Latest Keoghs Insight

Costs budget exaggeration is misconduct

Client Alerts||17/08/2017

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

Lord Justice Jackson's review into Fixed Recoverable Costs (FRC)

Client Alerts||01/08/2017

Sentencing guidelines: Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea – update

Client Alerts||27/07/2017

Grant v Secretary of State for Transport: Guidance on Mesothelioma quantum

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Blake v Croasdale & esure [2017] EWHC 1336 (QB)

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Asymptomatic Silicosis Update: Feeney v Tarmac Sandstone Limited and one other

Client Alerts||26/06/2017

Dodd v Raebarn Estates Ltd

Client Alerts||23/06/2017

Ex-wife’s tip-off uncovers case of stolen identity leading to award of exemplary damages

News And Events||02/08/2017

Keoghs research warns of large rise in opportunistic insurance fraud

News And Events||17/07/2017

Keoghs launches 2017 apprenticeship programme

News And Events||09/06/2017

Scotland team expands at Keoghs one month after Glasgow office unveiled

News And Events||01/06/2017

Keoghs proud to support Bolton Wanderers Community Trust

News And Events||26/04/2017

Keoghs accelerates growth with move into Scotland

News And Events||19/04/2017

Keoghs sign up to new Insurance Fraud Bureau (IFB) affiliate membership

News And Events||05/04/2017

Keoghs celebrates award for fledgling apprenticeship scheme

News And Events||10/03/2017

Manslaughter consultation shows intent but lack of clarity

Blogs||11/08/2017

Counting the (wasted) cost of LNC

Blogs||02/08/2017

Credit hire: A strategic approach

Blogs||26/07/2017

Preserving insurers’ recovery rights following escape of water

Blogs||20/07/2017

Who is David Lidington?

Blogs||12/06/2017

Jackson v The Sugababes? Don’t delay… push the button!

Blogs||12/05/2017

Examining a Court of Appeal decision concerning the adequacy of Local Authority systems

Blogs||28/04/2017

Jumping for joy?

Blogs||24/04/2017

Credit Hire Aware 12

AWARE||19/07/2017

Costs Aware Issue 3

AWARE||22/06/2017

Property Aware 5

AWARE||14/06/2017

Credit Hire Aware 11

AWARE||21/12/2016

Fraud Aware 5

AWARE||27/10/2016

Costs Aware 2

AWARE||24/10/2016

Disease Aware 8

AWARE||05/10/2016

Credit Hire Aware 10

AWARE||18/08/2016

Keoghs Insight

We keep you up-to-date on emerging market issues and their impact on the insurance sector, through a variety of publications, events and our leading market initiatives.

Author

David Pugh

David Pugh

Partner

T: 0247 665 8274

Blackmore v Department for Communities and Local Government 2017 EWCA Civ 1136

Client Alerts||04/08/2017

The Court of Appeal has upheld a finding of 30% contributory negligence for smoking in an asbestos lung cancer case. The way it did so has big implications.

The case

Mr Blackmore smoked 20 cigarettes a day for around 40 years. He was also exposed to ‘significant’ asbestos from stripping pipework. He contracted lung cancer from which he died in 2010.

The defendant conceded primary causation on the basis that the asbestos exposure had more than doubled the risk of cancer. The first instance court found that the smoking was a significantly greater contributor to the risk of cancer than the asbestos.

The defendant argued that:

  1. Contributory negligence findings should closely reflect the much greater causative role of smoking, and result in a much higher deduction.
  2. The Heneghan case on lung cancer causation created an anomaly to the disadvantage of single employers - as multiple employers were only liable to the extent of their contribution to the risk of cancer.

The Court of Appeal rejected these arguments, answering:

What this means for insurers

Finding 1

This decision should fix contributory negligence for smoking at 30% - as against the 15 and 20% found in earlier cases. Indeed, 30% should reflect the high water mark for claimants, if ‘fault’ is such a major component.

It is difficult to see that any defendant would be more ‘at fault’ than this very large and well resourced employer.

By contrast, different claimants may be more blameworthy. Mr Blackmore had twice tried to give up smoking. Many do not.

Much of his smoking had already occurred by the time of his employment. That will not be the case with all claimants.

This crucial importance of blameworthiness must also mean that variations in asbestos exposure and smoking shouldn’t make any difference. These would only change the causative factors, which the Court of Appeal tells us are much less important.

All of this should mean that 30% should be the least that defendants can apply in asbestos lung cancer claims. In cases with, say, small employers and repeated unheeded medical advice to give up smoking, the deductions could be markedly higher.

Finding 2

If this is correct, it has a dramatic effect on cases where employers are only found liable by Barker/Heneghan principles.  If each employer is only liable to the extent of their contribution to the risk (taking the risk from smoking into account) these defendants would pay only minimal damages.

Applying the risk factors found in Blackmore to the divisible contributions found in Heneghan would have led to the latter claimant recovering around £12,000 instead of the £61,600 he actually received. At these figures, multiple exposer asbestos lung cancer cases will simply not be worth pursuing. Benefit recovery will all but extinguish the damages.

Keoghs’ view

The question of asbestos lung cancer causation has always been a difficult one to unravel. Claim numbers have never matched HSE estimates of incidence. Properly understood, both findings in Blackmore are extremely advantageous to insurers and will drive down both claim numbers and outlay.

Time will tell whether claimants’ representatives will accept this interpretation. In the meantime, insurers may see a marked increase in claims where the claimant suggests that liability can be established against one employer by ‘doubling of the risk’.

This case will not be the last word on asbestos lung cancer.