The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on public liability policies which covered claims made during the currency of the policy rather than under employers’ liability polcies which covered damage incurred during the policy.
Held: MMU’s policy required the injury rather than its cause, to arise during the policy, and they were liable to indemnify Bolton unless CU were liable. CU’s policy provided cover only during the time of exposure, and the claimant had no claim against them. An insurer is entitled to say that he has only agreed to issue on certain terms and he ought to be able to rely on that position not only against his insured but also as against a co-insurer. The rejection by an insurer on the grounds of lack of cover could not be counted as a waiver of his right later to plead a breach of condition even in respect of a breach which had already happened.
Auld LJ, Longmore LJ, Hallett LJ
[2006] EWCA Civ 50, Times 09-Feb-2006, [2006] 1 WLR 1492, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 173
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cartledge v E Jopling and Sons Ltd HL 1963
The plaintiffs were steel dressers who, in the course of their employment, had inhaled quantities of noxious dust which had caused them to suffer from pneumoconiosis. They issued proceedings on 1 October 1956 but were unable to show any breach of . .
Cited – Keenen v Miller Insulation and Engineering Ltd 8-Dec-1987
The claimant’s cause of action for lung fibrosis did not arise at the time he was exposed to asbestos between August 1952 and May 1953 because at that stage he had not suffered physical injury by May 1953. Basing himself on the evidence of Dr Rudd . .
Cited – Promet Engineering (Singapore) Pte Ltd (Formerly Self-Elevating Platform Management Pte Limited) v Nicholas Colwyn Sturge and others (The Nukila) CA 26-Mar-1997
Insurers were liable for other damage to ship hull if there had been more than a latent defect in it. In Inchmaree clauses in English law, ‘damage’ usually refers to a changed physical state. . .
Cited – McCaul v Elias Wild 14-Sep-1989
The plaintiff who had suffered pleural thickening from inhalation of asbestos fibres in 1943 – 1950 suffered no actionable injury until about 1985, when he first experienced breathlessness. . .
Cited – Arnold v Central Electricity Generating Board HL 22-Oct-1987
The plaintiff was widow and administratrix of the estate of her deceased husband. He had worked from April 1938 to April 1943 for a predecessor to the CEGB. He had been exposed to asbestos dust as a result of his employer’s negligence and breach of . .
Cited – Guidera v NEI Projects (India) Ltd 17-Nov-1988
The plaintiff was exposed to asbestos in 1952 and 1953 and later diagnosed with asbestosis.
Held: He had suffered no injury by 4th June 1954 because physical injury would not occur for at least 5 (and more likely 10 – 20) years after exposure. . .
Cited – Jameson and Wyatt (Executors of the Estate of David Allen Jameson) v Central Electricity Generating Board and Babcock Energy Limited 10-Mar-1995
The plaintiff claimed damages for mesothelioma. CEGB had provided a contractual indemnity in respect of damage or injury occurring before building works were taken over by a client in 1960. The question was whether a workman who died from . .
Cited – Kammins Ballrooms Co Limited v Zenith Investments (Torquay) Limited HL 1970
The tenant had served his section 26 notice under the 1954 Act, but then began the court proceedings before the minumum two month period had expired. The landlord did not take the point at first, and delivered an answer and negotiated compensation. . .
Cited – China National Foreign Trade Transportation Corporation v Evlogia Shipping Co SA of Panama (The Mihalios Xilas) HL 1979
A hire clause was in bespoke terms providing for withdrawal ‘in default of payment’. The payment of hire for the final instalment was deficient because, as the umpire held, the charterers’ deductions for the length of the final voyage and bunkers on . .
Cited – Welch v Royal Exchange Assurance CA 1938
The court was asked whether compliance with a clause in the insurance contract was a condition precedent. There was also a question whether the insured could rely on facts arising after the making of their claim.
Held: If a clause does not set . .
Cited – Peyman v Lanjani CA 1985
Application was made for consent to assign a lease. The court was asked whether or not the purchaser of a leasehold interest in a property, who had elected to affirm the contract despite a repudiatory breach by the vendor, could be held to his . .
Cited – Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd CA 15-Jan-1991
An insurance company, having paid under the policy to a doubly insured party, sought contribution from the second insurer, who had not been notified of the claim by the insured. The claim for a contribution was one in equity, but since the company . .
Cited – Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc PC 24-May-1993
Two insurance companies were liable to contribute equally to an amount payable to a third party. The doctrine of contribution could be modified by contract and the matter should be considered by reference to the parties’ contractual liabilities. . .
Cited – Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
Cited – James, Regina v; Regina v Karimi CACD 25-Jan-2006
The defendants appealed their convictions for murder, saying that the court had not properly guided the jury on provocation. The court was faced with apparently conflicting decision of the House of Lords (Smith) and the Privy Council (Holley).
Cited by:
Cited – Lexington Insurance Co v AGF Insurance Ltd HL 30-Jul-2009
The respondent insurers had been held liable in Washington, and had been granted indemnity against the appellants by the Court of Appeal. The insurance contract had been under the law of Pennsylvania, but that of the re-insurance under the law of . .
Contrasted – Employers’ Liability Insurance ‘Trigger’ Litigation: BAI (Run Off) Ltd v Durham and Others SC 28-Mar-2012
The court considered the liability of insurers of companies now wound up for mesothelioma injuries suffered by former employees of those companies, and in particular whether the 1930 Act could be used to impose liability. The insurers now appealed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.238308
