Generally in Spain, in asbestos-related claims, moral damages are not claimed when personal damages have not been suffered.  Therefore, there is no case law granting an award exclusively based on moral damages in such cases.

This said, it should be noted that moral damages are usually claimed by the injured parties when consequential losses have been caused by asbestos exposure.  In those cases, it is common practice in Spain to apply the "Baremo" rating system established in the Spanish Civil Liability and Motor Insurance Act passed on 29 October 2004 and its Annex.  Even though this system was implementedfor car related accidents, it is generally (but not compulsorily) applied by the Spanish Courts to assess personal damages caused by any other event.

The application by the Spanish Courts of this "Baremo" system implies that (i) each and every consequential loss provided therein already includes a sum corresponding to moral damages, and (ii) an additional amount for moral damages could be granted in certain circumstances when the consequential losses sustained by the affected parties are very serious or are of particular importance.

The above notwithstanding, there are a few cases, amongst others the Judgment dated 13 February 2014 issued by the Supreme Court, where an indemnity has been granted to an injured party in respect of moral damages resulting from asbestos exposure without applying the "Baremo" rating system.

In particular, by means of the aforementioned Judgment, the Supreme Court confirmed the resolution provided by the lower Court – in this case, the High Court of Justice of Catalonia – by which URALITA S.A. was ordered to pay an amount of 5,000 Euros arising from the oncology treatment necessitated by the disease, but also 20,000 Euros corresponding to "moral damages" or the concern provoked to the claimant since 2005, when he was aware of his symptoms until the disease was finally diagnosed in 2009.

In addition, the Supreme Court confirms that the application of the "Baremo" is not binding but if the first instance Courts decide not to apply this system, the assessment of  any personal damages (which includes moral damages) should be justified and sustained in the decision, as in this case.