Asbestos Again

Asbestos exposure is the biggest killer in the British workforce, causing more than 4,000 deaths every year – more than road traffic accidents. The fibres can be in a person's lungs for half a century before causing cancer, so that deaths in the UK are not expected to peak until 2016.

SOYMB has posted about the cynical denial of victims health claims before and here

We now read in The Independent, which continues its exposure of the cover-up campaign by insurers, that highly paid insurance executives fighting a legal battle to limit compensation to the families of thousands of asbestos-related cancer victims are being rewarded with lucrative bonuses. The insurers were criticised yesterday for taking home bumper pay packets and bonuses while refusing to pay out to families whose relatives have died from the disease. One executive, Ian Willett, of Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI), which has £85m at stake in asbestos cases, told a court that he and a second executive were paid extra for saving his company money in asbestos payments. He admitted the successful outcome of the asbestos litigation was likely to affect his bonus. It has not been possible to establish the details of what – if any – bonuses were paid to other company executives but insurance industry experts say it is common practice for executives to receive bonuses that are related to the financial performances of their companies.

MMI is one of four companies that are leading a fight to minimise payouts to 25,000 families who have a member who has died or is suffering from mesothelioma cancer resulting from exposure to asbestos. The other three firms are Builders Accident, Excess and the Independent Insurance Company. The insurers' case argues that employer's liability is restricted to when the cancerous tumours started to develop instead of when victims were exposed to the deadly dust. Decades can pass before the cancer develops. If the insurers lose, the compensation bill could be in excess of £250m. Lawyers specialising in asbestos claims called the insurers' argument "hugely cynical" and said: "It flies in the face of all existing evidence that the exposure is the key date, as it is well accepted that symptoms take up to 40 years to show." They claim that, while lawyers argue, thousands of sufferers are dying not knowing whether their families or loved ones will be financially secure.
Most insurers are distancing themselves from the case. A spokesman for the Association of British Insurers said: "This is being brought by a small group against the views of the majority of UK insurers. Most active insurers are happy to pay to people with employers' liability policies."

Professor Geoffrey Tweedale, an asbestos historian at Manchester Metropolitan University, criticised the insurers for bringing the case. "It's an attempt by the insurers to quibble over the words and find an escape route. It's totally cynical to argue over when a tumour starts." Victims' lawyers say medical experts – whose advice would have guided insurers – knew as early as the 1930s that exposure to the lethal asbestos fibres could take up to half a century to kill workers.

Losing the court battle will leave some families with no compensation at all, despite their employers having paid insurers to protect against worker injury in good faith.

Hugh Robertson, the head of health and safety at the Trades Union Congress, said: "The real injustice is that the insurers took the money. They had no qualms in taking the insurance policies from employers who believed their workers were insured, and now they're doing everything to wriggle out of their commitments. Whether they were legal commitments the courts will decide, but they certainly have moral commitments. However, the insurance industry has spent the last decade trying to avoid their moral responsibility in respect to people with asbestos diseases." The TUC says that insurers are using many different methods to cut down the cost of claims. "This is only one of a series of challenges and attacks that people have had to face when trying to get compensation for employers' negligence," said Mr Robertson. "In addition to the court case, the insurance companies have been lobbying hard to make sure the courts can't be used in the future."

Professor Tweedale said the court case was "part of a strategy to slow down or avoid claims" so insurers could save money. "The background is the rising number of mesothelioma cases and compensation claims, so it's part of a strategy by the insurance industry to cut the bill," he said. "For the insurers, it's about business – they're not in it to toe an ethical line – but for the victims it can be a necessity to get compensation when they lose a breadwinner. It's also an attempt to hold someone responsible, particularly if there's negligence. Most victims do not get adequate compensation; that's been the case throughout history."