not respond; it should be the policy in force at the time the disease begins to manifest, which could be decades after the exposure to asbestos.

The judgment confirms that injuries or diseases are “sustained” or “contracted” when the process leading to mesothelioma and death is initiated by the wrongful exposure to asbestos which causes or contributes to the disease and that the insurer on cover when the claimant was exposed to asbestos will be required to pay the claim, rather than the insurer on cover when the mesothelioma develops.

The decision has finally bought certainty to this long running issue.

Posted by Steven Conway, specialising in: defence of claims on behalf of insurers, local and public authorities, in particular employers’ and public liability claims.

Steven Conway

Steven Conway
020 7337 1037
sconway@brownejacobson.com

Low exposure asbestos claims made easy?

Friday, March 11th, 2011

Lord Phillips handed down a detailed judgement in the cases of two women who died from mesothelioma following low level exposure to asbestos.

Whilst the headlines rightly concentrate on the flood of low exposure claims which will undoubtedly follow, I was struck by the Supreme Court taking the time to set out in very clear terms a step-by-step approach to the case law behind Fairchild and, why in light of the lack of certainty in scientific knowledge, the Fairchild exception is necessary in mesothelioma claims.

If the 84 page judgement causes you to baulk – at least read the detail of Lord Phillips judgement. I wonder if the Supreme Court wanted to use the opportunity to provide clarity in a complex area of the law following their poorly received judgement in the series of cases known as the trigger litigation.

Posted by Bridget Tatham, specialising in: high value complex litigation relating to disease and stress and bullying at work; experienced in regulatory matters including advocacy, investigations and inquests.

Bridget Tatham

Bridget Tatham
0121 237 3916
btatham@brownejacobson.com