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

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

Client Alerts||06/07/2017

Few mesothelioma cases run to trial on quantum. Defendants are wary of the court’s natural sympathy for individuals whose lives are cut short by a pitiless disease. Claimants are unlikely to gamble on their one chance at financial security. This means that where quantum trials do occur they guide countless other settlements.

The significance

The decision in Grant covers a number of different aspects of quantum. We’ll only cover some of these here. Possibly the most significant financial implication lies in the finding on general damages.

The other heads of claim carry some lessons and reminders. Mr Grant’s care claim was pleaded at over £43,000. The judge relied on the claimant’s description of the deceased’s care needs instead of just looking at what was in the medical records. He allowed full time care for the last two and a half months of life. He discounted the claim due to double counting by the claimant’s expert. He also said that claims for relatives’ care during hospital stays would be rare and modest. He awarded £29,000 in total.

The biggest part of the claim was for the loss of profits from a property development in which the deceased was involved. This development was at a relatively early stage at the date of death, but was far from speculative. The judge rejected both parties’ approach to this and invited further submissions. He emphasised the loss of value from the deceased’s own contribution and recognised the principle that there could be no recovery to reflect assets which were being inherited in any event.

There was a claim for loss of intangible benefits. There are doubts about whether this is recoverable as a separate claim. The judge emphasised the additional burden of arranging outside help for services that would have been carried out by the deceased. He awarded £2,500. There seems to be duplication here. Although services claims are often calculated arithmetically, they are still a jury award - i.e. a broad brush assessment of loss. There must still be doubt about whether these are proper claims. Insurers can expect to get more of them following this case.

The background

Mr Grant was 67 when his symptoms began. He died more than three years later. He underwent three sessions of pleural aspiration. He suffered particular side effects from chemotherapy including hallucinations, tinnitus and nausea. He experienced breakthrough pain, increasing from severe to ‘extreme’ in the last few months of his life.

General damages

The judge awarded £92,500 for general damages. He set out five reasons for this award which is almost at the top of the Judicial Studies Board (JCB) guidelines:

  1. Duration of symptoms - 40 months
  2. The chemotherapy side effects
  3. The severe/ extreme pain in the final months
  4. Breathlessness and pain in the earlier months
  5. The deceased’s concern for the well being of his family.

The second and third are plainly reasonable criteria. It is difficult to see how aspects (4) and (5) are unusual in mesothelioma claims.

The first aspect should give insurers pause for thought. It seems to have been the most important factor in the judge’s assessment. Mesothelioma sufferers are living longer with their disease. Advances in chemotherapy, radiotherapy and immunotherapy promise to extend this further. If general damages are primarily linked to survival, high awards will become the norm.

It seems doubtful that this does reflect the proper position. A better approach is seen from Mrs Justice Swift in Ball [2012] EWHC 145 (QB). In a much more detailed judgment on general damages she firmly rejected the emphasis on symptom duration and equally firmly emphasised the overall effect on the sufferer. That is, after all, what damages are for.