In this edition we consider the significant award of damages in the NIHL case of Inglis v MOD; "Spiking" in mesothelioma reinsurance claims; emerging risk areas glyphosate and air pollution; NIHL causation and treatment; and MSD risks from kerbside waste collections.

NIHL: Damages

Inglis v Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 1153 (QB)

In this NIHL claim a former Royal Marine was awarded £545,766 for his noise-induced hearing loss. Mr Inglis had mild hearing loss causing difficulties in his work environment including hearing conversations in meetings or speaking on the telephone. Hearing aids had improved the situation but not by much. These adverse effects impacted on his normal day-to-day activities. The claimant's disability was substantial and affected the kind of work which he could undertake and he therefore met the definition of disability within the Ogden tables.

The judge accepted that a multiplier/multiplicand method is the conventional approach to calculating future loss of earnings and should normally be used, even in less severe cases of disability. In the present case the judge was able to

  • make findings as to the claimant's annual earnings on both an uninjured and injured basis;
  • determine that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Ogden tables; and
  • that that disability has a particular impact of his ability to carry out his day-to-day work.

The judge did however adjust the reduction factors to be applied to the multiplier to take account of the claimant's individual characteristics, he was notably hard-working, his disability did not affect his mobility and he had been in work since he had left the Marines. An award of just over £257,000 was made for future loss of earnings. In addition the claimant's early discharge also resulted in an agreed loss of pension of around £350,000.An award of £25,000 was made for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The sum reflected the claimant's mild hearing loss and that his need for hearing aids had been advanced by about 30 years. The cost of his hearing aids was assessed at around £55,000. A further award of £8,000 compensated the claimant's loss of congenial employment. Whilst the facts in this case were fairly unique in comparison to the majority of NIHL claims, the judgment may see an increase in the level of damages awarded to successful claimants.

Glyphosate: Roundup

For those following this issue our latest update in partnership with the US firm Wilson Elser is available on our website:

https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2019/may/glyphosate-update/

Monsanto continues to prepare its appeals to the cases which so far have not gone in its favour including the most recent judgment for damages in excess of $2bn.

In related news a similar class action has been filed in Australia. We hope to bring you further news on this case in partnership with our Legalign partners, Wotton + Kearney, in due course.

In a further development in the US the class action filed in Florida against General Mills in respect of glyphosate residues being present in Cheerios has been dismissed. The claim was based on an allegation that General Mills ought to have disclosed the potential presence of glyphosate in its cereal products. The judge found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she had suffered a concrete injury and had only asserted a hypothetical health risk.

Mesothelioma: Reinsurance: "Spiking"

Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2019] 4 Wluk 283

In our 2018 Q3 update we reported on the above case in which the court considered the issue of whether insurers could "spike" their reinsurance claims i.e. presenting claims to reinsurers on a year or years of choice.

Equitas Insurance Ltd appealed the first instance decision and the Court of Appeal has held that a term of "good faith" had to be implied to the reinsurance contract and therefore the insurers' right to present a claim could be arbitrary, irrational or capricious. In the context of occupational disease claims therefore claims should be presented on the usual time on risk basis.

To view the full article please click https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2019/june/disease-update-2019-q2/ here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

In this edition we consider the significant award of damages in the NIHL case of Inglis v MOD; "Spiking" in mesothelioma reinsurance claims; emerging risk areas glyphosate and air pollution; NIHL causation and treatment; and MSD risks from kerbside waste collections.

NIHL: Damages

Inglis v Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 1153 (QB)

In this NIHL claim a former Royal Marine was awarded £545,766 for his noise-induced hearing loss. Mr Inglis had mild hearing loss causing difficulties in his work environment including hearing conversations in meetings or speaking on the telephone. Hearing aids had improved the situation but not by much. These adverse effects impacted on his normal day-to-day activities. The claimant's disability was substantial and affected the kind of work which he could undertake and he therefore met the definition of disability within the Ogden tables.

The judge accepted that a multiplier/multiplicand method is the conventional approach to calculating future loss of earnings and should normally be used, even in less severe cases of disability. In the present case the judge was able to

  • make findings as to the claimant's annual earnings on both an uninjured and injured basis;
  • determine that the claimant was disabled within the meaning of the Ogden tables; and
  • that that disability has a particular impact of his ability to carry out his day-to-day work.

The judge did however adjust the reduction factors to be applied to the multiplier to take account of the claimant's individual characteristics, he was notably hard-working, his disability did not affect his mobility and he had been in work since he had left the Marines. An award of just over £257,000 was made for future loss of earnings. In addition the claimant's early discharge also resulted in an agreed loss of pension of around £350,000.An award of £25,000 was made for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. The sum reflected the claimant's mild hearing loss and that his need for hearing aids had been advanced by about 30 years. The cost of his hearing aids was assessed at around £55,000. A further award of £8,000 compensated the claimant's loss of congenial employment. Whilst the facts in this case were fairly unique in comparison to the majority of NIHL claims, the judgment may see an increase in the level of damages awarded to successful claimants.

Glyphosate: Roundup

For those following this issue our latest update in partnership with the US firm Wilson Elser is available on our website:

https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2019/may/glyphosate-update/

Monsanto continues to prepare its appeals to the cases which so far have not gone in its favour including the most recent judgment for damages in excess of $2bn.

In related news a similar class action has been filed in Australia. We hope to bring you further news on this case in partnership with our Legalign partners, Wotton + Kearney, in due course.

In a further development in the US the class action filed in Florida against General Mills in respect of glyphosate residues being present in Cheerios has been dismissed. The claim was based on an allegation that General Mills ought to have disclosed the potential presence of glyphosate in its cereal products. The judge found that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she had suffered a concrete injury and had only asserted a hypothetical health risk.

Mesothelioma: Reinsurance: "Spiking"

Equitas Insurance Ltd v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd [2019] 4 Wluk 283

In our 2018 Q3 update we reported on the above case in which the court considered the issue of whether insurers could "spike" their reinsurance claims i.e. presenting claims to reinsurers on a year or years of choice.

Equitas Insurance Ltd appealed the first instance decision and the Court of Appeal has held that a term of "good faith" had to be implied to the reinsurance contract and therefore the insurers' right to present a claim could be arbitrary, irrational or capricious. In the context of occupational disease claims therefore claims should be presented on the usual time on risk basis.

To view the full article please click https://www.dacbeachcroft.com/en/gb/articles/2019/june/disease-update-2019-q2/ here.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.