Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 16 MAY 2006

Barker v Corus: reducing asbestos-related insurance reserves

Following the recent House of Lords decision in Barker v Corus Plc, some insurers may be able to reduce reserves held in respect of mesothelioma claims. As this article shows, however, any such steps must be taken with great care and with detailed reference to the principles laid down by the House of Lords.

United KingdomInsurance
Chris Chapman
Chris Chapman
Simon Chandler
Simon Chandler

Following the recent House of Lords decision in Barker v Corus Plc, some insurers may be able to reduce reserves held in respect of mesothelioma claims. As this article shows, however, any such steps must be taken with great care and with detailed reference to the principles laid down by the House of Lords.

To view the article in full, please see below:


Full Article

Following the recent House of Lords decision in Barker v Corus Plc, some insurers may be able to reduce reserves held in respect of mesothelioma claims. As this article shows, however, any such steps must be taken with great care and with detailed reference to the principles laid down by the House of Lords.

The House of Lords' judgment in Fairchild v Glenhaven Financial Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 2002 marked a significant development in the law of negligence, recognising a less demanding test for causation in exceptional cases involving the inhalation of asbestos resulting in mesothelioma. Then on 3rd May 2006, the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from