Upload
elroy
View
28
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Asbestos Issues and Trends. 2003 CARE Meeting, Philadelphia June 2, 2003. Michael E. Angelina, ACAS, MAAA Jennifer L. Biggs, FCAS, MAAA Tillinghast – Towers Perrin. What is Asbestos?. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Asbestos Issues and Trends2003 CARE Meeting, PhiladelphiaJune 2, 2003
Michael E. Angelina, ACAS, MAAAJennifer L. Biggs, FCAS, MAAATillinghast – Towers Perrin
2
What is Asbestos? Naturally occurring fibrous mineral with a crystalline
structure containing long chains of silicon and oxygen
Six types
“Miracle Mineral”
“Protector of Human Life” ironically thought to be the protector of people
flexible strong durable
fire resistant separable into
filaments abundant quantities
actinolite amosite anthophylite
crocidolite tremolite chrysotile
3
Asbestos Usage Peaked in the early 1970s Contained in ~3,500 products (1989 EPA study) Still legal in the U.S. today
Ban on asbestos promulgated by the EPA in 1989 was remanded by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991
Only a few portions of the ban remained intact: new product uses; rollboard; flooring felt; and commercial, corrugated, and specialty paper
No effective warning label requirements Not tracked effectively
Large manufacturers report annually to Toxic Release Inventory
No requirements for small manufacturers Imports (especially building materials)
4
Exposure and Disease Exposure
Early epidemiological studies estimated ~27 million workers experienced significant occupational exposure to asbestos
Recent forecasts of the Manville Trust suggest an exposed population in excess of 100 million
Ongoing exposure asbestos containing products asbestos in-place
Typical American breathes ~1 million fibers per year via natural and man-made sources
Disease Documented and recognized as cause of disease since 1920s
Pliny the Elder had noticed a significantly high number of lung related sicknesses in servants working with asbestos cloths and fibers
Pleural thickening, asbestosis, lung and other cancers, mesothelioma Long latency
5
Why So Much Litigation? Large percentage of population
exposed Signature diseases Potential for large jury awards Economies of scale for plaintiff
attorneys Insurance recoverables
6
The Asbestos Litigation Environment Has Changed Increasing costs to defendants...
Surge in claim filings Rescission of previous settlement agreements
between plaintiffs attorneys and defendants Bankruptcies
...and increasing costs to insurers and reinsurers Increased costs for existing defendants Additional costs for new defendants Additional coverage accessed
7
Claim Filings Appeared Fairly Stable in Early 1990s(T
hous
ands
)
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995
CCR 1 CCR 2 Non-CCR 1 Non-CCR 2
8
CCR Claim Filings Increased After Georgine’s Reversal
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Avg CCR 1(91-95) CCR 1 Avg CCR 2(91-95) CCR 2
9
Non-CCR Claim Filings Also Increased
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0
100.0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Avg 91-94 NonCCR 1 NonCCR 2
10
Surge in Personal Injury Claim Filings Causes
“catch up” for CCR defendants post Georgine greater propensity to sue
asbestos specialty firms, union hall screenings, Sunday sports page advertisements, Internet, doctors, new claims
acceleration of claim filings anticipation of tort reform; bankruptcy creditor
lists; statute of limitations Effects
Increased costs to all parties!! change in disease mix mitigates the increase continued ability to bundle claims will drive costs
11
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
Year Filed
Num
ber o
f Cla
ims
(Denied) or Unknow n
Non-Malignant
Cancer
Mesothelioma
12
Change in Disease Mix
Manville Trust - Injury by Year Filed
10%6% 5% 5% 5% 5%
13%
12%11%
7%9% 9%
6%
10%7% 8%
6% 6%
77%83%
89%85% 86%
91%84%
89% 87%91% 94%
90%
3%4% 4% 4% 3% 2% 4%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
Year Filed
Perc
ent o
f Cla
ims
File
d by
Cat
egor
y
Non-Malignant
Cancer
Mesothelioma
13
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
14
Percent of
filings in
federal courts
Other Trends in Claim Filing ActivitiesFilings Moved from Federal
to State Courts
0
10
20
30
40
50
Pre-1988 1988–1993 1994–1997 1998–2000
Source: RAND, January 2003
15
Other Trends in Claim Filing Activities
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
…and from some states to others
16
Observations –Average Settlements by State
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CWStates
$U.S
.
17
Observations – Disease Mix by State
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CWStates
%
Mesothelioma Cancer Non-Malignant
18
Observations – Average Settlements by Disease
Countrywide State 1 State 2 State 3
Mesothelioma Lung Cancer Non Malignant
$U.S
.
19
Individual Claim Costs Also Increased Mean verdicts to plaintiffs increased
dramatically from 1998 to 2001 (RAND) Mesothelioma: ~$2M to ~$6.5M Other cancer: ~$1M to ~ $2.5M Asbestosis: ~$2.5M to ~$5M
Damages paid by many individual defendants also increased dramatically, reflecting increase in plaintiff awards higher shares for remaining defendants
20
Frictional Costs in the System are High
According to RAND, transaction costs have consumed more than half of total spending
And they are likely to go back up in next decade
Plaintiff Compensation
0
20
40
60
80
100
1980sLitigation
1990sLitigation
Percent Plaintiff Expenses
Defense Expenses
21
Bankruptcy of Defendants Currently at least 67 bankruptcies of companies with
asbestos-related problems according to testimony prepared by the American Academy of Actuaries (www.actuary.org)
Bankruptcy cited as “legislative solution” by Babcock & Wilcox
New bankruptcies may: Increase costs for remaining defendants
Several defendants cited higher settlement demands as a cause of bankruptcy
Cause need for additional defendants Approximately 300 asbestos defendants in early 1980s Estimates of ~2,000 published a few years ago RAND estimates over 8,400 today
22
Number of Asbestos Related Bankruptciesper Year
3
1 1 1
4
3
0
3 3
2 2
3
0
1 1
0
5
2
6
10
12
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Num
ber
Note: Excludes two bankruptcies for which no date is available.
23
Expansion of Defendant List Defendant list continues to expand since asbestos was used
historically in a wide variety of products, including: yarn, thread, felt, rope packing, flame resistant cloth steam gaskets and packings, plain and corrugated paper, rollboard,
millboard, high temperature insulation, movie props World War II Ship Building molded brake linings, brake blocks, filler in plastics, flooring, pottery,
insulated wire, pipe covering brake shoes, clutch facings, cement, plaster, stucco, shingles, siding, tile,
sewer pipes, blocks corrugated roofing, roof sheathing, roofing cement boiler insulation; insulation of walls, floors, mattresses paints, varnishes, filter fibers, filter pads
According to RAND Study Firms in current list of defendants span 75 of 83 possible 2-digit SIC
codes/industries Over 60% of expenditures are now from non-traditional defendants
24
Costs through 2000 were substantial, but tell only part of the story According to RAND, estimated total costs of
resolving asbestos claims through 2000: $54 B U.S. insurers $22 B Insurers outside U.S. $8–$12 B Defendants $20–$24 B
At least 5 major companies have each spent more than $1 B on asbestos litigation
Source: RAND, January 2003
25
How to Quantify Asbestos Liabilities? Actuaries typically like to use past experience
to predict the future However, for asbestos we can’t use traditional
actuarial methods (e.g., accident year loss development projections) Long latency from exposure to disease
manifestation Potential involvement of multiple policy
periods for individual claims
26
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 was 8.8 (excluding Fibreboard) as of 12/31/2001
A.M. Best now 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)
27
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
28
Tillinghast – Towers Perrin Estimates of Ultimate Personal Injury Claim Costs Tillinghast estimates ultimate loss & expense
relating to U.S. exposure will be $200 billion Two approaches:
Focused on total awards to plaintiffs
Estimated # future filings by disease
Estimated indemnity cost and trended by disease
Loaded for expense
Top-Down Focused on amounts paid by defendants
Assigned defendants to tier
Estimated # future filings, indemnity, and expense by tier
Allocated ultimates to year and compared to insurance coverage
Bottom-Up
29
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense –Top Down Estimate total awards to plaintiffs ~$200 billion
Estimate number of personal injury filings by disease by calendar year
Estimate average indemnity by disease Trend to future years
Multiply future filings by trended severities Load for expense
F = # Claims S = Avg. Indemnity
Year Meso LC NM Meso LC NMTotal Cost Incl.
Expense20002001200220032004...2010...2020...2030...2040...
Reflects exposure latency disease incidence, and propensity to sue
Trended (F X S)x (1 + expense)
~1 million ~$200 B
30
Estimation of Ultimate Personal Injury Claim Filings Tillinghast Projection of Asbestos Related Filings
2000
- 20
04
2005
- 20
09
2010
- 20
14
2015
- 20
19
2020
- 20
24
2025
- 20
29
2030
- 20
34
2035
- 20
39
2040
- 20
44
2045
- 20
49
Calendar Year
Num
ber o
f Fili
ngs
Meso Lung Cancer Non-Malignant
31
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and ExpenseTillinghast Projection of Asbestos Related Ultimate Losses
2000
- 20
04
2005
- 20
09
2010
- 20
14
2015
- 20
19
2020
- 20
24
2025
- 20
29
2030
- 20
34
2035
- 20
39
2040
- 20
44
2045
- 20
49
Filed Year
$ Ex
pect
ed L
oss
Meso Lung Cancer Non-Malignant
32
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense – Bottom Up Estimate total cost to defendants ~$200 billion
Develop database of defendant experience Number of filings against defendants Average indemnity (defendant’s share) Expense-to-indemnity ratios
Resulting distributions vary by tier
The Types of Asbestos DefendantsTier 1: Manufacturer/producers in litigation
since inception Will use all available insurance
coverage
Tier 2: Became involved shortly after Tier 1companies Some will exhaust all insurance
coverage Others will not hit highest layers
due to smaller share of industry
Tier 3: Manufacturers, distributors andinstallers brought into litigation dueto Tier 1 and Tier 2 bankruptcies Lesser exposure due to
encapsulated products or limiteddistribution
Tier 4: Owned/operated facilities whereasbestos used and third partiesexposed on premises
33
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense – Bottom Up
Project future filings for each defendant implies ~60 defendants per plaintiff case
Project future severities by defendant implies average ultimate severities of $1,873 to $5,550 – vary by
tier.
Project future expenses (defense costs) by defendant Implies average ultimate expense loads of 20% to 116% – vary
by tier. Reflects a reduction in expenses for Tier 3-Low defendants over
a five year period.
Ground-up ultimate loss and expense for each defendant= Filings x Trended Indemnity Severities x (1 + expense)
Allocate ground-up ultimate indemnity and expense to year Compare to average defendant coverage profiles
34
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense – Bottom Up Determine percentage insured, by defendant
Allocate ground-up ultimate indemnity and expense to year Compare to average coverage profiles
Expense treatment varies by policy
Consider reinsurance cessions
Asbestos Insured XYZ's Coverage Chart
1930…
1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986
Year
Cov
erag
e A
mou
nt $
Primary
Excess 1
Excess 2
Excess 3
Excess 4
Excess 5
----------------- Self - Insured --------------------
35
More Detailed Coverage Descriptionof 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
36
Comparison of Loss Allocated to 1980to Available Coverage of Insurer ABC For example, 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
37
Coverage Expansion Roll-forward of coverage blocks Reclassification of products claims as non-
products claims by traditional products defendants with installation activities with exhausted (or nearly exhausted) products coverages reinstates previously exhausted products
coverages opens up previously “untapped” non-products
coverages non-products coverages may not have
aggregate limits
38
Allocate Ultimate Loss and ExpenseAmong Multiple Payers
Defendant Cost
Retained
Insured
Direct – U.S.
Retained – U.S. Ceded
U.S. London Other U.S. London Other
Direct – London
Retained – London Ceded
39
Portion of $200 billion Ultimate Loss and Expense – Retained, Net Insured U.S., Net Non-U.S.**
Net U.S. Insured30%*
Retained by
Defendants39%
Net Non-U.S.
Insured31%
*$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.
40
Paid and Reported Loss and Expense Compared to Estimates of Net U.S. Ultimate Liability
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
$ B
illio
ns
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Tillinghast 12/1996 Ultimate ($38-43 billion) Tillinghast 2001 Ultimate ($55-65 billion)
A.M. Best 1997 Ultimate ($40 billion) A.M. Best 2001 Ultimate ($65 billion)
Cumulative Paid ($23.5 billion) Outstanding Case & IBNR ($13.0 billion)
41
Recent Insurer Disclosures There were several sizeable reserve increases
during 2001-2002: CNA – $1 billion pre-tax per A.M. Best; $750
million after tax (August 3, 2001) ECRA – $1 billion pre-tax estimated by A.M.
Best (February 2002) The Hartford – Reallocation of $540 million
“all other” run-off reserves to asbestos (July 2002)
Chubb – $590 million by December 31, 2002 St. Paul – $987.5 million settlement with
Western MacArthur
42
Recent Insurer Disclosures And the trend continues in 2003:
Travelers increased net asbestos reserves by $2.45 billion (January 14, 2003) disclosed major results of the study (policyholders
with settlements, other policyholders, assumed reinsurance, unallocated IBNR)
ACE USA increased A&E reserves (January 27, 2003) $2.18 billion gross $1.86 billion reinsurance recoverable $354 million after-tax charge
Argonaut increased asbestos reserves by $52.8 million (March 2003)
The Hartford has announced an exposure-based study to be completed later this year
43
Recent Insurer Disclosures Some have made statements of adequacy
CNA AIG Allstate
Increased pressure on peer companies to make similar disclosures
44
Recent Increases in Recognized LiabilitiesAnd around the world: Chester Street
placed in provisional liquidation (January 2001) entered a “Scheme of Arrangement”
(March 5, 2001) Equitas
£1.5 billion as initially undisclosed portion of total strengthening as of March 31, 2000
£1.7 billion ($2.4 million) as of March 31, 2001 (announced July 2001)
No change as of March 31, 2002 (announced July 2002) Royal & Sun Alliance – $538 million for U.S. and U.K.
(February 2002) U.S. pre-tax charge of $241 million estimated by A.M. Best
45
And the costs extend beyond personal injury claims costs paid by defendants and their insurers... “The Impact of Asbestos Liabilities on Workers in Bankrupt
Firms” by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Jonathan M. Orszag, Detr R. Orszag – December 2002 Bankruptcies across the nation
headquarters in 19 states facilities in 47 states
Pre-bankruptcy, 200,000 workers employed by bankrupt firms Loss of 52,000 – 60,000 jobs with each displaced worker
losing an average of $25,000 – $50,000 in wages Average 25% reduction to their 401(K) account (approx.
$8,300 each) Direct cost of bankruptcy: $850M – $1.7B
NERA – $2 Billion Secondary Impacts on the Economy
46
Where Do We Go From Here?Recent Changes in Claims Handling Asbestos claims handled differently than other torts
volume/docket pressure bundling
Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) changes its procedures abandons practice of routinely settling cases on a
group basis and requiring members to share settlement costs (February 2001)
stops settling new asbestos claims for remaining 14 members effective August 1, 2001; in run-off
Equitas leads London insurers, requiring evidence of injury and product identification effective June 1, 2001
47
The Coalition for Asbestos Justice Formed in 2000 as a nonprofit association to address and
improve the asbestos litigation environment Currently has eleven members: Ace, Argonaut, Chubb,
CNA, Everest Re, Fireman’s Fund, General Re, Great American, The Hartford, Liberty Mutual, and St. Paul
Mission: To encourage fair and prompt compensation to deserving current and future asbestos litigants by seeking to reduce or eliminate the abuses and inequities that exist under the current civil justice system
Coalition is not involved with insurance coverage issues Working to effect change through public education
(including the judiciary), amicus briefs, and jurisdictional litigation efforts
48
Public Education A primary mission of the Coalition is to foster a better
understanding of the current asbestos litigation environment Research and Studies (e.g., RAND Study update
(www.rand.org)) Academic Scholarship
Victor E. Schwartz & Leah Lorber, “A Letter to the Nation’s Trial Judges: How the Focus on Efficiency Is Hurting You and Innocent Victims in Asbestos Liability Cases” 24 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 247 (2000)
Mark D. Plevin & Paul Kalish, “Where Are They Now? A History of the Companies That Have Sought Bankruptcy Protection Due to Asbestos Claims” Vol. 1, No. 1 Mealey’s Asbestos Bankr. Rep., Aug. 2001
“This is NOT your father’s asbestos defendant”
49
Jurisdictional Litigation Efforts Identifying jurisdictions that pose the biggest
challenges for asbestos defendants and truly sick claimants Key states: CA, IL, LA, MD, MA, MS, NJ, NY, PA,
TX, WV Meeting with counsel from these states to
understand the current case management orders and identifying other due process issues
Advancing inactive dockets / pleural registries Challenging consolidations and joinder rules
50
Changes in the Wind? There are a few signs in the asbestos litigation environment that
business may not be as usual A split in the asbestos plaintiff’s bar between those representing
“real” cases versus those representing the non-impaired House of Delegates of the American Bar Association (ABA) voted
on February 11, 2003 to support legislation that would establish specific medical
criteria that must be satisfied by those alleging non-malignant asbestos-related disease in order to file an asbestos lawsuit
proposal would also toll statute of limitations until such time as the medical criteria were met
Judge Weiner’s ruling in the Federal MDL dismissing all cases that were initiated through mass screenings
Hearing held by Judges Weinstein and Lifland in the Johns Manville bankruptcy proceeding
51
Changes in the Wind? There are a few signs in the asbestos litigation
environment that business may not be as usual West Virginia passes SB 213 limiting the ability of
non-resident plaintiffs to maintain causes of action Mississippi passes HB 19 limiting punitive awards,
reduces venue shopping, releases “innocent seller” (January 2003)
Pennsylvania Asbestos Legislation (SB 216) dealing with asbestos-related liabilities acquired via merger or consolidation
Many more articles in the business press and from investment analysts advocating the need for an asbestos solution
52
U.S. Supreme Court Actions Amchem v. Windsor
Overturned Georgine/CCR Futures Deal (June 27, 1997)
Ortiz v. Fibreboard Overturned second global settlement attempt (1999)
Mobil Corp. v. Adkins Refused to hear case regarding consolidation of case
involving 8,000 plaintiffs from 35 states and 250 defendants in West Virginia
Exxon settled October 2002, leaving Union Carbide/Dow Chemical Company as the sole remaining defendant
53
U.S. Supreme Court Actions Hopeman Brothers Inc. v. Clarence L. Acker Jr., et.
al. Denied petition to review mass consolidation of
cases in Virginia (December 9, 2002) Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Ayers, et. al.
(March 10, 2003) Fear of developing cancer justifies a claim under
FELA Joint & several liability: entire damages can be
recovered from the railroad Six workers with asbestosis obtained $5.8 million
54
Possible Federal Legislation The Fairness in Compensation Act (H.R. 1283/S758) did
not advance would have established the Asbestos Resolution Corp. opposed by President Clinton and the plaintiff’s bar
Likely prospective proposals supported by the Asbestos Alliance (led by the American Insurance Association and the National Association of Manufacturers) will focus legislation on four areas establishing objective medical criteria of asbestos-
related impairment liberalizing statues of limitations eliminating consolidations eliminating forum shopping
55
Possible Federal Legislation S413 – Senator Nickles
Cases remain in court system Establish medical criteria Toll applicable statutes of limitation until medical
criteria are met Senate Hearings
September 25, 2002 and March 5, 2003 Discussion of medical criteria as well as an
asbestos trust fund Senator Hatch has called for a compromise
solution by the end of March 2003
56
Quotes from Clients and Colleagues “The claims are continuing.” “We have more open accounts today then we did ten years ago. We’re seeing more
claims against Main Street America – distributions, hardware, HVAC.” “Claim filings have remained steady; we expected a decrease by now.” “Asbestos is the energizer bunny of toxic torts; it keeps going and going and
going...” “We are seeing operations claims from new defendants (contractors, distributors)” We’ve been approached by producers seeking finite cover. The cover might be a
positive influence on financial analyst opinions … The defendants must anticipate that filings will continue … A small number of deals are being done.”
“I expect to see at least five more bankruptcies of asbestos defendants in the next 12 to 18 months.” (This seemed to be a bold statement in September 2000; little did we know what was to come …)
“…endless search for a solvent bystander…” “Asbestos litigation is a profit-driven industry.” “Don’t think of them as lawyers, think of them as venture capitalists.” “… factories (be they lawyers) generating paper … Here’s the form, fill in the blanks
… won’t end by when I die, even when my kids die …”
57
Current Status Recap Significant deterioration in liabilities at all levels
Defendants, insurers, and reinsurers Generated by filing activities
Mitigated by shift in disease mix to claims with lower settlement values
Continue to see more bankruptcies or finite deals May see increased attention to what the
defendants are carrying on their balance sheets Current focus has been from financial analysts,
not auditors More scrutiny from insurance regulators
58
Current Status Recap (cont’d) More than 25 years after peak usage, we still
see significant activity on the claims side It’s the “Energizer Bunny” of toxic torts
It just keeps going and going and going ...
59
Michael E. AngelinaMr. Angelina is a co-author of Tillinghast’s study regarding the asbestos “universe,” first presented on May 30, 2001 to the RAA Education Conference and the Casualty Actuaries of the Mid-Atlantic Region (CAMAR). He is a consulting actuary with Tillinghast – Towers Perrin in its Philadelphia office. He is a principal of the firm.
Mr. Angelina is a member of Tillinghast’s asbestos and environmental practice area, and currently coordinates research and development activities relating to the contingent liabilities of corporate asbestos defendants assisting clients with asbestos-related operational strategies. He has quantified reserve needs for asbestos, pollution, and other health hazards (APH) for both domestic and international insurers and reinsurers. He has also written for Emphasis on asbestos issues, and has participated on various industry forums, trade press, and meetings regarding asbestos liabilities. Mr. Angelina is also active in the firm’s placement initiative for these types of exposures.
Prior to rejoining Tillinghast in January 2000, Mr. Angelina was Vice President and Actuary with Reliance Reinsurance Corp. (RRC). He also served as the Actuarial Officer of the Finite Risk unit. His responsibilities in the financial actuarial role included: modeling outwards reinsurance transactions, providing actuarial support and guidance for areas which had problematic implications to RRC’s financial results, and identifying new opportunities for growth. In the Finite Risk unit, Mr. Angelina’s responsibilities included: performing actuarial and underwriting analyses of loss portfolio transfers; developing the financial structure of potential deals; and performing due diligence reviews of target books of business.
Incorporating his 11 years at Tillinghast prior to rejoining the firm, Mr. Angelina has been involved in a number of client assignments including: ratemaking for personal automobile business; reserve reviews for insurers, reinsurers, excess and surplus carriers, and self insured entities; valuations of insurance operations in support of mergers and acquisitions; financial modeling; quantification of asbestos and pollution liabilities; and the development of pricing systems and size of loss distributions for multinational excess insurance coverages. He is a developer of RPIL, Tillinghast’s excess of loss pricing system, and part of the Global Loss Distributions (GLD) initiative.
Mr. Angelina is a frequent speaker at the Casualty Actuarial Society seminars on pricing and reserving for US and international exposures and has written on risk financing costs for Captive Insurance Company Reports, as well as asbestos-related issues. Prior to joining Tillinghast in 1988, Mr. Angelina worked for CIGNA in the workers compensation and the actuarial research units.
Mr. Angelina is an associate of the Casualty Actuarial Society and a Member of the American Academy ofActuaries. Mr. Angelina is a graduate of Drexel University with a B.S. degree in Mathematics.
[email protected](215) 656-2345
60
Jennifer L. BiggsMs. Biggs is a co-author of Tillinghast’s study regarding the asbestos “universe,” first presented on May 30, 2001 to the RAA Education Conference and the Casualty Actuaries of the Mid-Atlantic Region (CAMAR). She is a consulting actuary with Tillinghast – Towers Perrin in its St. Louis office. She is a principal of the firm.
Ms. Biggs is a member of Tillinghast’s asbestos and environmental practice area. She coordinates research and development activities relating to asbestos and has quantified reserve needs for asbestos, pollution, and breast implant liabilities for insurance and reinsurance companies. Ms. Biggs has also been active in the firm’s asbestos and environmental reinsurance placement initiative.
Ms. Biggs has spoken at Annual Meetings of the Casualty Actuaries in Reinsurance and the Casualty Actuarial Society regarding asbestos liabilities. Under her direction as Chairperson of the American Academy of Actuaries Mass Tort Work Group a Public Policy Monograph: Overview of Asbestos Issues and Trends was released in December 2001.
Ms. Biggs also has significant experience in the professional liability area. Her work includes analyses of funding requirements, self-insured retention limits, and allocation systems for self-insured trust funds of several hospitals. She also performs reserve evaluations, opining on year-end statutory reserve levels for physician insurers. Additionally, she has assisted insurers by analyzing rate levels and preparing filing materials for entry into new states.
Prior to relocating to Tillinghast’s St. Louis office in 1988, Ms. Biggs spent almost four years in Tillinghast’s Bermuda office. There she gained considerable experience in financial reinsurance, performing pricing analyses for loss portfolio transfers. Most other assignments were related to loss reserving for reinsurance and captive insurance companies.
Ms. Biggs is a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial Society and a Member of the American Academy of Actuaries. Ms. Biggs graduated with college honors from Washington University in St. Louis with a B.A. in mathematics and a business minor.
[email protected](314) 719-5843