Not least, you might expect that the usual human rights haters to get exercised about the strategic use of that legal instrument by money-grubbing insurers, who must at least have a popularity rating approximating to those imprisoned for their criminal acts. Particularly when it is a rearguard action in the face of an affirmative campaign to the parliament, resulting in a direct change in the law. Apparently not. There is certainly a Quixotic aspect to challenging primary legislation in this way, much like the pro-fox hunters who did so, impugning the Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002 on similar grounds. (Otherwise known as your human right to set your dogs on a fluffy fox. Obviously, I'm parsing somewhat...) What this are about is nothing less than attempting to use the courts to subvert the settled will of parliament, or alternatively, dragging out the fatal moment when that will will become enforceable against themselves.
Insurers lodge appeal against Scottish judgment on pleural plaques
Four major insurance companies have lodged an appeal against the recent judgment concerning The Damages (Asbestos-Related Conditions) (
) Act 2009. Scotland
On 8 January, following a judicial review brought by several insurers, the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled to maintain the recently passed Act to compensate people with pleural plaques, despite the medical evidence that the condition does not cause harm or lead to asbestos-related conditions such as mesothelioma.
Nick Starling, the
ABI’s Director of General Insurance and Health said: “After careful consideration and legal advice, insurers consider that there are good grounds for this appeal. Insurers have not taken this decision lightly, and it reflects their strong view that The Damages Act is fundamentally flawed as it ignores overwhelming medical evidence that plaques are symptomless, and the well-established legal principle that compensation is payable only when there are physical symptoms”.
ABIreiterated that the appeal in no way affects insurers continued commitment to pay compensation to people with asbestos-related diseases, such as mesothelioma, which impact on their health.