Backing for Asbestos Victims in Campaign Against Insurers' Time Bar
Clydeside Action on Asbestos has welcomed the supportive statement of Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill against a trick being used by insurers to try and avoid paying out compensation to asbestos sufferers.
It is understood that, following the Supreme Court’s backing of the Damages (asbestos-related conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 re-establishing the right to compensation for pleural plaques sufferers, insurers are attempting to use a case (Aitchison v Glasgow City Council (2010)) to argue that if someone does not take up their damages case for pleural plaques within 3 years of diagnosis that they no longer have the right to claim for other developments in their condition such as deadly Mesothelioma.
In a clear warning to the industry, Mr MacAskill said in a reply to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Stuart McMillan: “a claim for damages for Mesothelioma should not be rejected simply because the limitation period for a claim for damages for pleural plaques has expired.”
He said the matter would also form part of the Scottish Government’s review into modernising the law on damages.
Commenting on the development, senior welfare officer at Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Phyllis Craig, said:
It is understood that, following the Supreme Court’s backing of the Damages (asbestos-related conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009 re-establishing the right to compensation for pleural plaques sufferers, insurers are attempting to use a case (Aitchison v Glasgow City Council (2010)) to argue that if someone does not take up their damages case for pleural plaques within 3 years of diagnosis that they no longer have the right to claim for other developments in their condition such as deadly Mesothelioma.
In a clear warning to the industry, Mr MacAskill said in a reply to a Parliamentary Question tabled by Stuart McMillan: “a claim for damages for Mesothelioma should not be rejected simply because the limitation period for a claim for damages for pleural plaques has expired.”
He said the matter would also form part of the Scottish Government’s review into modernising the law on damages.
Commenting on the development, senior welfare officer at Clydeside Action on Asbestos, Phyllis Craig, said:
‘Our priority is to ensure that the rights of those with asbestos related disease are protected. We have to clearly establish the right in law to pursue a claim even if a person had a diagnosis of pleural plaque previously and did not pursue a claim. We have to remember that the insurance industry vigorously fought against the right to pursue compensation for pleural plaque in Scotland, and won’t honour claims for this condition in England and Wales. For insurers to then use the fact that someone did not pursue a claim for pleural plaque within a three year time limit as a defence to not pay out for a more serious condition is both perverse and unjust. Mr MacAskill’s commitment to those with asbestos related illnesses and his statement that a claim for Mesothelioma should not be rejected simply because the time limit for a previous diagnosis of pleural plaque has expired is most welcome, as is the continued dedication of Mr Stuart McMillan in supporting individuals and families coping with a diagnosis of an asbestos related disease.’
Stuart McMillan MSP said:
Stuart McMillan MSP said:
‘I have been directly involved in supporting the rights of people with pleural plaque and other asbestos related diseases for a number of years and have seen the insurers seek to restrict their right to compensation through various legal challenges. This latest attempt to erode the rights of those who have developed serious lung conditions through asbestos exposure must be addressed through the appropriate channels to ensure that the rights of those who develop serious asbestos related illnesses, such as Mesothelioma, are firmly protected in Scotland.’
0 comments:
Post a Comment