A “greedy scheming” insurance industry is plotting to deny asbestos victims their rightful compensation, according to the building industry union, UCATT.

UCATT’s head told the Labour Conference that 40 people a week die of lung cancer, triggered by asbestos exposure.

However, because the disease can take 30 years to develop, many people have retired by the time they fall ill, and thus do not have a current insurer.

Insurers rejected the claim, saying they were neither greedy nor scheming.

Legal row

Earlier this summer the insurance industry took a case to the High Court, to establish whether an insurer at the time a person was exposed to asbestos should be responsible for paying compensation for any resulting illness.

“This is not a question of insurers looking to evade their responsibilities, this is a question of obtaining legal clarity” Malcolm Tarling, Association of British Insurers

UCATT said that if the industry was successful with its case, then hundreds of asbestos victims would no longer receive compensation, saving itself billions in reduced claims.

The victims suffer incurable cancer of the lining of lungs, called mesothelioma.

“Victims die an agonising death,” said the general secretary of UCATT, Alan Ritchie. “It is sickening that the insurance industry wants to block their compensation.”

But the Association of British Insurers (ABI) angrily rejected Mr Ritchie’s claim.

“The industry is neither greedy not scheming”, said ABI spokesman Malcolm Tarling.

“This is not a question of insurers looking to evade their responsibilities, this is a question of obtaining legal clarity, basically what is the event that triggers asbestos related illness.

“Is it when a person is first exposed to asbestos fibres or is it the time when the symptoms become apparent?”

The UCATT motion was accepted at today’s Labour Conference, but that does not mean it will become Labour Party policy.

Court case

The family of one asbestos victim, Charles O’Farrell, is entangled in the legal wrangling over precisely when his incurable disease started.

Mr O’Farrell died in 2003, aged 81, after being exposed to asbestos while working as a steel erector in the 1960s in Bootle on Merseyside.

His family has been awarded £152,000 in damages against Excess Insurance, which had insured Mr O’Farrell’s employer.

But Excess has challenged the ruling, and taken it to the High Court, arguing that by the time Mr O’Farrell developed the disease, his employer had ceased trading.

If Excess wins the appeal, it would not have to pay any money to the family.

News reported by The BBC

Churchill Insurance has been publicly censured by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for making a false claim in its home insurance adverts broadcast on national television earlier this year.

The adverts – which featured Churchill’s trademark Bulldog – claimed that customers could make home insurance claims without having to fill in any paperwork. However, a customer complained to the ASA when he was recently sent a form to complete after making a claim, accusing the insurer of misleading its customers.

Churchill admitted to the ASA that about 40 per cent of all claims needed to be referred to its claims validation unit, where investigators check the legitimacy of individual claims. About half of those investigated by this unit would then be sent a declaration form or statement to complete.

The insurer admitted to the ASA that its adverts were misleading to some customers, conceding that only about 80 per cent of claims were completed without having to fill in a form.

Churchill had sought pre-approval for its advert from Clearcast – an organisation which checks adverts for any unsuitable content before they are broadcast. When Clearcast asked for confirmation that claimants would not have to fill in forms, Churchill said it was standard policy to deal with claims over the phone. Clearcast has since said it would not have granted clearance to the adverts had it known that only 80 per cent of customers would be able to claim without filling out any paperwork.

The insurer has agreed not to repeat the claim in any future advertising. In a statement, a Churchill spokesman said: “Churchill has not screened the ads since June and has taken actions to ensure the claims do not appear in any future marketing campaigns.”

News reported by The Independent