UK: Asbestos Risks and Employer´s Liability Insurance

Last Updated: 20 June 2003

The recent decision of Mr Justice Lawrence Collins in T&N Ltd (in administration) and ors v Royal & Sun Alliance plc and ors [2003] EWHC 1016 (Ch) has widespread implications for asbestos-related insurance, and also for employer's liability insurance generally. The case involved a number of issues including the ambit of exclusion clauses, and the validity of arguments for rectification, estoppel and set off. Ultimately, the judge decided against the contentions of the defendant insurers on all these areas.

Background facts

The claimants, T&N Ltd and its associated companies ("T&N"), were for many years involved in the asbestos industry. T&N were in administration in the UK, and had also filed for Chapter 11 protection under the US Bankruptcy Code.

The predominant reason for the administration and Chapter 11 proceedings was to enable T&N to develop a plan to deal with the substantial number of asbestos-related claims pending against them. The administrators argued that leave to commence or continue proceedings against T&N should be refused unless it was clear that insurance was available to cover the claims. Under the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 (the "1930 Act"), any claimant who was able to establish a claim against T&N would be entitled to recover under any available liability insurance directly from the relevant insurer. Granting leave in the absence of insurance would, the administrators argued, cut directly across the purpose of the administration orders.

The administrators therefore sought a number of declarations in order to establish the availability of insurance cover for, inter alia, the large number of 1930 Act claimants. T&N had taken out employer's liability (EL) policies with two insurers, the Royal as it then was and the Brian Smith Syndicate (45/177) at Lloyd's (the "Syndicate"). The Royal policy spanned from 1969 to 1977 and the Syndicate policy from 1977 to 1995.

In addition to involving the two insurers, the administrators also joined the estate of a representative 1930 Act claimant. Marine Insurance Co Ltd ("Marine") was also a party to the proceedings. Marine was partly owned by the Royal and was a party to a 1997 Settlement Agreement between T&N and various "London Market Insurers". Finally, Curzon Insurance Limited ("Curzon") was also brought into the action by the Syndicate as a Part 20 defendant. Curzon was a captive insurance company of T&N, which had agreed to indemnify T&N in respect of certain obligations that T&N had under the policy with the Syndicate.

EL policies

The principal issues at trial concerned the construction of the Royal and Syndicate policies. The insurers also raised avoidance defences including non-disclosure and misrepresentation, but these issues will be tried at a later date.

The provisions of the policies included the following:

In the Royal policy:

"The insurance by this Policy does not apply to or include liability in respect of pneumoconiosis or pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis.

In this Endorsement the expression 'pneumoconiosis' means fibrosis of the lungs due to asbestos dust and includes the condition of the lungs known as dust reticulation"

In the Syndicate policy:
"It is a condition of this insurance that:-

(1) The Assured undertakes:-

    1. to pay the full cost and expense of handling and disposing of all claims based upon the allegation that employees or former employees of the Company or its Associated Companies contracted asbestosis or mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos dust in the course of their employment with the Company or its Associated Companies.

In relation to the Royal policy, as a preliminary point, Collins J noted joint medical evidence of the parties, which concluded that:

"The phrase 'pneumoconiosis or pneumoconiosis accompanied by tuberculosis... the expression 'pneumoconiosis' means fibrosis of the lungs due to asbestos dust and includes the condition of the lungs known as dust reticulation' would not have been understood by the medical profession in 1969 to encompass mesothelioma. Mesothelioma was recognised as a malignant tumour entirely distinct from 'pneumoconiosis, fibrosis of the lungs, or dust reticulation' ".

Collins J also noted that the Royal policy spanned the period in which the Employers' Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 (the "1969 Act") came in to force. The judge noted that the 1969 Act did not expressly prohibit the exclusions or excesses, "but it is clear that the employer had to be fully insured".

Principal issues

The principal issues were as follows:

  1. Royal policy: Ambit of the pneumoconiosis exclusion clause
    It was not in dispute between the parties that T&N had told the Royal at the time of inception of cover that (a) their internal policy was not to insure their employer's liabilities insofar as they related to asbestos claims; and (b) the Royal policy was a continuation of pre-existing arrangements, which had involved T&N handling asbestos liabilities themselves. T&N sought a declaration that the "pneumoconiosis exclusion" was not, on its proper construction, effective to exclude the liability of the Royal to indemnify T&N in respect of claims involving diseases other than pneumoconiosis as defined in the exclusion. In response, the Royal pleaded that there had been a common intention that the term "asbestosis" had a much wider meaning so that the wording of the exclusion incorporated all asbestos diseases, and that the previous policy of T&N to meet all claims relating from exposure to asbestos would continue. In the alternative, the Royal sought rectification of the exclusion clause to accord with the common intention it alleged, or that an estoppel arose (because of T&N's historic conduct in handling claims internally) against T&N.
  2. Collins J held that the exclusion clause was clear and unambiguous in its literal meaning, so that it did not apply to asbestos-related diseases other than asbestosis and pneumoconiosis. The judge held that there was no legitimate process of interpretation which could give the exclusion the meaning which the Royal contended either by reference to the parties' intentions, or looking more widely at the factual matrix. Similarly, the Royal's rectification and estoppel arguments failed as there was no evidence which could support these remedies. The Royal was not assisted here because of delay in raising these arguments.

  3. Royal policy: Extent of cover
  4. T&N argued that the effect of discussions between the Royal and themselves in 1971 had resulted in an agreement whereby the Royal would provide full cover for all asbestos-related claims (so that T&N complied with the 1969 Act) but that T&N would, in practice, deal with the asbestos-related claims and bear the first £1,000 of all EL claims. T&N argued that the effect of the agreement was that the Royal still bore the risk of their (T&N's) insolvency.

    Collins J agreed with T&N, relying on evidence of an "arrangement" being made and the fact that the Royal must have known that its policy was the only EL policy which T&N had. The judge found there was sufficient support for T&N's claim that the Royal had agreed to provide full cover, although T&N in practice would continue to deal with asbestos claims and that excess arrangements were to apply. The Royal's case (that the arrangements referred to simply meant the practical step of issuing of a certificate) was not realistic in the light of the evidence, which pointed to the arrangements going much further - i.e. that the Royal had agreed to provide a certificate indicating it was giving full cover.

  5. Syndicate policy: Construction and set-off
    The Syndicate argued that its policy condition should be construed as an exclusion of its liability for asbestos claims, and that "asbestosis or mesothelioma" should be interpreted to include all other asbestosis related diseases. The judge rejected these arguments, finding that if an exclusion had been intended, there would have been no reason to express it as a condition. Similarly, the judge held that the meaning of the phrase "asbestosis or mesothelioma" in the Syndicate policy condition was not all-embracing, as it was well-known at the time that these were separate, distinct diseases.
  6. The judge also dismissed the Syndicate's argument that it was entitled to set-off any liability it had as a result of T&N's failure to pay the relevant claims. Collins J held that the "whole purpose of the transaction... was to make the Syndicate liable under the policies if T&N were not in a position to meet claims covered by the Asbestos Condition. For the parties to have envisaged a set-off in the circumstances would have made the arrangement a sham."

  7. 1997 Settlement Agreement: Did it release the Insurers?
    Neither the Royal nor the Syndicate were specifically named in a 1997 Settlement Agreement (the "Agreement") involving T&N and various "London Market Insurers" but sought in various ways to benefit from it. The Agreement purported to settle various insurers' liabilities under a range of policies T&N had taken out to cover its various asbestos liabilities. In relation to the Royal, Marine had indisputably obtained a release under the Agreement, and it argued that the Agreement extended to the Royal because of certain wording referring to "shareholders, members, ... affiliates". In response, T&N argued this could not release shareholders (i.e. the Royal) from their liabilities under separate contracts with T&N (i.e. the Royal EL policy), and the judge agreed.
  8. The Syndicate raised an analogous argument on the wording of the Agreement, pleading that it fell within the description "all Names, Underwriters and syndicates at Lloyds, whether or not identified in Attachment B hereto that subscribed to any liability insurance policies (a) the existence of which have not presently been established but which were issued to T&N or (b) the existence of which has been established but the identities of the Names, Underwriters and syndicates at Lloyds are not presently known". T&N argued that the Syndicate was not one of the London Market insurers referred to by the Agreement, nor were its policies being referred to, and the Agreement therefore had no relevance.

    The judge considered the legal principles on the interpretation of release clauses, relying on the House of Lords authority on their construction in Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA [2001] UKHL/8 [2002] 1 AC 251, and found that the Agreement was in fact a resolution of issues which had arisen from an earlier 1988 ("Wellington") Agreement. Accordingly, it rejected all of the Syndicate's arguments that it was a party or should otherwise benefit from the Agreement.

  9. Captive insurer: Whether the Syndicate had 1930 Act rights
    As an alternative argument, the Syndicate pleaded that it was entitled to the proceeds of a Curzon policy arranged by T&N. The Syndicate's position centred on a provision in the policy which allowed T&N to be "indemnified ... in respect of any and all payments they may become liable to make to Underwriters at Lloyd's by virtue of the agreement entered into with them..." . The Syndicate's case was that this allowed it to have a claim under the 1930 Act as a third party, i.e. that it could enforce its rights against Curzon because T&N was in administration and therefore T&N's rights had vested in the Syndicate. If this was incorrect, then the Syndicate was subrogated to T&N's rights under the Curzon policy or was a beneficiary under a Quistclose or purpose trust of the proceeds. The judge rejected all of the Syndicate's arguments. Collins J held that the Curzon policy covered T&N in respect of its obligations to the Syndicate, and this did not give rise to 1930 Act rights for the Syndicate as a consequence. There was also no merit in finding there was a purpose trust created for the Syndicate's benefit because Curzon had not undertaken to pay T&N for the purpose of paying the Syndicate. The judge relied on established principles from Re Harrington Motor Co Ltd [1928] Ch 105, that the proceeds of an insurance policy go to the insured's general assets and are not allocated as trust funds for a particular purpose.


As set out above, Collins J held in favour of the administrators of T&N on every issue. While cases involving the construction of terms of a policy may have limited value as precedents, turning often on the particular wording and factual matrix in each case, the ruling demonstrates difficulties insurers encounter if they seek to supplant a literal meaning of an exclusion or condition in order to limit their liabilities. Where wordings are, as held here, clear and unambiguous, the judge stated that it would require very exceptional circumstances for any departure from this meaning. In relation to asbestos wordings in particular, the judge favoured a narrow interpretation of particular terms and diseases, as defined medically or under a statutory regime. The arguments raised had parallels to the decision of Mr Justice Rix in Cape plc v. Iron Trades Employers Insurance Association Ltd [1999] PIQR Q212, and the judgment of Collins J is consistent with that earlier authority.

On wider issues, the judgment also demonstrates the very significant hurdles parties face where they seek equitable or other remedies to prevent a party benefiting from a clear meaning of a form of words in an insurance policy. The evidential threshold for such judicial intervention remains high. Establishing that a common intention, a shared assumption or a mistake by the parties existed or occurred will prove a difficult task in many cases.

Article by Martin Bakes, Neil McInnes, Lynne Atherton

© Herbert Smith 2003

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.