For purposes of this article, the mesothelioma victim in this case will be referred to as Mr. M.W.M.

In a recent significant legal decision, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, ruled in favor of the family of a man who succumbed to mesothelioma. This rare and aggressive cancer is primarily caused by exposure to asbestos. The main legal issue in this case was whether the deceased’s employer’s insurance policy still applied, despite the illness being diagnosed many years after exposure.

Mr. M.W.M. worked for Louisiana Stevedore (L.S) during the 1960s and 70s. It was during this time that he was exposed to the asbestos that ended up resulting in him being diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a disease that affects the lining of the lungs, years later. After Mr. M. died, his family initiated a lawsuit seeking compensation from several defendants, including L.S. and its insurance companies.

During Mr. M.W.M.’s tenure, his employer was insured by ENIC. However, ENIC later became insolvent, and LIGA assumed its obligations. Mr. M.W.M.’s family’s lawsuit involved both of these companies. ENIC and LIGA contended that their policies did not cover Mr. M’s illness, specifically because of a clause known as “Exclusion (e).” This provision restricted coverage for job-related illnesses to those reported within three years following the policy’s expiration. Given that mesothelioma has a long latency period and often takes decades to manifest, this provision would prevent many victims and their families from successfully filing a valid claim. In this case, the insurers argued that Exclusion (e) completely barred the claim.

Mr. M.W.M.’s family disagreed with the claims and filed a motion with the court for partial summary judgment. According to the family, the language in the insurance policy was ambiguous. More specifically, they argued that the definitions of phrases like “bodily injury by disease” and “bodily injury by disease caused by an accident” were unclear and therefore should be interpreted in favor of their claim.

The Court of Appeal reviewed two critical issues. First, it examined whether the insurance companies could depend on secondary evidence, given that they did not have the original insurance policy documents. Second, the court examined whether the policy’s language concerning asbestos-related diseases was too vague to enforce the exclusion.

The court found that the missing policies raised fundamental questions about what the terms really said, making it inappropriate to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On the second issue, the court observed that the insurance policy used ambiguous terms that could cause confusion. The court pointed out that the policy failed to define either of the two phrases clearly. Because of this, the court followed the rule that unclear insurance terms should be interpreted in favor of the person making the claim, not the insurance company. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Mr. M.W.M.’s family.

Nationwide Mesothelioma Lawyers

If you or a loved one were diagnosed with mesothelioma, contact our office to speak to one of our experienced nationwide mesothelioma attorneys about your situation. Our office can help investigate your case and determine if compensation can be sought from negligent parties to help pay for your medical treatment and to help you and your family live a more comfortable life.