Thousands of victims of a fatal asbestos-related lung cancer are in line for six-figure sums in compensation after a victory today that lands insurers with a multi-million pound bill.

In a keenly-awaited High Court ruling, Mr Justice Burton said that insurers were liable from when victims were exposed to the asbestos dust, and not the much later point when the disease becomes apparent.

Thousands of families of workers have already died from the disease, which can take up to 40 years to manifest itself. But once diagnosed, death occurs on average within 14 months.

In recent years there have been 2,000 deaths a year and it is estimated that the rate of deaths will continue into 2011 to 2015, when the numbers will peak.

The families were forced to bring their legal challenge after a Court of Appeal ruling two years ago in a different legal context that liability was “triggered” when the disease actually emerged, not at the time of exposure.

Until then, insurers for the employers of the victims had paid compensation for the fatal lung disease mesothelioma on the basis that their liability arose at the time when a worker was exposed to asbestos dust.

But as a result of the Court of Appeal ruling, insurers stopped paying on a “time of exposure” basis and argued they were not liable because the risk cover they provided 40 years ago was no longer in force.

This summer, during a marathon nine-week legal battle involving more than 20 individual counsel and their teams of solicitors, Mr Justice Burton was asked by employees and employers to rule that the appeal court decision, made in a case of occupiers' rather than employers' liability insurance, should not be applied generally.

Yesterday in a complex and lengthy judgment running to more than 300 paragraphs, the judge said: “I recognise that the date of manifestation, the date when symptoms arise, when the tumour is diagnosable, is clear and identifiable, even on the present state of medical knowledge.

“However, if I am looking for when injury takes place/occurs, or when disease is present, I do not consider that it can be left as late as the onset of symptoms.

“It is plain that there is, albeit unknown to the sufferer, an injury and a disease present in his or her body well before it makes itself manifest by his finding difficulty in breathing.”

The case was brought by six test claimants led by Ruth Durham, whose father died in November 2003, aged 73, after developing mesothelioma.

Mrs Durham, from Nottinghamshire, said: “I am hugely relieved to hear of today's court decision, which will see justice done for my father and hundreds of other mesothelioma sufferers now and in the future.”

She said she had a close relationship with her father. “During the Second World War, Dad learned sign language and when I decided to learn, we used to practise together.

“It became our special way of communicating with one another and, when he was diagnosed with cancer, he couldn't bring himself to tell me directly and just made the sign for ‘cancer' to let me know the terrible news.”

Mrs Durham said: “I miss him every day and no sum of money will ever compensate for the terrible suffering that my father endured. However, I hope that by pursuing this legal action, which will help others in future, it will make his suffering and death more bearable.”

Maureen Edwards, daughter of another victim, Charles O'Farrell, who was exposed to asbestos when working as a steel erector for Humphreys & Glasgow Ltd (now in liquidation) from 1964 to 1967, said: “My dad died a painful death from mesothelioma and watching him suffer was agonising for all of us.”

The insurers had “poured salt in the wound” by forcing families to fight for compensation already awarded but which they refused to pay, she said.

Adrian Budgen, a partner with Irwin Mitchell, the firm that acted for Ruth Durham, said: “We are terrifically relieved and welcome this strong and common-sense judgment.

“It is a tremendous victory and mesothelioma victims will welcome the strong judgment given today which gives clarity and comfort to these sufferers and their families.”

He said that the victims had had to battle through several court actions over the years to secure compensation. “How many times to asbestos sufferers have to face these all-out assaults? It seems inherently wrong.”

Anthony Hughes, president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers and a partner at DWF also welcomed the “clarification of the law”.

“The court has upheld the status quo and consequently restored a sense of balance within the insurance market,” he said.

“The attempt by a small group of run-off insurers to avoid asbestos liabilities has been defeated, and we hope this will now unlock the flow of damages to mesothelioma victims."

Three of the test cases involved employees who had suffered and died from mesothelioma as a result of inhaling asbestos fibres in the course of their work.

The other three involved employers and local authorities who have paid compensation to former employers and are seeking to recover that outlay from their insurers.

Lawyers acting for the claimants worked on a “no win, no fee” basis. The total legal bills in the case are thought likely to be as much as £10 million.

Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of Unite, the trades union, said: “This is a hugely important victory for the victims of the deadly dust and for their families.

“Thousands of men and women across the UK have been negligently exposed to asbestos by their employers but insurers have tried and failed to use legal technicalities to escape their responsibility to pay compensation under the policies they sold to employers ... while pocketing the money.”

Ian McFall, head of asbestos policy at Thompsons Solicitors, said: “The court had to grapple with many difficult and complex legal issues in this important test case to decide the true meaning and effect of insurance policies.

“The outcome is a great relief for many asbestos victims and their families and a victory for fairness, justice and common sense.”

During the hearing in the summer, Colin Wynter, QC, appearing for three families battling to recover compensation from insurers, said: “It cannot be right to say that a man injured today is not actually injured until tomorrow.”

Mr Wynter also represented employers who, although still solvent, faced the threat of compensation claims if their insurance cover was held not to have applied at the time of their workers' exposure to asbestos.

The judge's ruling yesterday means that employees can claim against the employers' historic insurers even though there is no exact proof of when life-threatening tumours develop.

He said: “For the purposes of these policies, injury is sustained when it is caused and disease is contracted when it is caused, and the policies fall to be so construed.”

Thousands of families of workers who have already died and others who may contract the disease in the future were awaiting the outcome of the case.

Asbestos was widely used in shipyards, building construction and other industries from the early 1950s until the 1980s, before being finally banned in 1999.

Mesothelioma is a cancer that affects the external lining of the lungs or, less commonly the lining of the abdomen or heart, and usually results from inhaling asbestos fibres.

Explore UK News

• Crime News

• Education News

• Health News

• Scotland News

Times Recommends

• Should Knox’s trial even have reached the courtroom?
• All that glitters is not sold in Wright’s world
• Believe it or not, Big Brother is your friend