When a mesothelioma victim or their family pursues legal justice or compensation for their illness, the insurance companies that provided liability coverage for the asbestos companies or other defendants are often included in the claim. In a recent Louisiana appellate decision involving a man who died from the asbestos-related disease, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, addressed a workers’ compensation claim and an employer’s liability insurance coverage for occupational asbestos exposure cases.
Mesothelioma Victim Died After Working as a Stevedore
Mr. Monroe Wade May developed malignant pleural mesothelioma after working for Louisiana Stevedore throughout the mid-1960s and 1970s. Following his death, his family members filed wrongful death and survival actions against multiple defendants, including his former employer. Liberty and Employers National Insurance Co. (ENIC) had provided workers’ compensation and employer’s liability coverage for the company, with the Louisiana Insurance Guaranty Association (LIGA) assuming ENIC’s obligations after it became insolvent.
In response, Liberty and LIGA argued that Mr. May’s mesothelioma was excluded under their policy’s “Exclusion (e),” which limited coverage for bodily injury by disease claims to those made within thirty-six months of the policy’s expiration date. This issue arises frequently in cases involving asbestos-related diseases, as they tend to have long latency periods and don’t begin to manifest symptoms or get diagnosed until decades after coverage periods expire. In Mr. Mays’ case, the insurance companies argued that the coverage exclusion barred the claim entirely. Mr. May’s family responded with a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the policy’s definitions of “bodily injury by disease” and “bodily injury by disease caused by an accident” were ambiguous and should be interpreted in their favor.
Appellate Court Examines Key Questions in Mesothelioma Case
The appellate court examined two critical questions: Whether summary judgment could be based solely on secondary evidence of a lost policy because the actual insurance policies were not produced as evidence, and whether the policy language regarding asbestos-related illnesses was ambiguous.
The Court of Appeal determined that the absence of the actual policies created genuine issues of material fact regarding the policy terms and exclusions, making the insurers’ summary judgment request inappropriate. Moving on to whether mesothelioma should be classified as an accidental injury or an occupational disease was the deciding factor regarding the coverage, as the policy defined “bodily injury by accident” to exclude disease contraction from the definition of “accident,” while simultaneously stating that diseases “resulting directly from bodily injury by accident” could be included within accidental injury coverage. The appellate court found the policy’s failure to define either “bodily injury by accident” or “bodily injury by disease” as ambiguous and said it created confusion. As a result, they applied the established rule that ambiguous insurance policy terms must be construed against the insurer and in favor of coverage, ultimately ruling for the mesothelioma victim’s family.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with mesothelioma or another asbestos-related disease, it’s important to have experienced professionals working on your side. The Patient Advocates at Mesothelioma.net can help. Contact us today at 1-800-692-8608 to learn more.
