Six figure settlement for former asbestos removal worker with mesothelioma

Mr H’s claim was complicated by the fact that no Employers’ Liability Insurance could initially be identified for the period of his employment. Other potential ways of recovering compensation were therefore explored, including an application under the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme.

Employers’ Liability Insurance was then traced but the insurers failed to make an admission of liability and therefore Court proceedings were issued to progress matters.

Asbestos Insulations Limited’s insurers denied liability and alleged that Mr H was in fact removing non-asbestos insulation at the factory in question. The defence stated that Asbestos Insulations Limited had never been involved in removing asbestos from the factory in Norwich.

Mr H ran his own business in Norfolk and financially supported his partner and their three children aged 21, 17 and 13 years old. His diagnosis had a profound effect on his young family and was completely devastating to them all.

He had to sell his business as he could no longer physically run it and he and his partner wanted to dedicate as much time as possible to their young family.

Annabelle and the team undertook investigations to locate historical documents, which identified that the company did indeed remove asbestos from the Norwich factory.

Despite this, an Evidence on Commission hearing was ordered and took place at Mr H’s home. This is a legal procedure where oral evidence is taken outside the usual courtroom setting. They are not unusual in mesothelioma claims where patients may be too unwell to travel to Court at a later date. The main purpose of the hearing is to make sure that the client’s evidence is examined during their lifetime thus ensuring that important evidence gets considered at trial even if the client cannot attend or sadly dies beforehand.

Further disclosure was later provided by the defendant and a Joint Settlement Meeting was arranged. A substantial settlement was agreed at £665,000 gross with further provision for the defendant to fund future private treatment, which Mr H accessed immediately after settlement.

In reaching the settlement, Annabelle and barrister, Patrick Kerr, of 12 King’s Bench Walk, refused to accept that there would be a finding against Mr H on the issue of liability if the matter were to proceed to trial and so pushed for full settlement of his damages with no deductions for litigation risk.