Insurance industry opponents of a proposed national trust fund for asbestos exposure victims remained largely unconvinced last week that changes made by the sponsors of the measure would ease their concerns.
At a hearing of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, the bill's sponsors–Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Ranking Minority Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.–spoke of the improvements in S. 3274, called the Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act.
Among the changes to the FAIR bill is increased oversight of medical criteria and claims through random audits of both medical and exposure evidence submitted by claimants, as well as the requirement that claimants sign a detailed affidavit chronicling their exposure.
Additionally, the new version of the FAIR Act also incorporates an amendment originally proposed by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that would limit the contributions of small and midsized companies to 1.67 percent of their gross revenues, and liberalizes the process for companies to obtain a hardship adjustment.
Sen. Specter said the new bill also would implement tighter controls on "leakage"–a major concern for insurers fearful that claims, rather than being settled through the trust, will be brought back into the court system in efforts to secure greater awards.
Insurers, however, remain skeptical about the bill, arguing it remains unfair and incapable of providing certainty to companies as to what their losses will be.
Liberty Mutual Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer Edmund Kelly–testifying before the committee on behalf of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America and the Coalition for Asbestos Reform–said that, as originally contemplated, the trust involved all defendants contributing based on their relative share of liability in the asbestos tort system, and that no participant was to receive favorable treatment.
"The core principle of fairness was absolutely fundamental to the integrity of the trust fund because the fault-based tort system was being replaced by the no-fault trust fund," he added. "That core principle of fairness, however, now has been violated."
Major companies have estimated their asbestos liability at over $1 billion, but under the new FAIR Act, those companies would only be required to pay less than $400 million to the trust fund, he explained.
As an example, Mr. Kelly noted the recent asbestos liability settlements of USG and Owens Corning for $4 billion and $5.2 billion, respectively. "Both of these settlements, which occurred in the context of a bankruptcy court, have FAIR Act 'carve outs' or exceptions which, in the event of enactment of the trust fund, extinguish billions of dollars of obligations and reduce their remaining payments to $378.5 million," he said. "While that is good news for these companies, it is grossly unfair to the rest of the defendants."
To say that the head of PCI doesn't like the latest proposal for federal asbestos reform would be a gross understatement.
"We're going to fight this one. We're going to resist it. We're going to try to kill this one. It deserves to be killed," Ernie Csiszar, PCI president and CEO, told executives gathered for Standard & Poor's annual insurance conference in New York.
Beginning his remarks with a bit of sarcasm, he said, "It's a wonderful piece of legislation. It shows how generous this industry has to be–and can be. You have to write a $48 billion check.
"That's just chump change" to folks in Washington, he added, noting everyone else puts in their money over a period of time. The $48 billion is "what you have in reserves," he said, adding that in return for writing the huge check, "you get another federal program to pay [that] out."
He asserted that it's probable the bill violates the U.S. Constitution, but by the time that issue "makes its way to the Supreme Court, your $48 billion's going to be gone."
The second problem is that when the asbestos fund runs out money–"which it will," he said–the federal government can come back to the industry for more money.
In a letter to Sen. Specter submitted to the committee record of the hearing, American Insurance Association President Marc Racicot also said the bill failed to live up to the insurance industry's needs.
"To provide certainty and finality, the bill must provide the exclusive remedy for resolution of asbestos-related claims," he wrote. "Absent inclusion of all such claims in the field or a credit for claims left in the litigation system, there can be no real finality for insurers. Our industry would inevitably find itself paying both substantial sums to the fund and additional large sums in the tort system for claims permitted to 'leak' outside of the fund."
The original goal of establishing the trust fund was to resolve the asbestos issue permanently, but Mr. Racicot said the revised measure still fails to live up to that promise.
"While the new bill represents a good-faith effort to address some of our concerns, it fails to provide the certainty promised insurers in early trust fund deliberations," he wrote. "As we have stressed since last summer, until our critical issues are addressed adequately, we continue to oppose legislation."
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.