Partner, Jennifer Seavor, Associate Nadia Briggs and Senior Paralegal Abbie Tuckfield-Porter have recently concluded a claim for Mr K who was sadly diagnosed with mesothelioma and died at the age of 80.

Asbestos exposure

Mr K worked as an electrician in the construction industry for many companies over the years. We attended him at home to take detailed evidence which was difficult for Mr K to provide given his illness, and events being so long ago when he had worked for many companies. Mr K provided as much evidence as possible about his past work and exposure to asbestos and we were able to identify several potential companies to pursue the claim against. We undertook company research to establish the correct legal entities for the purpose of bringing the claim and tracked down historic insurers. We decided that three companies were viable Defendants - Balfour Beatty Plc, Haden Building Services Limited and John Laing Construction Limited, and embarked on pursing them. The companies were all insured by multiple insurers meaning several insurance companies were involved in the claim, but each Defendant company instructed a solicitor.

Next steps

Sadly, Mr K died within a few months of our instruction. However, his son was his Executor who continued the claim on behalf of his Dad’s Estate and his Dad’s dependant partner who he had lived with for over 30 years despite not being married.

Supportive medical evidence was obtained and served on the Defendants along with Mr K’s evidence. When no admission of liability was forthcoming, we commenced Court proceedings.
Judgment was obtained in Mr K’s favour at the first court hearing and the Defendants were ordered to make an interim payment of compensation in the sum of £50,000.

We then sought to value the claim to enable settlement negotiations to be commenced. Mr K had been with his Partner, Mrs M for 30 years. Their living arrangements were unusual in that they lived in two flats which at some stage they began to use as one, doing work internally to knock the properties together so they could access both flats without going outside. However, the properties officially still had separate addresses.

The Defendants contended that Mrs M was not a dependant under the Fatal Accidents Act as she had not lived with Mr K for 2 years prior to his death given they had two flats. Detailed evidence needed to be taken from Mrs M regarding their living arrangements, and their relationship in terms of finances and services around the house to establish Mrs M’s dependency.

Settlement

The claim eventually settled for a six-figure sum one week before the final court hearing, with compensation being obtained for the dependency element of the claim, despite the Defendant seeking to exclude these heads of loss initially in the negotiations.