{"title":"Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Fairchild Enclave’ International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc","authors":"K. Krishnaprasad","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12306","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.","PeriodicalId":29865,"journal":{"name":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Connecticut Insurance Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12306","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.
在国际能源集团诉苏黎世保险案中,最高法院考虑了仙童诉格伦黑文殡葬服务有限公司一案中特别规则对保险公司的影响’为雇主# 8217;责任。法院面临的问题是,根据其早先在Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd的判决,保险公司是否可以对雇员承担责任。间皮瘤索赔,即使雇主在整个雇佣期间没有投保。七名大法官一致认为,保险公司’责任与保险期间成比例。在达成这一结果的过程中,大多数人认识到保险公司有权获得公平赔偿。向投保雇主提供他们未投保期间的信息。这篇文章用不公正的浓缩镜头批评了赔偿权。