This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/health/7740438.stm

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 4 Version 5
Asbestos compensation ruling due Asbestos victims win 'test case'
(about 2 hours later)
A ruling is expected later that could have profound implications for asbestos-related cancer victims and their families. Asbestos-related cancer victims and their families have won an important test case over access to compensation.
The High Court is due to give a verdict in a case between victims' families, employers and insurance firms. Six individual cases were brought against insurance firms which were disputing whether they were liable.
The hearing has hinged on when an insurance firm was liable - at time of exposure or when a worker becomes ill. The hearing has hinged on which policy was key - the one at the time of exposure or when a worker becomes ill.
If it is ruled the policy in place at the time of illness is the relevant one it may make it harder to get a pay-out. If the High Court had ruled the policy in place at the time of illness was the relevant one it could have made it harder to secure compensation.
If the judgement today were to change the liability for the insurers then it would have a devastating effect on asbestos victims Tony WhitstonAsbestos Victims Support Group Forum Unions described it as a "hugely important victory".
This is a hugely important victory for the victims of the deadly dust and for their families Derek Simpson, of Unite
Asbestos-related disease is the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, mainly affecting former workers in shipyards and other heavy industries.Asbestos-related disease is the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK, mainly affecting former workers in shipyards and other heavy industries.
The test case concerns a type of cancer called mesothelioma, which can follow exposure to asbestos by 25 to 40 years. The test case concerned a type of cancer called mesothelioma, which can follow exposure to asbestos by 25 to 40 years.
It is expected to cost insurers millions of pounds as cases dating back to the 1970s come to light.It is expected to cost insurers millions of pounds as cases dating back to the 1970s come to light.
Employers take out liability insurance to insure them against the cost of legal action by staff injured at work.Employers take out liability insurance to insure them against the cost of legal action by staff injured at work.
But a group of insurance firms has questioned which policy should be enacted. But a group of insurance firms had questioned which policy should be enacted.
Compensation They argued during the nine-week hearing over the summer that the policy in place at the time the cancer develops was the one that a compensation claim should be brought against rather than the policy that was in place when the worker was employed by the firm.
They argued during the nine-week hearing over the summer that the policy in place at the time the cancer develops is the one that a compensation claim should be brought against rather than the policy that was in place when the worker was employed by the firm.
They said this was common-sense as victims could have worked for several employers where they were exposed to asbestos.They said this was common-sense as victims could have worked for several employers where they were exposed to asbestos.
But solicitors representing the families involved in the case said this would make it harder to secure compensation.But solicitors representing the families involved in the case said this would make it harder to secure compensation.
One of the key problems, if it is decided the policy at the time of the disease emerging is the relevant one, is that many modern-day insurance schemes have exemptions for asbestos. One of the key problems is that many modern-day insurance schemes have exemptions for asbestos.
That then only leaves the employer for the victims to go after, but as the disease takes so long to develop many of the firms have ceased to exist.That then only leaves the employer for the victims to go after, but as the disease takes so long to develop many of the firms have ceased to exist.
This is the case for the family of Merseyside gas worker Charles O'Farrell, who died in 2003. 'Disgusted'
This was the case for the family of Merseyside gas worker Charles O'Farrell, who died in 2003.
His old employer folded in the 1980s and the insurer, Excess, has claimed the policy from the 1960s should not be valid.His old employer folded in the 1980s and the insurer, Excess, has claimed the policy from the 1960s should not be valid.
Tony Whitston, from the Asbestos Victims Support Group Forum, said the ruling was crucial for sufferers. His daughter, Maureen Edwards, said: "My dad would have been proud that we have finally achieved justice for him.
He said: "By the time someone develops the disease in many, many cases the employer is no longer trading. "But he would have been disgusted by the lengths the insurers went to to get out of paying."
"So they have to rely upon the employers' liability insurer to get compensation. Ms Edwards was supported by the union Unite, which was acting on behalf of their members many of whom worked in industries where they were exposed to asbestos.
"But if the judgement today were to change the liability for the insurers then it would have a devastating effect on asbestos victims and most would never find and insurer to sue." Unite general secretary Derek Simpson said: "This is a hugely important victory for the victims of the deadly dust and for their families."
Ian McFall, from Thompsons Solicitors, which is representing one of the families involved in the case, agreed, saying it could open up a "compensation blackhole". He added: "Thousands of men and women across the UK have been negligently exposed to asbestos by their employers but insurers have tried and failed to use legal technicalities to escape their responsibility to pay compensation under the policies they sold to employers.
But the Forum of Insurance Lawyers, a lobby group representing the defendants, said while it was an emotive subject, the industry needed clarification because of the unique nature of the issue. "They sought to avoid their liabilities while pocketing the money."
"It's clearly an emotive subject, however it has been brought by a number of insolvent insurers who, now reliant on government compensation schemes and reinsurers for funds."