How can insurers avoid significant damages awards in disease claims? A recent Scottish case handled by Weightmans shows how a robust defence on multiple grounds can achieve success
The jurisdiction in which a claim is pursued can materially influence the permitted time period for pursuing the litigation, as well as the potential value, and therefore the appropriate reserve, of the particular claim. The ability to challenge such cases on causation and other grounds is therefore vital to minimise indemnity spend. A recent case in which we were instructed by one of our major insurer clients highlights these issues and demonstrates how a robust defence can deliver the right result.
Weightmans were instructed in a complex Court of Session action arising from the death of an offshore employee in Angola from suspected Covid or Legionnaires’ disease. This case involved liability, medical causation, limitation, jurisdiction and applicable law issues.
The deceased resided in England and was employed by a Scotland-based company (the policyholder and defender in the case) and sent to work abroad in Angola.
On 18 May 2021, he was found dead inside his hotel room where he was quarantining, prior to being sent offshore to work. In the days before the deceased’s death, he was diagnosed with Covid. However, the postmortem in Angola found the deceased to be negative for Covid.
Proceedings were raised in Scotland by the deceased’s family in May 2022 as the limitation period for bringing a personal injury claim in Angola is one year. However, they sought to have the claim quantified under Scottish law, as the policyholder was based in Aberdeen. This allowed the family members to bring loss of society claims, *and damages therefore would have been in excess of £1.5 million if the court agreed that the applicable law was Scots law.
The proceedings made reference to the Covid diagnosis and legionella being found in the water in the hotel room. However, the quantities of legionella were reported to have been negligible and would not have impacted upon the deceased’s health.
The personal injury action by the family was paused pending the outcome of a coroner’s Inquest as the family had hoped that this would provide further evidence of the cause of death. As part of the coroner’s Inquest, a second postmortem was carried out when the deceased was repatriated to England. The results were unable to establish a cause of death but ruled out both Covid and Legionnaires’ disease as the cause. Coronary artery disease was considered to be the likely cause of death but could not be definitively established.
The inquest was held in March 2025 and our colleagues in Leeds represented the interests of the policyholder at the hearing. The formal conclusion recorded was an ‘open’ conclusion. The cause of death was unascertained. There was no Prevention of Future Deaths report made, and the coroner did not make any adverse findings regarding the policyholder and there was nothing recorded on the formal Record of Inquest which would suggest that that their acts or omissions in any way contributed to the deceased’s death.
We highlighted the coroner’s findings to the pursuers’ agents and invited them to abandon the civil claim as liability and medical causation would not be capable of being established, which they accepted, thereby saving our clients £1.5 million.
If you need any claims-related assistance in Scotland, our experienced team is here to help. Please don’t hesitate to contact Pamela Stevenson.
