Relatives of workers who died from asbestos-related cancer have won their fight for compensation.
Today was the end of a five year battle which went all the way to the Supreme Court.
The Court ruled that insurance liability was "triggered" at the time mesothelioma victims were exposed to dust, and not, as insurance companies had argued, when the symptoms appeared.
Ruling Judge Lord Clarke said today:
The ruling means that employer's insurers will have to pay compensation claims on policies from the 1940s to the late 1990s.
Unite welcomed the "landmark" ruling.
The families welcomed the decision, but criticised the insurance companies, and the Government.
Maureen Edwards lost her father Charles O'Farrell in 2003 to mesothelioma.
She talked about the "horrendous death" her father had to endure, and said that no amount of money could compensate for losing him in such a painful way.
Other victims said they had "mixed emotions".
Ruth Durham lost her father Leslie Screach in 2003. He was exposed to asbestos fibres between 1963 and 1968 whilst working as a paint sprayer in west London.
His family started a legal fight for compensation more than five years ago and won the first round of their battle in 2008, when the high court said his firm's insurers were liable.
This was overturned two years later at the Court of Appeal as it said in some cases liability was only triggered when symptoms developed.
The Supreme Court today supported the original ruling, stating that liability was triggered by exposure to the carcinogenic material.
Victims lawyer Carol Ann Hepworth said she hoped the relevant insurers would now meet their claims quickly. Her firm represents hundreds of victims' families, and estimated that some payouts could top £100,000.
Municipal Mutual Insurance (MMI) is one of four insurance firms featured in the legal battle. They welcomed the ruling.
The Association of British Insurers (ABI)) welcomed the ruling and said they want to see compensation paid to victims "as quickly as possible".
They hit out at the insurance firms involved in the case saying: