©Towers Perrin
Michael E. Angelina, ACAS, MAAAKevin F. Downs, FCAS, MAAA
CAMAR - Spring 2005 Meeting
Princeton, NJJune 2, 2005
2©Towers Perrin
Agenda
Concerns in the Current System
Quantification of Liabilities
Potential Solutions
3©Towers Perrin
Concerns in the Current System (1)
Plaintiffs should demonstrate injury to file a claim The number of claim filings has increased dramatically
2003 claim filings against the Manville Trust exceeded 100,000
Fewer than 10% of claims are malignant Per RAND, ⅔ to ¾ are unimpaired The right to seek recovery if/when an injury manifests should
not be limited
Each claim should stand on its own merit Restrictions on mass consolidations
Venue should be controlled Avoid forum shopping in “magic jurisdictions”
4©Towers Perrin
Surge in Claim FilingsManville Trust - Injury by Year Filed
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year Filed
Nu
mb
er
of
Cla
ims
(Denied) or Unknow n
Non-Malignant
Cancer
Mesothelioma
Note: Excludes Non-U.S. claims
2004 Manville Trust Claim Filings: 14,500
2005 Manville Trust Claim Filings: 9,300 at May 2005; 22,320 annualized
5©Towers Perrin
Change in Disease Mix
Manville Trust - Injury by Year Filed
6% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3%
13% 12% 11%7%
9% 9%6%
10%7% 8%
6% 6% 7%
81% 84%89%
85% 86%92%
85%89% 88%
91% 93%90% 90%
4%2%3%4%4%4% 2%4%
82%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year Filed
Per
cen
t o
f C
laim
s F
iled
by
Cat
ego
ry
Non-Malignant
Cancer
Mesothelioma
6©Towers Perrin
Evidence of Forum Shopping
1970–1987 1988–1993 1994–1997 1998–2000
100
80
60
40
20
0
Percent
Other states
NY
OH
TX
MS
IL
WV
MD
NJ
PA
CA
Source: RAND, January 2003
7©Towers Perrin
Increasing Numbers of Claimants Are Unimpaired
1982 4% of claims showed no manifest asbestos-related injury(RAND)
1993 Up to one-half of all asbestos claims have little or no physical impairment (Harvard Journal of Legislation)
1998 No evidence of disease in 57% of asbestos claims(Manville Trust)
2001
74% of pending claims are unimpaired(confidential report prepared for a defendant)
Two-thirds of claims show no evidence of impairment(Babcock & Wilcox)
Vast majority of claims provide no evidence of impairment(W.R. Grace)
Source: RAND
8©Towers Perrin
Concerns in the Current System (2)
A low percentage of total payments have reached the claimants. Per RAND: 30% - defense transaction costs 29% - plaintiff attorney fees and legal costs 41% - to claimants
Resources are limited 77 defendant companies have sought bankruptcy
protection But defendant pool has increased to ~8,400
Future sick may not be compensated
9©Towers Perrin
Number of Asbestos Related Bankruptciesper Year
2
1 1
4
3 3
4
2 2 2 2
0
1 1
0
3
2
7
10
12
5 5
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005
Nu
mb
er
While only five bankruptcy petitions were filed during each of 2003 and 2004, the reduced level should not be misinterpreted as a sign of improvement in the asbestos litigation crisis. Rather, the number of 2003-2004 petitions was likely lower as defendants delayed decisions as they awaited the outcome of federal reform efforts.
Note: Graph excludes a bankruptcy in 1976.
10©Towers Perrin
Differences Between Traditional and Pre-Packaged Bankruptcies
Can take years to complete1
File petition Negotiate with creditors File reorganization plan File disclosure statement Solicit votes Confirmation hearing
Intended to be completed within a few months of filing Negotiated and voted on before filing Combined hearing to confirm plan and
disclosure
Traditional Pre-Packaged
1 Johns Manville filed bankruptcy in 1982 and its plan was not confirmed until 1988; Babcock & Wilcox filed bankruptcy in 2000 and its plan has not yet been confirmed.
Insurance coverage generally exhausted or settled, or insurers included in negotiations
Court appoints claimant representatives Future’s Rep involved in negotiation
for >50% equity
Commonly include a pre-petition trust to pay near full value on current claims Plaintiff attorneys with large inventories
negotiate matrix agreements that benefit their own clients, but do not owe a duty to all claimants Disease criteria broadly defined Claimants not fully compensated, so
remain eligible to vote on the bankruptcy plan
Generous awards to lower disease severity classes
Significant portion of equity can be secured (therefore not available to bankruptcy trust)
Insurers interests are not represented in pre-petition negotiations
11©Towers Perrin
Problems with Pre-Packaged Bankruptcies
Negotiated in secret by a select group of lawyers, whose clients receive preferential treatment relative to other claimants with similar disease
Future’s Representative bound by pre-petition settlements
Debtor is negotiating with insurers’ money
Conflicts of interest are abundant
Source: Mark D. Plevin/Crowell & Moring LLP
12©Towers Perrin
Independence vs. Conflicts of Interest?
From appointment of Kenesis (5/2002) until pre-package bankruptcy filed (9/16/2003), AC&S settled more than $2 billion of claims Settlements over prior 20 years totaled $600 million
Pre-packaged plan stipulated that these settlements could not be challenged by the asbestos trust or AC&S
GHR
Joseph Rice/Ness MotleyPre-petition Committee
Pre-petitionTrust
– Categories A, Bx, By, C, D
Kenesis
AC&S’ counsel for pre-packaged bankruptcy
Also negotiating AC&S claim settlements
70% Ownership
ClearingHouse
AC&S
“Independent” claim reviewer Paid $3M to review
documentation of 250,000 Category D claimants
Purchased Clearing House in June 2003
Paid $2M as subcontractor of Kenesis
Sole proprietor, J. Benee Wallace, paralegal of Ness Motley
13©Towers Perrin
AC&S Plan Denied Confirmation
On 1/23/04 Judge Newsome (Delaware federal bankruptcy court) denied confirmation of the AC&S pre-packaged bankruptcy plan, finding that the plan Was not proposed in good faith
Unjustly prejudiced by plaintiff attorneys Largely drafted by and for the benefit of the pre-petition
committee through various pre-petition settlements Unfairly favors one plaintiff over another
Fundamentally unfair that one claimant with non-symptomatic pleural plaques will be paid in full, while someone with mesothelioma runs the substantial risk of receiving nothing
Both should be compensated based on the nature of their injuries, not based on the influence and cunning of their lawyers
“The court is informed that other judges have confirmed plans with such discriminatory classifications. This judge
cannot do so in good conscience.”
14©Towers Perrin
How to Quantify Asbestos Liabilities?
Many use benchmarks or rules of thumb Market share techniques
For example, 5% of GL premium volume for affected years translates to 5% share of ultimate liabilities
Survival ratio techniques equals ratio of total reserves divided by average annual
payments U.S. net asbestos survival ratio at year-ends 2001, 2002,
2003 = 8.8, 11.4, 10.6, respectively A.M. Best using an undiscounted survival ratio of 18 - 20.
Aggregate development multiples of paid losses, case reserves, or reported losses
Comparisons to peer companies (e.g., significant reserve additions)
15©Towers Perrin
How to Quantify Asbestos Liabilities?
Exposure-based modeling will improve understanding of ultimate A&E liabilities
For an insurer or reinsurer, it considers Mix of insureds Types of coverage
Policy wording
Attachment points and limits
Years of coverage
Claims handling and settlement activities
Greater understanding equips the defendant, insurer, or reinsurer to deal strategically with its exposure
16©Towers Perrin
Asbestos Insurer/ReinsurerExposure-Based Analysis
Steps:
(1) Identification of exposure to asbestos defendants
(2) Projection of ground-up ultimate loss and expense for known asbestos defendants
(3) Allocation of defendant losses across coverage block
(4) Comparison of losses in a given year to insurer / reinsurer coverage terms
(5) Provision for non-products losses
(6) Provision property damage, DJ expense
(7) Provision for “pure” IBNR
(8) Ceded / net analysis
(9) Provision for uncertainty
17©Towers Perrin
Asbestos Insurer/ReinsurerExposure-Based Analysis
Tier 1: Manufacturer/producers in litigation since inception Will use all available insurance
coverage Tier 2: Became involved shortly after Tier 1
companies Some will exhaust all insurance
coverage Others will not hit highest layers due
to smaller share of industry
Tier 3: Manufacturers, distributors and installers brought into litigation due to Tier 1 and Tier 2 bankruptcies Lesser exposure due to
encapsulated products or limited distribution
Tier 4: Owned/operated facilities where
asbestos used and third parties exposed on premises
The Types of Asbestos Defendants
18©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(1) Identification of Exposure to Asbestos Defendants
List all asbestos claims / notices
Identify all coverage issued to major asbestos defendants Review non-asbestos claims/notices Search of underwriting records for direct coverage
and facultative reinsurance Cedent audits for reinsurers’ treaty business Review coverage profiles of major defendants to
identify cedent involvement and potential reinsurer treaty coverage
Research corporate genealogy Identify producers of “at risk” products
19©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(1) Identification of Exposure to Asbestos Defendants
Practical Issues: “Missing” coverage Unknown coverage terms
Exclusions in underlying policies
Reinsurer attachment relative to first dollar
Potential reinsurer benefit from client’s inuring facultative coverage
20©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(2) Projection of Ultimate Ground-Up Loss and Expense for an Asbestos Defendant
Frequency / severity projection Project future claim filings Select average indemnity and future trend Estimate expense load
Special considerations Coverage exhaustion / settlements Bankruptcies Changing litigation profile of the defendant
Incremental v. cumulative experience
Changes in mix of claims by disease and state
21©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(2) Projection of Ultimate Ground-Up Loss and Expense for an Asbestos Defendant
Transaction costs have consumed more than half of total spending and are likely to increase in the future No formal joint defense mechanisms remain (e.g.,
ACF, CCR) “Settlement” philosophy hasn’t worked Newer defendants
Discovery costs (product, coverage)
“Fight or die”
22©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(3) Allocation of Defendant Losses Across Coverage Block
Allocate ground-up ultimate indemnity and expense to year Compare to available coverage
Reflect expense treatment (varies by policy) Consider coverage disputes, choice of law Consider other erosion of products aggregate limits Consider reinsurance cessions to estimate net losses
Asbestos Insured XYZ's Coverage Chart
1930…
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Year
Co
vera
ge
Am
ou
nt
$
Primary
Excess 1
Excess 2
Excess 3
Excess 4
Excess 5
----------------- Self - Insured --------------------
23©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(4) Comparison of Losses to Coverage Terms
Example: More detailed coverage description of Excess 1 Layer in 1980
0
2
4
6
8
1980
$ M
illio
ns
Excess 1 70% Insurer GHI
Excess 1 10% Insurer ABC
Excess 2
Excess 110%
InsurerABC
Excess 120%
InsurerDEF
Excess 170%
InsurerGHI
Primary - Insurer JKL
24©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(4) Comparison of Losses to Coverage Terms
Example: Comparison of Losses in a Given Year to Insurer / Reinsurer Coverage Terms
If Insurer ABC wrote 10% of $5 million xs of $1 million in 1980, and ultimate losses allocated to 1980 totaled $1,000,000, then Insurer ABC’s gross liability
would be $0 $4,000,000, then Insurer ABC’s gross liability would
be $300,000 (= 10% x ($4,000,000 – $1,000,000)) $6 million, then Insurer ABC’s gross liability would
exhaust its limit of $500,000
25©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(5) Provision for Non-Products Losses
Non-products losses without products exposure Most often premises related For most, absence of aggregate limits has no impact
Non-products losses by traditional products defendants A limited number of traditional products defendants have been
successful in bringing non-products claims Attorneys are clever
Generally due to exhausted products coverage “Reclassify” claims to reinstate products limits File operations claims to access additional coverage, generally
written without aggregate limits Aggregate limits may be imposed
Wellington Bankruptcy negotiations Settlements
26©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(6) Provision for Property Damage, DJ Expense
Significant property damage liability experienced by only a few defendants
DJ Expenses Consider ratios of paid DJ/paid loss & ALAE Consider DJ reserves Consider recent DJ payment levels and future
multiples Consider (changes in) staffing levels
27©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(7) Provision for Pure IBNR
Emergence of additional exposure arising from additional coverage / new defendants Estimate annual emergence Estimate future reporting horizon and rate of decline Consider severity of new exposure
Adverse development on known accounts Uncertainty with newer risks
Coverage identification / ”missing” policies
Discovery of liability potential / immature litigation
28©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(8) Ceded/Net Analysis
Best practice: directly reflect terms of outward reinsurance protections applied to gross loss estimates Model gross, ceded and net directly
However, some outward programs are too disparate / complicated to model
Some insurers can provide gross estimates to ceded reinsurance department
Common practice: review historical net / gross ratios by homogenous groupings Paid ratios may not be reflective of future
May be distorted by a few large accounts May not adequately reflect future cessions in excess-of-
loss programs
Consider reinsurance collectibility: commutations, insolvencies, disputes
29©Towers Perrin
Exposure-Based Analysis:(9) Provision for Uncertainty
Range of estimates considers various scenarios / uncertainty Why have projections missed the mark in the past?
Choice of methods Data constraints Specific assumptions External environment
Unimpaired claimants Mass screenings Impact on settlements / compensation Dismissals Inactive dockets
“Jackpot” awards Bankruptcy
Pre-packs Accelerated payments
Expansion of “target” defendant list Reform efforts
30©Towers Perrin
Portion of $200 billion Ultimate Loss and Expense – Retained, Net Insured U.S., Net Non-U.S.**
Net U.S.
Insured
30%*
Retained by
Defendants
39%
Net Non-
U.S. Insured
31%
*$60 billion mid-point of $55 – $65 billion range of the “Universe” of net liabilities to the U.S. P/C market.**Additional details available in Emphasis 2001/3, “Sizing Up Asbestos Exposure,” a publication of Tillinghast – Towers Perrin, at www.towers.com.
31©Towers Perrin
Paid and Reported Loss and Expense Compared to Estimates of Net U.S. Ultimate Liability
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
$ B
illio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Estimated Ultimate Cost ($55 - $65 billion) Cumulative Paid ($28.2 billion at 2003)
Outstanding Case & IBNR ($22.2 billion at 2003)
32©Towers Perrin
Recognition of Asbestos Liabilities
Gross Incurred Asbestos Loss and ExpenseCalendar Year 1998 - 2003: Ten Largest Increases
- 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500
Hartford Insurance Group
Travelers Prop Cas Group
ACE INA Group
CNA Insurance Companies*
American International Grp Inc*
White Mountains Insurance Grp
Allianz of America, Inc
Liberty Mutual Insurance Cos
Allstate Insurance Group*
Chubb Group of Insurance Cos*
Millions
CY Net Incurred
CY Ceded Incurred
Based on Note 29 Annual Statement data as of 12/31/2002 and public disclosures of reserve charges during 2003.*Note, for some companies 2003 gross (or ceded) amounts were not disclosed, so only the net amount is included.
33©Towers Perrin
Recent Increases in U.S. Asbestos Liabilities
U.S. Insurers have increased asbestos reserves by at least $12 billion gross ($8 billion net) since the beginning of 2003 The Hartford – $4.0B gross, $2.6B net (May 2003) Travelers - $3.2B gross, $2.6B net (Jan 2003) ACE USA - $2.2B gross, $0.3B net A&E (Jan 2003) Swiss Re America - $520M gross, $458M net (Q4 2003) CNA - $517M net A&E (Q3 2003) Allstate - $514M net (Q2&Q3 2003) AIG - $440-450M net (Q4 2003) Liberty Mutual - $405M gross, $331M net (Q3 2003) Chubb $250M net (Q4 2003) Argonaut - $52.8m (Mar 2003)
Follows further significant increases in 2001 and 2002
Increased pressure on peers to make similar disclosures
34©Towers Perrin
Recent Increases Abroad
Equitas (amounts in Sterling) £1.5B gross undiscounted (Q1 2000) £1.7B gross undiscounted (Q1 2001) No change as of Q1 2002 £0.4B gross discounted (Q1 2003) £0.3B gross discounted (Q1 2004)
Royal & Sun Alliance (amounts in Sterling) £371M for U.S. and U.K. (Feb. 2002) £150M for U.S. and U.K. (Sept. 2003) £500M for U.S. and U.K. (March 2004)
35©Towers Perrin
Themes Underlying Insurer/Reinsurer Charges
Some companies recognized increases each year, others less frequently
Not all insurers included in the “dirty thirty” have increased reserves by a significant amount
Increases in anticipated cessions exceed increases in net amounts recognized by reinsurers Some reinsurance is non-U.S.
36©Towers Perrin
Comparisons of Reserve Adequacy
Need an understanding of the method(s) utilized
Prior to 2002 insurer disclosures Guesswork Rules of thumb
Disclosures during 2003 Provided first details regarding ground-up exposure-
based analyses Specific assumptions underlying the actual analyses
are critical and many details are still not disclosed
37©Towers Perrin
Manville Trust Recent Claim History
The Manville 2002 TDP is almost exactly the same as the TDPs in emerging and pending asbestos trusts
From October 1, 2003 through March 31, 2005, a period of 18 months, the CRMC received approximately 28,000 Manville Trust claims
In the first 9 months of 2003, the CRMC received approximately 90,000 Manville Trust claims
Why such a dramatic decrease in claim filings?
Source: David Austern, CRMC, April 6, 2005 ACI Meeting
38©Towers Perrin
2002 Revised Manville Trust Distribution Process (TDP)
The 2002 Manville TDP differs from the 1995 TDP in the following ways There is a requirement of Significant Occupational Exposure (“SOE”) There is more stringent medical criteria under the 2002 TDP
An independent claims forecaster re-evaluated claims filed between 2000 and 2003 under the 1995 TDP to determine how the claims would have been settled if they had been filed pursuant to the 2002 TDP Expected annual claim payments decreased from (estimated) $146.8
million to $87.9 million Only one-third of the 1995 TDP claims filed in three of the major claim
categories met the SOE requirement A significant number of claims failed to meet the more stringent 2002
medical criteria Approximately 50% of the 1995 TDP claims were paid at the lowest
compensable value; when 2002 TDP criteria were employed, nearly 84% of the claims were paid at the lowest compensable value
Source: David Austern, CRMC, April 6, 2005 ACI Meeting
39©Towers Perrin
What Are Potential Federal Solutions?
Asbestos-Related Bills Introduced into the 108th (2003-2004)Congress:
6 relating to asbestos reform HR1114 – Kirk (R-IL) – office of Asb. Comp./court HR1586 – Cannon (R-UT) – court HR1737 – Dooley (D-CA) – court S413 – Nickels (R-OK) – court S1125 / S2290 – Hatch (R-UT) – trust
2 to ban the use of asbestos HR2277 – Waxman (D-CA) S1115 – Murray (D-WA)
1 to change the tax code, such that asbestos-related settlement funds would be exempt from tax HR2503 – Collins (R-GA)
40©Towers Perrin
Senate Bill 1125
Introduced May 2003
No Fault System
Initially called for a privately funded trust totaling $108 billion comprised of: Insurers - $45B Defendant companies - $45B Current bankruptcy - $4B Voluntary contributions - $14B
Funding contribution Insurers still negotiating; subject to insurer commission Defendants grouped to tiers based on historical payments
Separated into sub-tiers based on revenues
41©Towers Perrin
Potential Insurer Allocation
Insurers include U.S. and Non-U.S. companies
Insurer funding is net of third party reinsurance Gross of financial cover
Initial discussions based on a blended approach Market share – premium and paid losses Future exposure – carried reserves
More recent discussions focused on an industry-wide ground-up study
Insurer funding is concentrated 12 insurers likely to contribute 75% 20 insurers likely to contribute 90%
42©Towers Perrin
Initial Quantification of the Economic Impactof S1125 – 6/4/2003 Hearing
Is proposed Trust Fund of $108B adequate?
Tillinghast Projections Released May 2001: $200B Ultimate Loss & Expense Less $70B paid as of 12/31/2002 (est. by RAND) Equals $130B of 2003+ future payments
Reduced for frictional costs $61B expected to reach claimants Conclusion is consistent with RAND: transaction
costs have consumed more than half of total spending
43©Towers Perrin
Initial Quantification of the Economic Impactof S1125 – 6/4/2003 Hearing
Reflect specific indemnity awards under S1125 Future claims to be be filed from 2003 - 2049 Pending claims to be re-filed Initially eight Disease Levels consistent with the
Manville 2002 TDP Specific awards by Disease Level
$0 for Levels I-II to
$750,000 for Level VIII (meso)
Tested various scenarios - all at or below $108B
44©Towers Perrin
Senate Bill 1125 - 2003 Compromises
S1125 passed out Senate Judiciary Committee on July 10, 2003 (10-8) with significant compromises Revised medical criteria – 10 Disease Levels Revised awards ($20,000 for Level II to $1 million
for Level X)
Department of Labor to process claims
Unresolved issues: Size of the fund Start-up / pending claims Finality / sunset provisions
45©Towers Perrin
Progression of Trust Fund (S1125 / S2290)
S2290 was an updated version of S1125 Introduced April 7, 2004 Frist funding - $124B Specter process agreements
Administrative structure
Expedited start-up
Expedited judicial review Modified sunset
Moratorium
Return to federal court
46©Towers Perrin
Outcome of S2290
4/22/2004 – Senate did not obtain 60 votes needed to invoke cloture for debate before the full Senate 50 Yea / 47 Nay
5/6/2004 – Further negotiations mediated by Chief Judge Emeritus Edward Becker of the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ended without agreement Defendants / Insurers offer $116B + $12B
contingency = $128B Demand by AFL-CIO remains at $134B + $15B
contingency = $149B
However, Frist / Daschle continued to work toward a compromise
47©Towers Perrin
Potential Size of the Fund
Compensation levels and projections of claim filings April 2004 CBO estimate = $140B over 50 years
Daschle late-June proposal of $141B(+$4B from existing trusts = $145B)
Frist mid-July proposal of $140B(=$136B + $4B from existing bankruptcy trusts)
September 2004 compromise reached at $140B NPV differs by ~$4B
Demand by AFL-CIO remains at $149B Insurers remain at 2003 offer of $46B
48©Towers Perrin
Most Significant Outstanding Issues of S2290
Start -Up Daschle would allow most cases with a trial date to
proceed in court Frist would have all existing claims revert to the
fund, except where there has been a final judgment
Lung cancer claims Level VII: $500K Daschle v. $150K Frist
No finality Reversion to state and federal courts
49©Towers Perrin
Efforts in the 109th (2005-2006) Congress
President Busch campaigns for asbestos reform Trips/speeches in Detroit and Madison County State of the Union
Specter holds Judiciary Committee HearingJanuary 11, 2005 Discussion draft released January 7, 2005 with
“blanks” Exxon Mobil, DuPont, Federal Mogul and others say
they would fare better under existing system AIA says draft bill “designed to fail” Group of insurers / defendants say draft “raises
serious concerns”
50©Towers Perrin
Efforts in the 109th (2005-2006) Congress
February 2, 2005 Hearing regarding mixed-dust claims and “double-dipping” Medical experts agreed asbestos v. silica disease can be
distinguished Unlikely an individual would suffer diseases carried by both
substances Early-February Specter delays introduction of bill to garner GOP support,
at request of Frist Late February, describes process as balancing act between
Democrats and Republicans, but making progress March 1, Washington Times “If everyone insists on the last bit of
advantage, there will be no bill… Prompt compromises will have to be forthcoming if this critical legislation is to become law or relegated to the deep freeze.”
Frist has reserved time in early April (after 3/18 – 4/4 recess) for Senate consideration
S. Res 43 (H. Reid/Democrat/Nevada) designates April 1, 2005 as “National Asbestos Awareness Day”
51©Towers Perrin
State Reform Efforts
Efforts at federal reform have drawn attention to abuses in the current system (e.g., claims by the unimpaired)
Several states aren’t waiting for a federal solution and recently have enacted various reforms Mississippi New York Ohio Texas West Virginia
52©Towers Perrin
Will It End?
Legislative Reform Federal vs. one jurisdiction at a time
Will Ohio hold, Texas be enforced, ….?
How portable are the claims?
Judicial System Changes
Getting back to the basics Adequate discovery Trying cases
53©Towers Perrin
Fraudulent Claims
National Tire Workers Litigation Project – 1986 Group 1: 64% positive; Group 2: 95% positive Re-evaluated 439 cases: only 3.6% positive
Johns Hopkins Re-evaluated 551 films used as legal basis for claims Originally >90% positive drops to <5% positive
2/16-18/2005 Silica MDL Daubert Hearings – Judge Jack/Corpus Christi, TX >50% of 10K MDL claimants previously filed asbestos claims Doctors testified they weren’t qualified to make diagnoses;
didn’t authorize silica diagnoses Defense attorneys have requested $1.1M sanctions against
plaintiff attorneys; subject of 3/14/2005 hearing Judge Jack likely to remand cases to state court by end of
March