Bolton MBC v. Municipal Mutual
Note: the judgment in this case has been upheld on appeal. To access the judgment of the Court of Appeal, click here
This case concerned a claim under a public liability policy against liability for illness, injury or damage to property occurring within the policy period. The judgment confirmed the general understanding that, in these circumstances, the policy that responds to an asbestos-related claim is the one in existence when an asbestos-related disease developed, not the one in place when the exposure to asbestos fibres took place
DMC Category Rating: Confirmed
This case note is based on an Article in the July 2005 Edition of the ‘(Re)Insurance Bulletin’, published by the Reinsurance and Insurance teams at the international firm of lawyers, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary. DLA Piper is an International Contributor to this website.
During the 1960s, Bolton carried out demolition and building works at various sites. Its practice was to engage a number of companies and firms to do the work under its overall control. One such firm employed Gordon Green. During the course of this employment, Mr Green worked at sites where, due to Bolton's negligence, he was exposed to asbestos fibres. Later in his working life he was further exposed to asbestos while employed by another company. In November 1991, he died of mesothelioma. His widow started an action against Bolton and the other employer and they settled the claim on the basis that each paid half the compensation.
Bolton sought to recover under its public liability insurance with Municipal Mutual (the insurer at the time Mr Green was diagnosed). Municipal Mutual, however, said it was not liable for circumstances that arose outside the policy period. The occurrence in this case was the exposure to asbestos in the 1960s, years before it was on risk.
Bolton then joined Commercial Union to the action, since Ocean was the insurer at the time of the exposure and Commercial Union had taken over Ocean's liabilities. Commercial Union, however, also denied liability, saying the exposure did not fall within the terms of the cover, and, in the alternative, claiming there had been a breach of a notification clause.
The Municipal Mutual policy
(a) accidental bodily injury or illness (fatal or otherwise) to any person other than any person employed under a contract of service…with the Insured if such injury or illness arises out of and in the course of the employmentb) accidental loss of or accidental damage caused to property, when such injury illness loss or damage occurs during the currency of the Policy and arises out of the exercise of the functions of the Local Authority".
Under the general policy conditions, it provided:
"If at the time of an occurrence giving rise to a claim under this Policy there is or would but for the existence of this Policy be any other insurance applicable to such claim then unless the Policy expressly provides otherwise the Company shall not be liable in respect of that claim except insofar as concerns any excess beyond the amount which would be payable under such other insurance had this Policy not been in force".
The Ocean policy
(2) loss of or damage to property
occurring within Great Britain…during the period of indemnity as a result of an accident and happening or caused as described in the Schedule under the heading of Description of Risk".
The notification clause provided:
"The Insured shall give written notice to the Head Office or Branch Office of the Company of any accident or claim or proceedings immediately the same shall have come to the knowledge of the Insured or his representatives."
Condition 10 was a general "sweep-up" clause:
"The due observance and fulfilment of the terms provisions conditions and endorsements of this Policy by the Insured insofar as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by him… shall be conditions precedent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy."
So far as Mr Green was concerned, until the onset of the disease in about 1980, he did not have mesothelioma and it was not inevitable that he would develop mesothelioma, although the risk of him doing so was high.
Bolton argued that it had come under a legal liability to Mr Green, not when he inhaled asbestos while working on their site (because he did not sustain an injury or illness then), but when a cell became malignant in or about 1980, during the currency of the Municipal Mutual policy.
Municipal Mutual, however, maintained that it was the expectation of the parties that a public liability policy would provide indemnity in respect of negligent acts and omissions occurring during the currency of the policy. The negligent act in this case happened in 1965 or earlier. The words "arising out of the functions of a Local Authority" in the policy should be construed as if qualified by "during the same currency of the Policy".
In addition, "injury" should be construed as "insult or injury". In a medical sense, the inhalation of asbestos fibres was an insult to the body, albeit not an injury. The only time there had been an accidental insult was when fibres were allowed to enter. The stage between inhalation and development of the disease was not an accident, but the inevitable (or at least unalterable) workings of the human body.
Under this policy wording, the bodily injury, illness, loss of or damage to property had to have occurred during the currency of the policy. The word "accidental" merely meant unintended. It was no less accidental that, because fibres had been inhaled, injury was a direct consequence. Mr Green became fatally ill in or about 1980. This meant that Municipal Mutual was liable to indemnify Bolton against its liability to Mr Green's widow.
The Commercial Union claim
This rendered it unnecessary to look at questions of late notification and contribution, but the judge considered them briefly, nevertheless. Bolton was first informed of the claim in February 1994 but did not notify Commercial Union until October 1997. Commercial Union then became sidetracked into considerations of whether the delay had caused it prejudice. In the end, however, it relied on the coverage point and denied liability on the grounds that the injury occurred outside its policy period. The defence of late notification was not raised again until the proceedings.
Had the claim been covered by the policy, the judge appeared to accept that there had been a breach of a condition precedent, which meant that Commercial Union had a contractual right to refuse indemnity. The next question was whether there had been a waiver of that right.
But in choosing to rely on one defence rather than the other, the judge concluded Commercial Union had not been faced with two courses that were so inconsistent that choosing one automatically waived its right to rely on the other. It was not choosing between repudiating and affirming the policy, it merely left late notification "in the air" and gave policy cover as the reason for refusing indemnity. On this basis, the judge found there had not been a waiver.
Double insurance and contribution
In Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Company Ltd  QB 887, the Court of Appeal looked at the issue of a motorist insured by two insurers. If the motorist negligently injured a pedestrian and one of the insurers paid out under its policy, that insurer could force the other insurer to contribute. The right of contribution was based, not on contract, but on the principle of equity that the burden should be shared equally.
This meant that, if the second insurer was not notified of the claim in breach of a condition precedent, the first insurer would still be entitled to claim a contribution. The equitable principle did not rely on the contractual liability of the second insurer to the motorist, but on the fact that both insurers had taken premiums in respect of the same risk, and only one had paid.
That decision was binding on this case. If there had been double insurance and Commercial Union had a notification defence, Municipal Mutual would still have been entitled to claim a contribution.
But this was not double insurance. Double insurance means insurance by two insurers in respect of the same risk at the same time. Municipal Mutual and Commercial Union were successive insurers, insuring Bolton in respect of different risks. Only Municipal Mutual insured Bolton against its liability to Mr Green for an injury that commenced in about 1980. Consequently, there could be no contribution claim against Commercial Union.
But the judge's conclusion on the late notification point is a little difficult to follow. First of all, it is not necessarily the case that this was an effective condition precedent. The notification clause was not expressed as such, and the court is becoming increasingly wary of the sort of general "sweep-up" provision in clause 10, which makes no distinction between different conditions but merely makes them all conditions precedent. If this was not a condition precedent then, as recently confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Sirius International Insurance v Friends Provident Life & Pensions Ltd  EWCA Civ 601, the only remedy would have been damages, provided Commercial Union had suffered a quantifiable loss as a result.
Secondly, in order to establish waiver, the insurer must know of the fact of the breach and of its legal rights and either make an express choice or act unequivocally in such a way as would lead a reasonable person to believe that it is not going to insist upon those rights. If, as the judge found, Commercial Union was considering late notification from the start and its actions were enough to convey to a reasonable insured that it would not rely on that defence, it is difficult to see that there was not a waiver.
These points are, however, purely of academic interest, since the Ocean policy did not cover the injury in question.
Back to Top
These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website.