Written Fairchild reasons send message to insurers

Defendant personal injury lawyers are reeling after last week's written House of Lords judgment on liability in asbestos cases left them in no doubt about what is expected of them.

In their 111-page ruling on the three linked appeals led by widow Judith Fairchild, the Lords said it would be morally wrong and contrary to justice to bar victims of mesothelioma cancer from compensation just because they had been exposed to asbestos dust by more than one employer.

It said cases should be settled quickly and apportionment between employers sorted out separately.

After last month's oral judgment, in which the Lords overturned the Court of Appeal, insurers were holding out for written reasons before deciding how to proceed (see [2002] Gazette, 23 May, 4).

A Forum of Insurance Lawyers statement said that any injustice imposed on employers was outweighed by the injustice of denying redress to a victim.

But it added: 'Some of the speeches cautioned that the principle applied to these appeals is not intended to lead to any general relaxation of the "but for" test of casual connection.

Further, the issue of apportionment in these cases was not considered by the House of Lords, and that may need to be revisited.'

But Frances McCarthy, immediate past president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, said there was now no excuse for insurers not to pay up.

'Now they have chapter and verse from the Lords, it is to be hoped that insurers will do everything they can to expedite matters,' she said.

Paula Rohan