Posted on Wednesday 1 July 2009
In a recent case, where an electrician was found to be suffering from asbestosis, the insurers tried to escape liability by taking recourse to a decision of House of Lords, where it was held that no compensation was payable in cases of pleural plaques.
Ken Morton, the 70-year-old employee of Campbell & Isherwood Limited was found to have contracted asbestosis and have suffered from 2-3 % of disability, when he retired from his service after 45 years of work in 2006. He has been reported of having been exposed to asbestos.
Unite’s lawyers, Thompsons Solicitors, carried on a detailed investigation into the matter. The investigation showed that the employee was exposed to asbestos for a long period of about 30 years while in service and working at a number of sites within the UK. The insurers accepted that employers were negligent, but refused to pay compensation based on the decision of the House of Lords.
Unite’s representative, Paul Finegan said that the decision of House of Lords on pleural plaques had far reaching implications. This has enabled the insurers to argue their cases for escaping liability even for other asbestos related diseases. It was also suggested that the situation needs to be corrected at this stage itself to prevent the employers from risking the lives of their workers. IOSH courses from Workplace Law Training are designed to give managers and supervisors all they need to know to help handle health and safety in their teams; click on IOSH Health and Safety for more information
Thompsons had pursued the case on the ground that asbestosis and pleural plaques are two different diseases and hence, compensation for asbestosis could not be refused on the basis of the decision on pleural plaques. Thompsons achieved success in the case when the insurers agreed to pay a provisional settlement of 5000 pounds, even before the case appeared in court.
Joanne Candlish from Thompsons Solicitors explained that the insurers were ready to use the House of Lords’ decision to avoid payment in the case of other types of diseases as well. However, since insurers have agreed to pay a provisional payment, it has secured the employee at present and also given assurance of future compensation if his condition becomes worse or if he suffers from other related illnesses.











