Judge finds Lloyd's agents negligent
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.BY WILLIAM GLEESON
Names on a loss-hit Lloyd's of London syndicate yesterday won a negligence case brought against their Lloyd's managing agents. But they failed in a claim against their members' agents, as the judge ruled the case was time-barred.
The names were on syndicate 334, managed by the Pulbrook agency. Mr Justice Potter found the managing agents negligent in handling emerging asbestosis liabilities in the early 1980s, ruling that they owed names a duty of care.
Even though the events happened more than12 years ago the judge ruled that the Latent Damages Act 1986 applies, allowing civil actions if the cause becomes apparent after the normal six-year time limit.
He ruled that the Act did not apply to the case involving the members' agents. Clive Francis, chairman of the Pulbrook names association, said an appeal was being considered against this decision.
Michael Payton, a solicitor for the managing agents' insurers said he thought the names could expect no more than £20m to £40m.
He said the time-bar ruling would set a precedent for forthcoming actions in which names are claiming damages for losses incurred in the early 1980s.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments