Mathew Werfel with his wife Jenny and three daughters. Photo / Supplied
Mathew Werfel with his wife Jenny and three daughters. Photo / Supplied
A South Australian father of three with terminal cancer has been awarded a record $3 million payout after he was exposed to asbestos dust, including during renovations on his home.
Matthew Werfel, 42, will receive $3,077,187 - the largest amount ever awarded to an asbestos victim in Australia - after building materials company James Hardie was found to have failed to warn the public about ongoing risks posed by their cement products, reports news.com.au.
Lawyers for Werfel lodged a claim against James Hardie - now known as Amaca - in the South Australian Employment Tribunal seeking damages after he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2017.
Werfel had been exposed to asbestos dust while working for a fencing contractor as a teenager and then later in the mid-2000s during renovations on his Pooraka home.
Over three or four weekends, he sanded and painted the home, unaware it was constructed from asbestos cement sheets.
"By the time of Mr Werfel's exposure there can be no doubt that Amaca knew the risk that was posed to renovators," Judge Leonie Farrell said in her judgment on Tuesday.
Mathew Werfel, 42, with his wife Jenny and three daughters, aged 10, 7 and 6. Photo / Supplied
In addition to awarding compensation for pain and suffering, future economic loss, medical expenses and loss of life expectancy, Judge Farrell imposed exemplary damages on the company, as a deterrent to other firms.
"Amaca breached its duty of care to a large class of Australians, of which Mr Werfel was a member," Judge Farrell said.
"The magnitude of the risk of members of this class contracting mesothelioma was vast. The consequences of the risk were the deaths of many Australians. The probability of the risk occurring was certain.
"It had occurred in the past and the numbers were increased to the knowledge of Amaca. Amaca had the resources with which it could and should have taken steps to minimise or obviate the risk of death in this class." Werfel welcomed the payout but feared many home renovators were still exposed to the dangerous fibre.
"On the one hand, this outcome is a great relief, knowing that my family will be taken care of," he said in a statement.
"But it's heartbreaking to think how many people continue to be exposed, without their knowledge, to asbestos in their homes and workplaces."
His lawyer Annie Hoffman said the case had significant implications for people exposed to asbestos in their homes, workplaces and in the community. She said the case confirmed James Hardie's duty of care continues even decades later.
James Hardie settled a suit with a woman in New Zealand in 2017 after she developed mesothelioma from washing her husbands clothes after he returned home from work at the James Hardie factor in Penrose.
Elva Halliday's case was a first for New Zealand and her lawyer Jonathan Walsh told Stuff at the time that there were likely many people in New Zealand just like Halliday "who had their lives turned upside down from a carcinogen they should never have been exposed to."
Last month the High Court in New Zealand ruled that a woman who died of a cancer caused by inhaling asbestos was entitled to ACC cover.
Deanna Trevarthen died from asbestos exposure in 2016. Photo / Jason Oxenham
Deanna Trevarthen was 45 when she died in 2016 of mesothelioma and before she died Trevarthen sought ACC cover for a range of entitlements, such as treatment costs, weekly compensation, a lump sum and funeral costs.
Her claim was rejected, with ACC saying that because mesothelioma was a gradual process condition, it needed to be the result of work exposure for there to be cover.
Trevarthen said her cancer arose from contact with her father, who worked as an electrician when she was a child.
At the time, that occupation had a high exposure to asbestos.
When she was between the ages of four and 10, she would hug her father when he was wearing his work clothes and she would also sometimes play at his work sites.
After she died, Trevarthen's estate continued her claim.
It ended up in the High Court, where the court eventually found that Trevarthen was entitled to cover because it was a personal injury caused by an accident to her.
