Despite the bombast, the Lords' controversial decision appears to be final
Three weeks have elapsed since the insurance industry declared its £1.4bn victory over pleural plaques.
Judging from the sparks flying at Westminster, however, you could be forgiven for thinking the battle is still raging.
Though the ruling in the House of Lord's that pleural plaques are not sufficient grounds for compensation is a victory for common sense, the public – and not just the jilted claimants – will not likely let the matter rest because insurers stand to benefit financially from the decision.
Indeed, claimant lawyers and MPs continue to harp to quite a different tune, with the former throwing a whole new raft of potential avenues for claims (from breach of contract to “pleural thickening”) and the latter calling for state intervention. Almost fifty MPs have lent their names to a petition calling for an early day motion in the commons.
The rhetoric may be thick with words like suffering and injustice, but the ruling is based on the opinion of two medical experts who concluded that pleural plaques and mesothelioma are not causally linked – not to mention the clout of seven of eight senior judges.
But that has not stopped the accusations from flying.
Unite, the UK's largest trade union have said the decision removed an established right to compensation which had existed for 20 years.
It may be true that pleural plaques are in many cases caused by workers being exposed to asbestos due to negligence of their employers, but Unite’s other assertion, that pleural plaques is “associated with an increased risk of developing fatal conditions like mesothelioma or asbestosis,” is categorically not.
In reality, such obviously politically motivated acts do little to either alleviate the problem or increase the understanding of an issue that is as unique as the condition of mesothelioma is abhorrent.
Better than wasting their time waxing lyrical, the claimant lawyer and locally-bound political fraternities would do well to accept that the decision is final – as evidenced by Bridget Prentice's comment in the commons last week that the government would not be pursuing the issue.
And there are, as yet, no signs that claims for breach of contract are being pursued.
Ultimately, overturning the decision or looking for alternative means to compensation is in no one’s interest. The Lord’s must see its rulings honoured, and the can of worms that would be compensating for sickness that has not yet developed must be left unequivocally unopened.
