The court was asked whether the defendants, who during the policy years 1966/1971 were employers’ liability insurers with an exception in respect of ‘claims arising from Pneumoconiosis or Pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis’ agreed to cover, or to exclude as part of that exception, the plaintiffs’ liability to employees in respect of injury or disease caused by mesothelioma. Was the term ‘pneumoconiosis’ used as a catch-all word to cover all asbestos related disease caused by inhalation of asbestos dust (‘asbestos related disease’), including therefore mesothelioma, or was it rather used in a strict medical sense as meaning fibrosis of the lungs caused by inhalation of dust, which it is common ground is a different disease from that of mesothelioma?
Judges:
Rix J
Citations:
[1999] EWHC 840 (Comm), [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 75, [1999] PIQR Q212
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Insurance, Personal Injury
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.375124