Britain’s biggest insurance firms have lodged a legal challenge against a new law passed in Scotland which allows workers suffering from exposure to asbestos to sue for compensation .
Aviva, AXA insurance, RSA, and Zurich have lodged an action for a judicial review at the Court of Session in Edinburgh after a law was passed early last week allowing sufferers of pleural plaques to pursue compensation claims from the government in Scotland even though it is prohibited in England and Wales.
Pleural plaques on the lung are caused by exposure to asbestos but are not harmful, and do not produce any symptoms. Some experts say they are merely an indicator, that a person has been exposed to some asbestos in their lifetime. In some cases people who have pleural plaques do go on to suffer from other asbestos related diseases including asbestosis or mesothelioma, but the two are unrelated. Many people who have pleural plaques never have other side effects from asbestos exposure.
The decision made at Holyrood by MSP’s overturned a House of Lords ruling that people with pleural plaques cannot claim compensation .
The insurers are battling with the government as the new law will allow for thousands of ex-asbestos workers to file compensation claims worth million of pounds. They claim that the act ignores substantial medical evidence that plaques do not cause asbestos related conditions such as mesothelioma. This overturns a fundamental UK legal principle that compensation is payable only where physical harm has been suffered through negligent exposure to a risk and fails to fully assess the financial impact on Scottish firms.
The Association of British Insurers spokesman Nick Starling said that the action had not been taken lightly and claimed that the legislation was ill conceived and ignored the fundamental legal principle of negligence and clear medical evidence. They argue that the law contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights and the insurers’ economic rights. He said: “This could create a precedent where if people are exposed to risk, but have no symptoms, they could sue for compensation. It is about the potential for many claims which this Act could open out. We are fundamentally opposed to any move that will extend compensation to those exposed to a risk but not suffering any symptoms.”
A government spokesman said it would defend the challenge vigorously. He said: “We are disappointed that this action to effectively seek to overturn the will of the Scottish Parliament has been taken. The insurance companies’ action may delay, but will not ultimately defeat, our resolve to defend the rights of people who have been negligently exposed to asbestos by their clients. We firmly believe that our legislation is right in principle and right in law.”
