limits of liability 2005 - marshinsights.marsh.com/pdf/limits_of_liability_2005_en.pdfnick holmes...

Limits of Liability 2005

Research Report

LOL_05_Cover.qxd 7/8/05 11:46 AM Page 4

Limits of Liability2005

Balancing Price Against Need

© Copyright 2005 Marsh Inc. No part of thispublication may be reproduced without thewritten permission of Marsh Inc.Printed September 2005.

“2004’s Largest Verdicts” reprinted with permission of The National Law Journal.

“Industry Loss Report” reprinted with permission of XL Insurance Company, Ltd.

Publishers

Timothy P. Brady

George G. Pallis

Senior Editor

Tom Walsh

European Editor

Guy Malyon

European Project Manager

Nick Holmes

Donald Johnson

Review Panel

Janice Collins

Joseph DeChiaro

Martin Gould

David Karr

Edward Lynch

Meike Olin

Statistical Analyst

Jennifer Harrison

Production Manager

Christine Reilly

Designer

Heidi Gross

Apprved_Dividers_8_17 9/14/05 11:25 AM Page 1

Executive Summary 1

Overview 3

Award and Loss Trends 5

Findings and Analysis 13

Global 13

United States 15

Canada 22

Europe 23

United Kingdom 25

Latin America 28

Influence of North American Operations 29

Conclusion: The Balancing Act 31

Survey Results 33

Appendix A: Around the World: What’s New? A-1

Appendix B: Liability Program Structures B-1

Appendix C: “2004’s Largest Verdicts”—The National Law Journal C-1

Appendix D: “Industry Loss Report”—XL Insurance Company, Ltd. D-1

Contributors

M A R S H — L I M I T S O F L I A B I L I T Y 2 0 0 5

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t s

Table of Contents

Limits of Liability 2005Balancing Price Against Need

1

2

3

4

5

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM Page 2

1


E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

1

Executive Summary

This report provides a range of information to

help companies decide how much excess liability

insurance they need. It draws heavily on Marsh’s

Casualty Central database—a resource with an

exceptional breadth and depth of information.

Key issues and findings include:

AWARD AND LOSS TRENDS

■ According to The National Law Journal’s (NLJ’s)

top 100 verdicts, motor vehicle damage awards

increased substantially in 2004, comprising 14

percent of the largest verdicts, compared to 4

percent in 2003.

■ Companies that have experienced large losses

in the past continued to purchase significantly

higher limits than those that had not experi-

enced such losses. In fact, companies that have

suffered a loss of $5 million or more within the

past five years bought more than three times

the limits of other companies in 2005.

■ The largest NLJ jury verdicts stayed relatively flat

in 2004 with the median of the top 100 verdicts

standing at $34 million, compared to $36 million

in 2003.

■ Punitive damage awards dropped significantly,

possibly due to the impact of the 2003 U.S.

Supreme Court decision in State Farm Mutual

Insurance Co. v. Campbell. The median ratio of

punitive-to-compensatory damage awards was

0.7-to-1 in 2004, compared to 1.6-to-1 in 2003

and 4.4-to-1 in 2002.

■ Federal tort-reform efforts took a step forward

in 2004 with the passage of the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The main thrust of

the legislation is to curb venue shopping by

plaintiffs’ attorneys. It appears the law will have

little impact on the largest verdicts handed down

by juries.

LIMITS PURCHASING IN 2005

Global■ The cost of excess limits dropped significantly

in 2005. For the entire survey population, the

average price per $1 million of coverage fell to

$12,177, a drop of 9.2 percent compared to 2004.

■ The average limit purchased in 2005 stayed

essentially flat at $58 million in 2005, compared

to $59 million in 2004.

■ The largest organizations—those with revenues

greater than $10 billion—paid an average of 14¢

per $1,000 of revenue in 2005, a drop of 22.2

percent from 2004.

■ The smallest organizations—those with revenues

under $200 million—paid an average of $2.11 per

$1,000 of revenue in 2005, a drop of 34.3 percent

from 2004.

■ In Europe, on average, the cost of limits decreased,

while the amount of limits purchased stayed

relatively stable.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM


E x e c u t i v e S u m m a r y

2

United States■ The average limit purchased for all 2,864 U.S.

companies in our survey through the first quar-

ter of 2005 stayed relatively stable at $75 million,

down only slightly from the average of $77 mil-

lion in 2004.

■ For those U.S. companies for which Marsh has

three consecutive years of data, the stability in

limits purchasing is even more apparent—the

average limit purchased was $90 million in 2005,

$89 million in 2004, and $90 million in 2003.

■ The trend data show only a slight drop in the

average price per $1 million of coverage, down

4.9 percent in 2005 to $13,537 as the insurance

market softened.

■ The trend data also show the cost of coverage

measured against revenue in 2005 stayed the

same as it had been in the past two years, at

38¢ per $1,000 of revenue.

■ The average limit purchased varied greatly

among the 23 industry groups in the report, from

a high of $113 million in Utility—Non-nuclear to

a low of $37 million in Health Care.

Elsewhere■ Canada: The average limit purchased in Canada

in 2005 was the same as in 2003—$69 million.

The average price per $1 million of coverage

dipped 6.4 percent to $8,656 in 2005. The number

of Canadian companies contributing to this

report jumped 48 percent.

■ Europe: Liability rates in Europe softened—

drastically in some countries—over the last

year. Prices per €1 million of liability coverage

decreased by an average of 11.7 percent in 2005

compared to 2004.

■ United Kingdom: The average limit purchased

remained relatively flat, dropping only 1.6 per-

cent from €63 million to €62 million. The aver-

age price per €1 million of coverage decreased by

17 percent to €7,975 in 2005 from €9,608 in 2004.

■ Latin America: The average cost of limits per

$1,000 of revenue declined in Latin America in

2005. The average price per $1 million of cover-

age, however, jumped to $8,628 from $6,493 in

2004, a 32.9 percent increase that bucked the

trend in most other parts of the world.

Note: To ease comparisons, the U.S. dollar and the euro

are the principal currencies used in this report. The

symbol “$” in this report always refers to the U.S. dollar.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

2


O v e r v i e w

3

Overview

Deciding what level of limits to purchase for liability

insurance can be one of the toughest challenges

facing an organization. After all, limits are meant to

cover a firm for problems that exist only at the

fringe of expectation—the automobile accident that

kills and injures dozens, the design error that brings

down a plane, the slip and fall that paralyzes a

young mother or father, and other catastrophic

events. These low-frequency/high-severity incidents

require a dramatically different management

approach than do other parts of the property/

casualty insurance program.

The challenge when there are so few occurrences

becomes to study what data do exist and combine

them with the experience of senior business leaders

to develop a limits strategy that makes sense for an

individual firm. This is the art of developing limits.

Consider an accident that occurred on a Connecticut

roadway in July 2005. An out-of-control dump truck

raced down a hill, slammed into a bus and cars, and

set off a fiery chain reaction that killed 4 people and

injured at least 20. The accident is under investiga-

tion at this writing, but there can be little doubt that

lawsuits will be filed over the tragedy. What will be

the economic costs of this tragic occurrence? Later in

this report, we will show you how to think about

such an event in ways that will inform your own

decision making.

There is also little doubt that as bad as the accident

was, it could have been even worse. What if the

bus involved had been filled to capacity and the

death toll increased by a factor of 10? What if Good

Samaritans had not pulled people out of burning

vehicles? The truth is, many near misses are only

a step removed from being accidents, and many

accidents are only a step removed from being

liability catastrophes.

This, the 14th annual edition of Limits of Liability,

aims to help companies strike a balance between the

cost of excess liability insurance and their specific

coverage needs. Finding that balance requires a mix

of art and science—with far more art than is generally

appreciated.

For the science side of the equation, Limits of Liability

2005 draws on Marsh’s Casualty Central database,

the size and the sophistication of which mean it can

be trusted to generate high-quality data. The number

of companies surveyed for the report is exceptionally

large—in fact, it is the largest study of its kind.

Information from 6,032 companies went into the

2005 report, an increase of more than 400 companies

over last year’s. Those companies represent:

■ total insurance premiums of $4.3 billion; and

■ total revenues of $10.6 trillion.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM


O v e r v i e w

4

To put that in perspective, the following chart com-

pares the total revenues of companies in this survey

with the gross domestic product (GDP) of the

world's five largest economies.

The sheer numbers make the data less subject to

anomalies, increasing the confidence that the data

paint a clear picture of the excess liability insurance

marketplace. Marsh’s extensive global reach also

allows us to thoroughly analyze the data. First, we

present the raw numbers for the full survey popula-

tion through the first quarter of 2005 and compare

them to last year’s survey, providing a broad view of

limits purchasing. Second, we break out purchasing

trend data for the basket of companies for which we

have consecutive years of data. Because the basket is

so large, this comparison offers a unique perspective

on trends over time.

The numbers alone, however, don’t tell the entire

story. The art of purchasing limits involves experi-

enced risk managers making informed decisions

based not only on what their peers are doing, but

also on what is right for their own companies. They

must also keep in mind the relevant trends in society

at large—court decisions, jury awards, attitudes

toward corporate behavior, and the like.

On the surface, it might be tempting to set a policy

whereby an organization buys higher limits when

prices are low and lower limits when prices are high.

Indeed, there are data suggesting that some compa-

nies tend to do just that. Unfortunately, the risks

organizations are exposed to do not change based on

the amount of insurance they have or on the price of

insurance in a given year. What do change are:

■ the nature of risks facing an organization;

■ the costs associated with injuries and wrongful

deaths; and

■ an organization’s ability to survive a catastrophic

loss.

Only hindsight will tell a company with certainty

whether it purchased the optimal limits—but hind-

sight does no good if the decision was incorrect. This

report provides the data and resources companies

need to develop their limits purchasing decisions,

including information about:

■ the limits other organizations are buying and how

much they are paying;

■ changes over time for buying patterns, prices, and

limits;

■ the purchasing patterns of peers in 23 industry

groupings;

■ award and loss trends; and

■ the changing liability climate around the world.

Determining the appropriate limits needed to

protect a company’s future is one of the most diffi-

cult decisions facing insurance buyers. But through

benchmarking and by staying aware of important

developments in the legal, regulatory, and risk

management arenas, risk managers and other key

executives can help their companies manage the

ever-shifting realities of liability risk and make

informed decisions.

Survey Firms’ Revenues Top Most GDPs

Total Revenues of Survey Population

United States GDP

Japan GDP

Germany GDP

United Kingdom GDP

France GDP

$11.7 trillion

$4.6 trillion

$10.6 trillion

$2.1 trillion

$2.7 trillion

$2 trillion

Source for GDP Data: World Bank

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

3No company expects to suffer a catastrophic loss, yet

they happen. This section of the report looks at some

of the top awards to plaintiffs in 2004, with an eye to

trends, such as the impact large losses can have on

an organization’s limits purchasing, the rise in motor

vehicle awards, and the decline in punitive damages.

It also looks at developments in federal tort reform

in the United States and the continuing spread of

U.S.-style litigation overseas.

IMPACT OF LARGE LOSSES

Experience appears to play a significant role in how

companies spend their insurance dollars. Year after

year, our survey has shown that U.S. companies

that have been hit recently with large liability

losses—defined as $5 million or more—tend to buy

higher limits. In 2005, 6.5 percent of companies had

experienced such a loss in the past five years.1 The

average limit purchased for this group was $199

million, compared to $64 million for companies that

had not experienced a loss of that magnitude in the

preceding five years.

Marsh’s research shows clearly that companies

which have suffered a loss of this magnitude appar-

ently do not see limits purchasing as an elastic

decision. There have been significant changes in

insurance prices over the past six years, but compa-

nies that have had large losses continue to buy an

ever-greater amount of insurance than others. In

2005, the gap between the two groups increased,

with both an increase in limits purchased by those

with large-loss experience and a decrease among


A w a r d a n d L o s s T r e n d s

5

those without such a loss. The companies with large-

loss experience bought more than three times the

limits in 2005 as other companies, the largest differ-

ence between the two groups in the six years that

Marsh has tracked this trend.

The $5 million mark is used to define a large loss

because it offers some insight into the frequency of

claims breaching primary limits, which averaged $2.1

million in 2005. While a $5 million loss would be rel-

atively easily absorbed by large companies, it could

be disastrous to smaller ones. At first glance, buying

higher limits after experiencing a large loss may

seem like shutting the barn door after the horse has

bolted and broken its leg. But the motivation for

these companies likely has to do with the fact that

there are still more horses to be protected.

Award and Loss Trends

Limits Purchased by Companies Not Experiencing Large Losses

Limits Purchased by Companies Experiencing Large Losses

Large Losses* Influence Limits Purchasing—United States(in millions)

$207$96

$193$90

$84$203

$75$207

$66$193

$199$64

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

0 50 100 150 200 250

* Large Losses Defined as $5 Million or Greater

1 The downward trend in this percentage—from 7.1 percent in 2004 and 7.9 percent in2003—is likely due to the fact that our survey adds more small companies than large oneseach year. In general, larger companies face larger awards.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

TRENDS AND TOP AWARDS INTHE UNITED STATES IN 2004

One lens organizations can use to look at the poten-

tial for liability catastrophes is an examination of the

largest jury verdicts handed down from year to year.

One source of that information is the NLJ’s annual

report on the top 100 verdicts (see Appendix C). The

list gives insight into developing trends on award

sizes and also points out the range in the types of

cases that can lead to major damage awards. It

probably won’t take too much imagination for a risk

manager or CFO to look at these cases and think,

“That could have been me.”

Such a perspective can be illuminating. A worthwhile

exercise for a risk manager is to look over his/her

organization’s most frequent claim sources and

consider what the results could have been if the

worst-case outcomes (high severity) had occurred in:

■ close calls;

■ cases with minor injuries that could have been

major; and

■ cases involving one occurrence with the potential

to generate multiple claimants.

DROP IN TOP AWARDS

In 2004, according to the NLJ, the largest jury verdicts

were essentially flat compared to 2003, with the

median of the top 100 verdicts at $34 million in 2004,

compared to $36 million in 2003, $51 million in 2002,

and $45 million in 2001. (All NLJ comparisons have

been adjusted for inflation.) The total amount award-

ed for the top 100 verdicts in 2004 was $11.1 billion,

compared to $20.1 billion in 2003, $40 billion in 2002,

and $12.1 billion in 2001. In both 2002 and 2003, the

totals were heavily influenced by one exceptionally

large award.

Other findings included the following:

■ The largest single award in 2004 was $1.6 billion,

in line with 2001’s top award of $3 billion. The top

award in 2003 was $11.9 billion; and in 2002, it

was $28 billion.

■ In 2004, 83 of the top 100 verdicts were for more

than $20 million, compared to 92 in 2003, all 100

in 2002, and 97 in 2001.

■ Punitive damage award ratios dropped significantly

(see below).

MOTOR VEHICLE VERDICTS UP SHARPLY

Of the top 100 jury verdicts in 2004, 14 percent

involved motor vehicles, up from just 4 percent in

2003. The jump in major verdicts for motor vehicle

cases reinforces the special emphasis that risk man-

agers and other key executives must place on auto

liability. Vehicular liability accounted for 5 percent of

all liability cases in which $1 million or more was

awarded between 2000 and 2003, according to Jury

Verdict Research (JVR). And of the plaintiffs’ verdicts

rendered in motor vehicle cases between 1997 and

2003, 63 percent were for instances of vehicular

negligence.

Along with workers compensation and general liabil-

ity, auto liability is one of the three key drivers of the

overall casualty cost of risk. Organizations in the

United States paid, on average, 34¢ per $1,000 of rev-

enue for auto liability coverage, according to Marsh’s

Casualty Cost of Risk 2005 report, released earlier this

year. That translated to an average of $1,326 per

vehicle. (In comparison, organizations paid $1.64 per

$1,000 of revenue for workers compensation and 58¢

per $1,000 of revenue for general liability.)

The top motor vehicle award in 2004 was for $38.3

million. The size of the award is especially significant

given that the number of victims was relatively

low—one person died, and three were severely

injured. Perhaps because nearly all adults in the

United States drive—and are, thus, potentially affect-

ed by vehicle accidents—juries have regularly award-

ed punitive damages in such cases. According to JVR,

23 percent of all cases in which punitive damages

were awarded involved vehicular liability, second

only to business negligence (29 percent).



6

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

In 2005, companies and insurers both appeared to

recognize the potential for catastrophic losses asso-

ciated with motor vehicle accidents. As the following

chart shows, the excess limits that companies

purchased went up significantly as the number of

vehicles in their fleets—and thus their exposures—

increased. As fleet sizes increased, so did the price

per $1 million of coverage, from $7,396 per million

for companies with relatively small fleets to $23,093

per million for companies with the biggest fleets.

M A R S H — L I M I T S O F L I A B I L I T Y 2 0 0 5 7A w a r d a n d L o s s T r e n d s

The defendants in the NLJ top 100’s motor vehicle

cases included:

■ a tree-and-brush removal company;

■ a construction company;

■ a real-estate holding company;

■ municipalities and other government agencies;

■ a railroad company;

■ a car rental agency;

■ vehicle manufacturers;

■ commercial truck drivers; and

■ commercial trucking companies.

The range of defendants in motor vehicle cases

emphasizes the variety of ways a single type of

exposure can lead to a catastrophic loss. The issues

that brought defendants to court in 2004’s motor

vehicle cases included driver training; road design,

maintenance, and hazard warnings; automobile

manufacturing defects; creation of work-site dust

that obscured visibility; and rental of a vehicle to

someone with a revoked license.

Most of the motor vehicle cases in 2004 that resulted

in large awards did not involve a large number of

defendants. Damage awards can be expected to

jump significantly if a single accident results in mul-

tiple injuries, such as if a school bus is involved. And

in these times, with corporate governance more of a

concern than ever before, companies should be

aware of the potential for claims against directors

and officers in the event shareholders were to sue in

the wake of a large loss for the failure to carry

sufficient limits.

PUNITIVE DAMAGE AWARDS

In many cases, the final amount of a verdict can be

pushed to the extreme by punitive damages, money

awarded by a judge or jury that is meant to punish

a defendant and to act as a deterrent for others

against engaging in the same behavior. A big ques-

tion for verdict watchers is: Are juries scaling back

on punitive damage awards? As shown in the chart

below, average and median punitive damage awards

in the top 50 verdicts dropped considerably in 2004

from previous years.

Average Limits Purchased—United StatesResults Based on Vehicle Count

Average Limits Price per $1MVehicles (in millions) of Coverage

0-100 $47 $7,396

101-250 $68 $10,936

251-500 $95 $11,071

501-100 $116 $13,543

1,001-5,000 $166 $17,365

5,001+ $309 $23,093

All $75 $13,222

Ratio of Punitive-to-Compensatory Damage Awardsin Top 50 Verdicts

Ratio for Year Mean Ratio Median Verdicts

2001 8-to-1 3-to-1

2002 27-to-1 4.4-to-1

2003 19-to-1 1.6-to-1

2004 3-to-1 0.7-to-1

Source: The National Law Journal

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

Given the often-extreme swings in jury verdicts from

year to year, it is too soon to say if 2004’s drop in the

ratios represents the beginning of a trend or is just a

blip on the radar screen. However, some experts

speculate that a 2003 decision by the U.S. Supreme

Court could be behind the drop in the punitive-to-

compensatory ratio. In State Farm Mutual Insurance Co.

v. Campbell—a case that resulted in a 145-to-1

punitive-to-compensatory ratio—the Court said that

“few” punitive awards that exceed a single-digit ratio

“will satisfy due process.” The Court—which sent the

$146 million State Farm verdict back to state court—

has never laid out a so-called “bright-line test”

stating exactly what ratio would be satisfactory.

However, it did say in the State Farm case that a

4-to-1 ratio “might be close to the line of constitu-

tional impropriety.”

Many legal experts say the State Farm decision will

have little or no impact on “normal” jury verdicts,

but that it could affect the largest verdicts such as

those that make it into the NLJ’s top 100. Because

those are the cases most likely to represent a true

liability catastrophe for an organization, the issue

remains an important one for those involved with

setting an organization’s liability limits.

A Texas jury, in August 2005, rendered a verdict

against a major drug manufacturer that serves as a

reminder of just how far a jury is willing to go when

it feels punishment is warranted. In a case involving

only one plaintiff, the jury awarded $253.5 million—

of which $229 million was punitive damages.

Although the final award is likely to be substantially

limited by local law, the verdict provides insight into

jury thinking. The award—which came in the first of

more than 4,000 similar cases that have been filed

against the drug company—would have ranked in

the top 10 in 2004.

SHAREHOLDER LAWSUITS

Part of the fallout from the technology explosion of

the past 20 years has been an increase in the severi-

ty of awards in cases brought by shareholders. Two

of the NLJ’s top 100 verdicts this year were in share-

holder derivative lawsuits, one of which resulted in a

$167 million award against a firm and two of its

officers. And settlements of such cases—which

would not show up in the NLJ’s top 100 verdicts—are

even more common. In 2004, for example, there were

16 settlements of greater than $50 million, according

to NERA Economic Consulting, a Marsh sister

company.

WRONGFUL DEATH

In 2003, the mean award in the wrongful death of

an adult male declined from that in 2002, which had

been the highest since at least 1997. The median

award in 2003, however, rose over that in 2002,

according to JVR statistics.



8

Award Award Award Median Range Mean

2000 $1,584,340 $5,313 to $50,000,000 $3,357,350

2001 $1,320,834 $705 to $21,051,943 $2,765,917

2002 $1,341,500 $1,250 to $100,361,000 $4,780,235

2003 $1,722,686 $2,000 to $20,000,000 $3,628,830

Award Measures—Wrongful Death of Adult Males

Source: Jury Verdict Research

Source: Jury Verdict Research

Also in 2003, the mean and median awards for

wrongful death of adult females both decreased. As

was the case with males, the mean award in 2002

had been the highest in a number of years.

Award Award Award Median Range Mean

2000 $1,325,000 $4,032 to $29,200,000 $2,450,816

2001 $928,750 $8,750 to $43,000,000 $2,966,690

2002 $1,000,000 $5,809 to $65,000,000 $3,996,303

2003 $1,509,076 $769 to $155,000,000 $2,711,639

Award Measures—Wrongful Death of Adult Females

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

VALUING A CLAIM

DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, DIFFERENT TOTALS:WILL IT BE $0, $40 MILLION, $200 MILLION,OR MORE?

The 2004 spike in the number of motor vehicle

cases in the NLJ’s top 100 verdicts should give every

company pause, not only those with a vehicle fleet.

Consider the potential results from the following

hypothetical accident—an amalgam of some very

real cases.

A van carrying a group of children on a church

outing gets broadsided by a utility truck at an inter-

section on a busy highway. Six children and the

vehicle’s driver are killed, while six other children

and two other adults in the overcrowded van are

seriously injured, some when the seatbacks collapse.

The driver of the truck, also killed, is later found to

have been a longtime drug user who was under the

influence of prescription medication at the time of

the accident. Area residents have long complained

that the intersection is unsafe and have recently

noted that vegetation and billboards are partially

blocking the view of a stop sign and a warning sign.

The families of all of the victims decide to file law-

suits. The list of defendants includes some obvious

ones, but also some that would not have been

expected to be named, including:

■ an advertising agency with a billboard that

obstructs the view of a highway warning sign;

■ a construction company that has been creating

dust in the area;

■ the doctor who prescribed the medication the

driver was abusing;

■ the brush-removal company that is supposed to

maintain the intersection;

■ the local and state agencies responsible for the

highway;

■ the maker of the van;

■ the company that supplied the automaker with

parts for the seatbacks;

■ the company that owns the utility truck; and

■ the agency that the truck’s owner had hired to

conduct employment screening for its drivers.

M A R S H — L I M I T S O F L I A B I L I T Y 2 0 0 5 9

How might a jury value the damage suffered in such

an accident? The top jury award for a motor vehicle

accident in 2004 was $38.3 million and included:

■ $3.5 million for wrongful death to the estate of a

4-year-old who died;

■ $7.3 million to an adult who was severely injured;

and

■ $27.5 million to a 2-year-old who was severely

injured.

Using those same figures as a base, potential awards

to the people in the minivan alone could translate

into:

■ $14.6 million to the two severely injured adults;

■ $24.5 million for the seven wrongful deaths; and

■ $165.0 million for the six severely injured children.

$204.1 million total awards

Obviously, differences in circumstances, extent of

injuries, jury attitudes, and more would come into

play in assessing final damages. In fact, it is possible

that no damages would be awarded. But it’s also

possible that if the accident occurred in a jurisdiction

known for high damage awards, the total could top

$204 million.

During the course of litigation, some defendants may

settle, leaving fewer defendants for the jury to assess

damages against. Which company at trial will be

seen as the one with the deep pockets?

The point to be driven home is that a liability

catastrophe can result from something as routine as

a vehicle accident.


a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

FEDERAL TORT REFORM

Long-stalled efforts at federal tort reform moved for-

ward in February 2005 when President Bush signed

the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). The

main target of the legislation is so-called “venue

shopping,” in which plaintiffs’ attorneys in class-

action lawsuits seek to file cases in state jurisdic-

tions perceived as sympathetic to plaintiffs. But just

how much impact CAFA will have on the largest ver-

dicts remains to be seen.

EASING FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION

Over time, certain state jurisdictions have stood out

as being popular places to file class-action lawsuits,

the assumption being that courts and juries in those

venues favor plaintiffs. Proponents of tort reform

have cited various counties in certain states—includ-

ing Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Texas, West Virginia,

and Wisconsin—as being unduly favorable to plain-

tiffs. Under CAFA, it will become easier for a federal

court to assume jurisdiction or for a defendant to

successfully petition for a case to be moved to

federal court.

Federal courts will now have jurisdiction in cases

in which:

■ any class member is a citizen of a state different

from that of any defendant; or

■ the total amount involved is more than $5 million,

there are more than 100 members in the class,

and at least one member of the class is a citizen

of a different state than a defendant.



10

Previously, class-action cases could be heard in federal

court only if no plaintiff was a citizen of the same

state as any defendant. Also, cases would go to

federal court only if each class member had claims

exceeding $75,000. This meant that even a case

potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars

would not be eligible to be heard in federal court if

no single claim was worth more than $75,000.

COUPON SETTLEMENTS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES

The Act also affects the way attorneys’ fees are

calculated in certain cases. Often, particularly in con-

sumer cases, the result of a class-action suit is that

members of the class receive a coupon for a discount

on products or services. Attorneys have collected

their fees based on the total value of the coupons or

discounts offered. Under CAFA, fees will be deter-

mined based on the value of the coupons actually

redeemed.

TORT REFORM AND LARGEST VERDICTS

CAFA is not retroactive, meaning any class-action

suits filed before February 18, 2005, are not subject to

its provisions. However, the NLJ list of top jury ver-

dicts in 2004 shows that three of the top 25 verdicts

were class actions. Of those, one was already a feder-

al case and so would not have been affected by CAFA.

The other two would not likely have been heard in

state courts had they been filed post-CAFA, according

to the NLJ analysis. One case, heard in Louisiana,

resulted in a $591 million verdict against “Big

Tobacco.” Some experts believe a federal court would

not have certified the class in the case, which is now

under appeal. It is less clear whether the third case—

a $75 million verdict against a bank—would have

been affected by the new law.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

ASBESTOS AND SILICOSIS

U.S. companies continue the lengthy struggle with

the effects of asbestos lawsuits filed both by people

who have become sick due to exposure to the mate-

rial and by those who have been exposed but have

yet to show signs of illness. Two of the NLJ’s top 100

verdicts in 2004 were asbestos cases, yielding ver-

dicts of $36.7 million and $22 million. The roots of

such claims generally stretch back decades.

Asbestos lawsuits have cost the U.S. economy $343

billion, according to an April 2005 report from NERA.

The breakdown is as follows:

■ $44 billion to legal fees and other administrative

costs;

■ $7 billion to bankruptcy costs; and

■ $292 billion to lost productivity.

NERA estimated that future payouts to claimants

will be $73 billion and that future administrative and

bankruptcy costs will come to another $93 billion if

no reform efforts are enacted. The major proposal on

the table at this writing is the federal Fairness in

Asbestos Injury Resolution Act. That bill would halt

asbestos court cases and establish a $140 billion

trust fund from which to pay asbestos claims.

Proponents say the measure would eliminate the

bulk of future legal fees and court expenses.

However, asbestos reform remains a heated topic,

and the legislation does not appear likely to pass

anytime soon, according to many experts. In the

meantime, class-action lawsuits involving silicosis

claims have received much attention of late due to

a ruling in a Texas court. Silicosis is a disease of the

lungs caused by the prolonged inhalation of fine

sand particles. The rise in silicosis in recent years

caused many to dub silica “the new asbestos.”

But in June 2005, a federal judge remanded back to a

lower court nearly 10,000 silicosis cases, saying the

doctors’ diagnoses in the cases were not based on

medical evidence, but were “manufactured for

money.” Many observers believe the judge’s silicosis

ruling may lead to investigations of many asbestosis

diagnoses across the country.

U.S.-STYLE LITIGATIONCROSSES THE ATLANTIC

European corporate risk managers considering their

liability exposures are currently presented with a

seeming contradiction: The risk of suffering a large

loss is rising; but at the same time, the cost of liabili-

ty limits is decreasing.

LAWSUITS ON THE RISE

Litigation risk continues to grow across the region,

with compensation awards increasing in many coun-

tries. In the United Kingdom, for example, the aver-

age value of personal injury claims continues to rise

by around 15 percent to 20 percent per year, accord-

ing to the British Department of Works and Pensions.

Some have dubbed the growth of such claims and

lawsuits “the American disease.”

Also, some European nations are experiencing U.S.-

style class-action lawsuits for the first time. At the

beginning of the year, for example, French President

Jacques Chirac proposed that class-action lawsuits

should be allowed, to punish “abusive practices.”

DVD and video publishers in France are being sued

because their anti-copy mechanisms—designed to

prevent piracy—prevent private individuals from

legitimately copying their own products. A group of

French lawyers has demanded damages of €1,000

per consumer.

M A R S H — L I M I T S O F L I A B I L I T Y 2 0 0 5 11A w a r d a n d L o s s T r e n d s

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



12

Another trend that resonates across the continent—

including in Eastern Europe—is shareholder actions

in the wake of scandals and accounting irregulari-

ties. In Italy, for example, it has been estimated that

liability claims against directors and officers have

risen by 105 percent over the previous year. At the

same time, there is an increased tendency for busi-

ness-to-business litigation across Europe. Issues of

indemnification and insurance are becoming more

central to the negotiations of contracts.

At some point, we can also expect other U.S. litiga-

tion issues to cross the Atlantic. Plaintiffs’ attorneys

in the United States are looking for the “new

asbestos,” which they may or may not have found in

silicosis claims. And lawsuits involving the tobacco

and alcohol industries continue to arise. Childhood

obesity is also being touted as having class-action

potential, aimed at such targets as fast-food makers.

Such issues could affect many industries in Europe.

So why is liability risk rising while insurance prices

are falling? The short answer is that current pricing

is not driven by evaluation of risk, but by insurance-

market dynamics. After September 11, 2001, insur-

ance premiums increased enormously. Due to

these rate increases—and stringent underwriting

practices—the global property/casualty industry

started to report higher profits. In fact, the U.S.

property/casualty industry recently reported its first

profit since the late 1970s, despite record levels of

natural catastrophe losses in 2004.

As profits have grown, however, the struggle for

growth has become more acute. Premiums are now

dropping at an extremely rapid rate, particularly for

more “desirable” risks. Many insurers are still report-

ing profits, but are finding growth opportunities

limited because of insurance-market conditions.

One additional potential problem for them is that

they cannot necessarily rely on attractive investment

returns as they have in the past.

The current contradictions of the liability insurance

market are unlikely to last; at some point, the cycle

will again move to a stage with rising premiums.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

This section looks at the results of Marsh’s 2005

survey, with an eye on the global picture as well as

breakdowns for the United States, Canada, Europe,

and other selected parts of the world.

GLOBAL

The average liability limit purchased through the

first quarter of 2005 by companies in our survey was

$58 million, essentially flat compared to the 2004

average of $59 million.2 Cost, on the other hand,

dropped significantly. For the entire survey popula-

tion, the average price per $1 million of coverage fell

to $12,177 in 2005, a drop of 9.2 percent compared

to 2004.

LIMITS PURCHASED

The region purchasing the highest average limit

through the first quarter of 2005 was Asia at $100

million. However, the Asian results are based on a

relatively small sample dominated by a number of

large companies, tending to drive the average-limit

calculation higher than it would be if the sample

included a broader representation of smaller compa-

nies. The next highest average limit was found in

Northwestern Europe (the United Kingdom and

Ireland) at $77 million, followed by the United States

at $75 million, and Canada at $69 million.

4Other interesting results regarding global limits

purchasing include the following:

■ Countries with the highest average limits were

South Africa at $165 million, Australia at $160

million, and Japan at $120 million.

■ Countries with the lowest average limits were all

in Eastern Europe, with Lithuania, Poland, and

Slovenia all at $1 million; Latvia at $2 million;

Russia at $3 million; and Estonia at $4 million.

■ The highest limits purchased were $1.35 billion in

both Germany and Italy, $1.2 billion in the United

Kingdom, $1.16 billion in Canada, and $1.08 billion

in Belgium.


F i n d i n g s a n d A n a l y s i s

13

Findings and Analysis

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—Global(in millions)

$25

$42

$63

$119

$191

$289

$26

$37

$66

$117

$199

$255

$58$59

2004 2005

0 50 100 150 200 250 300Revenue

(Millions)

2 Note: When reading about global comparisons in this report, it should be kept in mind thatdata from the United States, Europe, and the United Kingdom are more complete than thosefrom the rest of the world.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



14

COST OF LIMITS

We looked at cost in two ways. First, what is the

price to buy $1 million of coverage? Second, how

much does it cost per $1,000 of revenue? It should be

noted that the first $1 million of coverage costs more

than the second; the second more than the third;

and so on. The reason is that the higher the limit,

the less likely a loss will penetrate it.

In 2005, the average price per $1 million of coverage

fell to $12,177, a drop of 9.2 percent compared to the

2004 price of $13,416.

■ The highest average prices per $1 million of cover-

age were found in Europe, with a cost of $58,177

in Slovenia, $29,410 in France, $28,005 in Italy, and

$27,493 in Germany.

■ The lowest prices per $1 million of coverage were

in South Africa, at $1,210; New Zealand, at $1,671;

Peru, at $2,981; and the Czech Republic, at $3,820.

The economies of scale enjoyed by large organiza-

tions show up when looking at price from a revenue

standpoint. The largest organizations—those with

revenues greater than $10 billion—paid an average

of 14¢ per $1,000 of revenue in 2005, a drop of 22.2

percent from 2004. The smallest organizations—

those with revenues under $200 million—saw a

greater year-over-year percentage drop, but still paid

significantly more per $1,000 of revenue than did the

largest companies, an average of $2.11 in 2005, a

drop of 34.3 percent from 2004.

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Price per $1M of Coverage—Global

$6,771$8,092

$11,018$11,182

$10,019$12,307

$13,395$14,744

$18,129$17,588

$16,637$18,508

$12,177$13,416

2004 2005

0 5 10 15 20Revenue

(Millions)

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Cost per $1,000 of Revenue—Global

$2.11$3.21

$1.26$1.56

$0.91$1.27

$0.70$0.86

$0.50$0.36

$0.14$0.18

$0.40$0.48

2004 2005

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5Revenue

(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

UNITED STATES

LIMITS PURCHASED

Marsh’s report shows that U.S. companies, on aver-

age, did not significantly alter the amount of limits

they purchased in 2005, despite a slight decrease in

average price. The average limit purchased for the

2,864 U.S. companies in the survey was $75 million,

relatively stable compared to the average of $77

million in 2004. And when looking at the trend data

for those U.S. companies for which Marsh has three

consecutive years of data, the stability is even

more apparent—the average limit purchased was

$90 million in 2005, $89 million in 2004, and

$90 million in 2003.

Since reaching a high of $105 million in 2000, the

average limit purchased has decreased by 28.6 per-

cent. The 2.6 percent decline from 2004 to 2005 was,

however, the smallest year-over-year percentage

decrease since 2000.

As mentioned previously, some of the changes seen

in this survey are related to the increasing numbers

of smaller organizations included in the overall data

population; although it is worth pointing out that the

biggest increase in surveyed organizations in 2005

came in the largest revenue class.



15

METHODOLOGY

Marsh surveyed 6,032 companies about their

liability insurance programs, including data on

limits purchased, premiums, attachment points,

and five-year history of claims of $5 million or

more. Of those, 2,864 companies were based in

the United States. This year’s survey includes data

from 42 countries on six continents. Data from

Japan, Korea, Russia, and Taiwan are included for

the first time.

The data are analyzed in two ways. First, we

compare the raw numbers of the full survey pop-

ulation through the first quarter of 2005 to last

year’s survey, providing a broad view of limits

purchasing. Second, we examine the purchasing

trends for the basket of companies for which we

have consecutive years of data (three years for

the United States and two years for Europe).

Because the basket is so large, the comparison

shows the patterns that emerge when looking

at the same group of companies over time.

The survey information was input to Marsh’s

Casualty Central database, allowing it to be sorted

by three key attributes—industry, company size,

and location. The following chart shows the

distribution by revenue class of companies

represented in this report.

Average Limits for All Firms—United States (2000-2005) Full Survey Population(in millions)

$120

$100

$80

$60

$40

$20

0

2001

2000

2002

2003

2004

$105 $102$96

$87

$77

2005

$75

Distribution of Firms—Global

2004 2005

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

2,678

1,203

608

779

160

181

5,609

2,962

1,222

618

850

179

201

6,032

Revenue(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

The smallest companies—with revenues under $200

million—stood pat in limits purchasing when looking

at a strict year-over-year change, with the average

limit at $33 million in 2005, the same as in 2004.

Interestingly, however, the trend among companies

of this size for which Marsh has three years of data

shows a slight increase in limits, bumping up from

$39 million in 2003 and 2004 to $42 million in 2005.

In contrast, companies with more than $10 billion of

revenue dropped their limits by an average of 14.4

percent year-over-year, to $262 million in 2005 from

$306 million in 2004. Again, however, the trend data

paint a slightly different picture, with a less pro-

nounced decrease of 3.6 percent from 2004 to 2005

and a decrease of 1.7 percent from 2003 to 2004.



16

118130

Distribution of Firms—United States

2004 2005

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

1,199

572

354

515

94

1,177

589

373

499

96

2,8522,864

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000Revenue

(Millions)

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—United States(in millions)

2004 2005

$33$33

$47$51

$72$73

$120$124

$205

$306$262

$190

$75$77

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350Revenue

(Millions)

Full Survey Population

Average Limits Purchased—United States(in millions)

$39

$51$54

$50

$82$80$79

$134$127$122

$39$42

$207

$301$290

$91$89$90

$204$216

2003 2004 2005

Trend Data—3 Years

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,001

$10,000

All

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

$324

Revenue(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



17

COST OF LIMITS

Following several years of steady—sometimes

dramatic—increases, the average price per $1 million

of coverage in the United States declined in 2005,

dropping to $13,222, compared to $13,727 in 2004, a

3.7 percent decline. The 2005 cost still represents an

increase of 182 percent since 2000.

The trend data show much the same, with the

average price per $1 million of coverage dropping

4.9 percent from 2004 to 2005 after having risen

27.7 percent between 2003 and 2004 as the insurance

market was hardening.

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Price per $1M of Coverage—United States

$8,323$8,714

$9,985$10,293

$11,054$12,906

$15,158$15,820

$16,114$13,398

$17,769$19,517

$13,222$13,727

2004 2005

0 5 10 15 20Revenue

(Millions)


Average Price per $1M of Coverage—United States

$6,621

$7,856$9,619

$9,222

$9,236$13,546

$10,996

$11,122$15,933

$14,898

$8,009$6,807

$11,332

$14,332$19,976$19,812

$11,153$14,242

$13,537

$14,056$14,986

2003 2004 2005


$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,001

$10,000

All

0 5 10 15 20Revenue

(Millions)

2001

2000

2002

2003

2004

Average Price per $1M of Coverage—United States (2000-2005)

15

10

5

0

$4,694

$5,411

$7,106

$11,614

$13,727

2005

$13,222

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



18

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Cost per $1,000 of Revenue—United States

$3.09$3.21

$1.37$1.56

$1.08$1.27

$0.77$0.86

$0.44$0.36

$0.13$0.18

$0.39$0.48

2004 2005

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5Revenue

(Millions)


Average Cost per $1,000 of Revenue—United States

$2.70

$1.21$1.54

$1.38

$1.04$1.47

$1.18

$0.67$0.88

$0.77

$3.18$2.86

$0.33

$0.14$0.18$0.16

$0.38$0.38$0.38

$0.39$0.42

2003 2004 2005


$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,001

$10,000

All

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5Revenue

(Millions)

The average cost of coverage per $1,000 of revenue in

2005 was 39¢, compared to 48¢ in 2004, an 18.8 percent

decline in the year-over-year comparison. However,

when looking at the companies from the perspective

of our trend data, the average cost per $1,000 of rev-

enue stayed flat at 38¢ in 2005, 2004, and 2003.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

MARKET CONDITIONS

For most companies, limits-purchasing decisions

will always be influenced to some extent by price,

which, in turn, is influenced by capacity in the insur-

ance markets. Throughout this report, we try to

emphasize that price should not be the only factor

considered: Need should play a key role.

Capacity in the excess liability insurance market for

the vast majority of companies remains sufficient to

meet their demands. The slight drop in overall limits

pricing experienced this year was coupled with a 2.3

percent increase in capacity compared to 2004. Still,

capacity is down 23 percent from its high in 2000 of

just over $2 billion.

Renewal rates had been falling in the second half of

2004, a trend that continued into 2005. In the second

and third quarters of 2005, rates have been largely

decreasing, with drops of up to 10 percent. There

have been exceptions, of course, with some compa-

nies seeing larger decreases and some seeing

increases. Rate increases have been driven primarily

by loss experience.

Through mid-year 2005, the insurance marketplace

was demonstrating aggressive approaches to lead

umbrellas.

■ Occurrence coverage remains available to the

same degree as in 2004, with latent exposures

driving the use of claims-made policy forms.

■ Concerns about rate relativity—the ratio of lead

umbrella pricing to successive layers—continue to

fade, with some instances of excess layer rate

reductions in conjunction with stable lead

umbrella pricing.



19

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Excess Liability Market Capacity—Year-Over-YearNorth America (in millions)

$1,3

34 $1,4

05

$1,7

21

$2,0

11

$1,9

41

$2,0

45

$1,7

10

$1,5

75

$1,4

25

$1,5

35

$1,5

70

The number of companies renewing their lead

umbrella coverage with incumbent insurers

increased to 84.9 percent in 2005, from 82.2 percent

in 2004. This compares to 75 percent of companies

that renewed their primary layers with the same

insurer in 2005. The difference is likely attributable to

the willingness of incumbent insurers to offer price

decreases.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

The following table estimates capacity on a per-insur-

er basis. The figures are for “theoretical” capacity and

not “frequently used” capacity, which may be lower.



20

MARKET CAPACITY(millions)

ACE USA $25

ACE BERMUDA $150

AEGIS $35

AEGIS London $25

AIG $50

ARCH US $25

ARCH Bermuda $50

AWAC $50

Chubb/Chubb Atlantic $50

CNA $25

Endurance Specialty Ltd. $50

Fireman’s Fund $50

Gerling $75

Great American $25

Great American Assurance (PRB) $25

Hartford $10

Lexington London/US $25

Liberty International $50

Liberty Mutural $25

Max Re $25

OCIL $150

Ohio Casualty $25

St. Paul Travelers $25

Starr $150

Swiss Re $100

XL Bermuda/London/US $150

Zurich American $35

Zurich Global Energy Bermuda/London $75

Zurich Global Energy US $15

TOTAL $1,570

Capacity of Selected Excess Liability Markets—North America (July 2005)

UNDERLYING LIMITS

The average attachment point for all companies in

the survey stayed relatively stable at $2.1 million in

2005, compared to $2.2 million in 2004. This is the

point at which primary coverage ends and excess

coverage begins. On its own, the average attachment

point would mask the fact that larger firms saw

more variation. Consider that:

■ for firms with 500 or more vehicles, attachment

points have risen substantially, from $3.8 million

in 2004 to $4.7 million in 2005; and

■ for firms with greater than $1 billion in sales,

attachment points decreased from an average of

$4.3 million in 2004 to $3.7 million in 2005.

2002

2003

2004

2005

Attachments Points/Underlying Limits(in millions)

$1.9

$2.0$3.2

$4.0

$2.2$3.8

$4.3

$2.1$4.7

$3.7

$2.7$3.0

Average Auto Liability - Greater than 500 vehicles

General Liability - Greater than $1B sales

0 1 2 3 4 5

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM

INDUSTRY ANALYSIS

As would be expected, the amount of limits pur-

chased and the prices paid vary widely by industry.

Among the findings for the 23 industry groupings in

Marsh’s 2005 survey were the following:

■ The average limits purchased ranged from a high

of $113 million in Utility—Non-nuclear to a low of

$37 million in Health Care.

■ Limits declined in 13 industries in 2005, compared

to 2004, rose in 7, and stayed the same in 3.

■ The average price per $1 million of coverage

ranged from a high of $52,004 in Health Care to

a low of $5,684 in Printing, Publishing.


declined in 15 industries, rose in 7, and stayed the

same in 1.

■ The average price per $1,000 of revenue ranged

from a high of $2.37 in Construction to a low of 6¢

in Insurance.

■ The average price per $1,000 of revenue declined

in 18, rose in 2, industries and stayed the same

in 3.



21

Average Limits by Industry(in millions)

2005 2005 2004 2004Rank Limits Rank Limits

Highest Limits

Utility—Non-nuclear 1 $113 2 $120

Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 2 $112 3 $120

Mining, Energy 3 $102 1 $146

Insurance 4 $98 6 $86

Transportation Services 5 $90 4 $91

Lowest Limits

Health Care 23 $37 23 $37

Government 22 $39 21 $42

Rubber, Plastic 21 $46 20 $45

Construction 20 $46 22 $40

Educational, Nonprofit 19 $53 19 $50

Institutions

Average Price per $1 Million of Coverage by Industry

2005 2005 2004 2004Rank Price Rank Price

Lowest Price

Printing, Publishing 1 $5,684 3 $7,213

Finance—Banks, Holding 2 $5,737 2 $7,165

Companies, Real Estate, Other

Insurance 3 $5,853 4 $7,544

Personal/Business Services, 4 $6,749 1 $6,438

Hotels, Amusements

Education, Nonprofit 5 $7,277 8 $9,116

Institiutions

Highest Price

Health Care 23 $52,004 23 $56,046

Construction 22 $29,895 21 24,220

Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 21 $22,852 22 25,847

Government 20 $21,724 20 20,883

Transportation Services 19 $18,166 19 19,213

Average Cost per $1,000 of Revenue by Industry

2005 2005 2004 2004 Rank Price Rank Price

Lowest Price

Insurance 1 $0.06 1 $0.08

Finance—Banks, Holding 2 $0.12 7 $0.30

Companies, Real Estate, Other

Wholesale, Retail Trade 3 $0.15 2 $0.18

Telecommunications 4 $0.18 4 $0.28

Food, Agriculture, Tobacco, 5 $0.22 8 $0.36

Textiles

Highest Price

Construction 23 $2.37 21 $2.07

Health Care 22 $1.47 22 $2.15

Transportation Services 21 $1.44 23 $1.89

Government 20 $1.00 15 $0.73

Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 19 $0.94 19 $1.05

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



22

CANADA

The average limit purchased in Canada in 2005 was

the same as in 2003—$69 million. Average prices as

measured by price per $1 million of coverage and

by cost per $1,000 of revenue declined in nearly every

revenue class. The number of Canadian companies

contributing to this report jumped 48 percent, with

smaller companies accounting for most of the

increase.


dipped 6.4 percent to $8,656 in 2005 from $9,245

in 2004.

■ That price was still significantly higher than in

2003, when $1 million of coverage cost an average

of $4,852.

■ The average cost per $1,000 of revenue dropped

11.8 percent to 45¢ in 2005 from 51¢ in 2004.

1110

Distribution of Firms—Canada

2004 2005

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

156

46

29

50

10

92

33

26

36

5

203301

Revenue(Millions)

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—Canada(in millions)

2004 2005

$21$35

$44$48

$61$66

$148$158

$348$512

$288$322

$69$90

0 100 200 300 400 500 600Revenue

(Millions)

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Price per $1M of Coverage—Canada

$7,519$7,305

$8,614$11,160

$7,223$7,632

$6,839$8,423

$16,722$18,528

$5,604$5,595

$8,656$9,245

2004 2005

0 5 10 15 20Revenue

(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



23

EUROPE (Limits and costs in euros)

Despite a trend toward more U.S.-style lawsuits and

damage awards, liability rates in Europe softened—

drastically in some countries—over the last year.

Marsh’s survey found that in Europe:

■ the average limit increased by 3.1 percent in the

same period;

■ prices per €1 million of liability coverage

decreased by an average of 11.7 percent in 2005

compared to 2004; and

■ the U.K. liability insurance market continued to be

more volatile than the liability insurance markets

in the rest of Europe, with average prices falling by

22.3 percent in 2005.

When looking at trend data, the following emerges:

■ the average limit purchased decreased by 5.6

percent to €34 million in 2005 from €36 million

in 2004;

■ the average price per €1 million of coverage

declined by 8.9 percent to €14,634 in 2005 from

16,070 in 2004; and

■ the average cost per €1,000 of revenue declined by

8.9 percent to €0.48 in 2005 from €0.53 in 2004.

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Distribution of Firms—Europe

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

1,1731,300

404427

147156

184192

4748

3934

1,9942,157

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—Europe(in millions)

€15€15

€28€28

€39€52

€90€93

€118€187

€215€229

€32€33

0 50 100 150 200 250

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)


€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—Europe(in millions)

€14€14

€31€29

€37€43

€84€92

€164€109

€230€229

€36€34

0 50 100 150 200 250


2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



24

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Price per €1M of Coverage—Europe

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

€8,319€6,744

€14,860€14,104

€14,741€12,067

€16,394€15,422

€25,258€26,191

€21,908€18,925

€15,311€13,520

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)


€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Price per €1M of Coverage—Europe

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

€8,765€7,271

€14,245€14,121

€15,770€14,235

€16,077€15,956

€25,801€26,830

€20,793€18,984

€16,070€14,634


2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Cost per €1,000 of Revenue—Europe

€1.43€1.25

€1.34€1.28

€0.79€0.88

€0.67€0.64

€0.45€0.42

€0.23€0.19

€0.54

€0.51

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)


€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Cost per €1,000 of Revenue—Europe

€1.44€1.18

€1.43€1.30

€0.80€0.85

€0.64€0.65

€0.63€0.44

€0.21€0.19

€0.53€0.48


0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



25

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Distribution of Firms—United Kingdom

235247

7482

3532

5347

1714

149

428431

0 100 200 300 400 500

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—United Kingdom(in millions)

€28€35

€60€56

€64€71

€120€141

€133€130

€199€198

€57€60

0 50 100 150 200

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)


€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—United Kingdom(in millions)

€28€29

€66€63

€75€85

€135€141

€147€118

€216€206

€63€62


0 50 100 150 200 250

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

UNITED KINGDOM

When looking at trend data, the following emerges

from Marsh’s survey of U.K. companies:

■ The average limit purchased remained relatively

flat, dropping only 1.6 percent from €63 million in

2004 to €62 million in 2005.

■ The average price per €1 million of coverage

decreased by 17 percent to €7,975 in 2005 from

€9,608 in 2004.

■ The average cost per €1,000 of revenue declined

9.5 percent to €0.38 in 2005 from €0.42 in 2004.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



26

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Cost per €1,000 of Revenue—United Kingdom

€1.31€1.71

€1.90€1.29

€2.13€1.18

€0.82€0.54

€0.41€0.36

€0.10€0.07

€0.45€0.45

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)


€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Cost per €1,000 of Revenue—United Kingdom

€1.64€1.51

€1.54€1.50

€1.41€1.41

€0.62€0.48

€0.44€0.28

€0.10€0.07

€0.42€0.38


0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Price per €1M of Coverage—United Kingdom

€5,663€4,250

€7,060€7,265

€12,834€11,683

€11,247€8,985

€23,125€16,947

€9,130€7,184

€10,009€7,782

0 5 10 15 20 25

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)


€0 - €200

€201 - €500

€501 - €1,000

€1,001 - €5,000

€5,001 - €10,000

€10,000+

All

Average Price per €1M of Coverage—United Kingdom

€5,336€4,707

€7,359€7,617

€12,871€11,791

€10,778€8,304

€19,266€13,910

€9,286€7,654

€9,608€7,975


0 5 10 15 20

2004 2005

Revenue(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



27

Capacity of Selected Excess Liability Markets—United Kingdom (July 2005)

Capacity Capacity2004 2005

Market (millions) (millions)

ACE Dublin €200.0 €200.0ACE Europe €50.0 €50.0AIG €50.0 €50.0Allianz (Global Risks) €30.0 €80.0Amlin (Lloyd’s) €7.5 €7.5ARCH €40.0 €40.0AWAC €50.0 €50.0AXA €40.0 €75.0AXIS €25.0 €25.0Beasley (Lloyd’s) €15.0 €15.0Brit (Lloyd’s) €7.5 €7.5Catlin (Lloyd’s) €37.5 €37.5Charringtons (Lloyd’s) €7.5 €7.5Chubb €22.5 €37.5CNA €15.0 €15.0Constable (Lloyd’s) €75.0 €70.0Endurance €15.0 €50.0GE Frankona €22.5 €22.5Generali €30.0 €30.0Gerling n/a €100.0HDI €7.5 €7.5Illium €15.0 €15.0Liberty €50.0 €50.0MARP n/a €37.5Max Re €25.0 €25.0Mitsui €15.0 €15.0Newline (Lloyd’s) €15.0 €15.0Norwich Union €7.5 €7.5QBE €37.5 €37.5Royal & SunAlliance €30.0 €30.0Scor €22.5 €22.5St. Paul €15.0 €15.0Starr €150.0 €150.0Swiss Re €50.0 €50.0Swiss Re New Markets €100.0 €100.0XL €100.0 €100.0Zurich €50.0 €50.0Total €1,430.0 €1,697.5

The table to the left represents only the liability

capacity available in the United Kingdom; some

of the listed insurers offer different amounts of

capacity in other European countries. For example,

HDI offers €75 million in Germany, SCOR offers

€25 million in France, and AXA offers €70 million

in both France and Germany. For details of insurer

liability capacities in specific countries, please

contact your local Marsh office.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



28

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Limits Purchased—Latin America(in millions)

2004 2005

$9$9

$17$23

$13$30

$40$59

**

**

$12$14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60Revenue

(Millions)

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

Average Price per $1M of Coverage—Latin America

$8,200$5,416

$7,751$7,921

$14,155$7,683

$10,974$6,096

$8,628$6,493

**

**

2004 2005

0 3 6 9 12 15Revenue

(Millions)

LATIN AMERICA

The average cost of limits per $1,000 of revenue

declined in Latin America in 2005, but the average

price per $1 million of coverage increased dramati-

cally, jumping to $8,628 from $6,493 in 2004, a 32.9

percent increase that bucked the trend in most

other parts of the world. Other findings include

the following:

■ The average limit varied greatly by country from

$6 million in Mexico to $26 million in Peru.


ranged from $2,981 in Peru to $19,923 in Mexico.

■ The average cost per $1,000 of revenue was 42¢,

ranging from 8¢ in Venezuela to 98¢ in Argentina.00

Distribution of Firms—Latin America

2004 2005

$0 - $200

$201 - $500

$501 - $1,000

$1,001 - $5,000

$5,001 - $10,000

$10,000+

All

333

91

19

13

0

302

82

15

11

0

410456

0 100 200 300 400 500Revenue

(Millions)

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM



29

INFLUENCE OF NORTHAMERICAN OPERATIONS

Companies headquartered in Europe that had

operations in North America continued in 2005 to

purchase higher limits than did those companies

without a significant North American presence. The

more litigious nature of the United States undoubt-

edly accounts for the decision to purchase higher

limits if there is North American exposure. Among

the findings of the Marsh survey are the

following:

■ Companies with North American operations pur-

chased an average limit of €57 million, compared

with €20 million for companies with no North

American operations.

■ Companies with North American operations pur-

chased slightly higher limits in 2005: €57 million

compared with €56 million in 2004.

■ Companies without North American operations

purchased significantly lower limits in 2005: €20

million compared with €24 million in 2004.

■ Both groups paid less for €1 million of coverage

in 2005 than they did in 2004.

Northwestern Europe €63 €20,629 €19 €12,563

Central & Western Europe €13 €3,637 €9 €5,533

Southern Europe €37 €14,361 €19 €9,074

Eastern Europe €97 €11,183 €35 €4,633

Nordic €30 €9,447 €18 €21,530

European Total €57 €15,918 €20 €12,943

AverageLimit

(millions)Price perMillion

Price perMillion

AverageLimit

(millions)

Operations inNorth America

No Operations inNorth America

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM


C o n c l u s i o n : T h e B a l a n c i n g A c t

31

Companies must balance the price of excess limits

against the need to purchase them at a level that will

offer protection should a liability catastrophe occur.

The very nature of the legal system presents risk

managers and other key executives with a major

challenge in determining how to arrive at this bal-

ance. Part of the problem lies in the fact that it typi-

cally takes a long time—five, six, or more years—for a

major case to be resolved in the U.S. legal system, a

problem other countries increasingly will encounter

as U.S.-style litigation becomes more prevalent over-

seas. The coverage a company buys this year needs

to protect it against a case that may not settle until

2010 or later.

While a case winds its way slowly through the

system, mounting legal bills and inflation drive up

its final cost. Health care benefit costs represent a

particular concern, as they can play a prominent role

in determining awards involving personal injury.

There was some relief in the rate of increase in

health care benefit costs in 2004, but the 7.5 percent

rise still outpaced inflation. Health care benefit costs

as tracked over the past 18 years by Mercer Human

Resource Consulting, a Marsh sister company, have

been extremely volatile, with double-digit increases

in 8 of those years and above 7 percent in 12 of

those years.

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Health Care Costs: Continuing Rate Increases

Note: Health care cost increases for 1994-1998 are based on cost for active and retired employees combinedHealth care cost increases for 1999-2005 are based on cost for active employees onlyConsumer Price Index estimate for 2005 is based on first three months

Sources: Health care cost increases—Mercer National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans 2004Consumer Price Index—U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics

-1.1

%2.

6%

2.8%

3.0%

2.3%

1.6%

2.2%

3.4%

2.8%

1.6% 2.3%

2.7% 3.

0%

2.1% 2.

5%

0.2%

6.1%

7.3% 8.

1%

11.2

%

14.7

%

10.1

%

7.5%

6.6%

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

CH

AN

GE

estimate

• ••

••

•

• •

• ••

•

CPI—compounded rate is 34.9%HC—compounded rate is 105.4%

■ Health Care (HC)

• Consumer Price Index (CPI)

5Conclusion: The Balancing Act

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM Page 34


C o n c l u s i o n : T h e B a l a n c i n g A c t

32

BENCHMARKING

This report presents both qualitative and quantita-

tive benchmarking information as it looks at excess

limits purchasing. Qualitative benchmarking, in

general, is concerned with systems and processes

and how to develop best practices. Quantitative

benchmarking is more about the numbers—dollars,

cents, and percentages.

QUALITATIVE BENCHMARKING

The awards and loss trends—such as the largest

verdicts of 2004—provide a qualitative benchmark.

Each case is unique, a product of circumstances

unlikely to be exactly replicated. But if risk managers

look at the underpinnings of each case, they might

just find some disturbing parallels to situations that

have occurred at their own organizations.

■ What company that owns vehicles has not had an

employee involved in an accident or a near miss?

And how little would have to have changed in

those situations for one of them to become a lia-

bility catastrophe?

■ How many companies can guarantee that no

product they manufacture will ever fail to work as

advertised?

■ What happens if an angry customer sues? What if

his/her attorneys find enough similarly displeased

parties to attempt a class-action lawsuit?

Considering these issues could help organizations as

they attempt to create their own best practices—not

only in limits purchasing, but also in risk manage-

ment in general.

QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARKING: This report’s information about pricing and limits

purchasing provides a quantitative benchmark about

the decisions peers make. For example, it appears

that in general, organizations did not significantly

increase their limits this year compared to last

despite a significant drop in price. One of the most

notable points made by the data is the seeming will-

ingness of companies that have suffered a large loss

in the recent past to buy higher limits than those

that have not suffered such a loss.

WHAT TO DO

There is no simple formula to use in putting all of

the information in this report together to come up

with the “right” limit for a given company. Instead, it

should serve only to help companies make better-

informed decisions about their own unique circum-

stances. Among the lessons to be drawn from the

information presented are the following:

■ Evaluate and prioritize exposures regularly.

■ Examine minor accidents and near misses with

an eye toward what could have happened if some-

thing else had gone wrong—what was the worst-

case scenario?

■ Do not shrug off exposures that seem unlikely—

especially if a peer in your industry, region, or

other grouping has experienced a related loss.

■ Keep in mind the impact inflation will have on

potential awards in court cases that may take five

or more years to resolve.

■ Keep an eye on developments in the legal arena—

such as federal tort reform—but do not pin false

hopes on them. Do not underestimate the ability

of plaintiffs’ attorneys to develop new avenues of

attack.

■ Remember that although insurance prices tend to

move in cycles, loss trends do not.

■ It is not prudent to base limits-purchasing deci-

sions solely on price.

■ Consider a range of options in structuring your

liability limits. It may be wiser to retain more risk

in a primary layer and spend the premium sav-

ings on purchasing higher excess limits.

a_LOL_8_26 9/14/05 10:48 AM Page 35


Survey Results

Apprved_Dividers_8_17 8/25/05 9:09 PM Page 2


S u r v e y R e s u l t s

33

Survey Results

AVERAGE AVERAGENUMBER MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE AVERAGE COST MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE AVERAGE COST

OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER 1,000 LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER €1,000RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

2005 Limits of Liability Survey Global Summary

UNITED STATES 2,864 $1 $1,000 $75 $13,222 $0.39 €1 €739 €55 €13,222 €0.39

PUERTO RICO 75 $1 $77 $17 $8,624 $1.35 €1 €57 €13 €8,624 €1.35

CANADA 301 $0.8 $1,163 $69 $8,656 $0.45 €1 €859 €51 €8,656 €0.45

Ireland 36 $2 $135 $24 $10,486 $0.11 €1 €100 €18 €10,486 €0.11United Kingdom 431 $0.6 $1,197 $81 $7,748 $0.45 €0.4 €884 €60 €7,748 €0.45NW EUROPE 467 $0.6 $1,197 $77 $7,815 $0.39 €0.4 €884 €57 €7,815 €0.39

Austria 14 $2 $135 $23 $13,911 $1.12 €2 €100 €17 €13,911 €1.12Belgium 83 $2 $1,083 $66 $14,273 $0.91 €1 €800 €49 €14,273 €0.91France 169 $0.6 $812 $54 $21,724 $0.42 €0.5 €600 €40 €21,724 €0.42Germany 283 $1 $1,354 $45 $20,308 $0.73 €1 €1,000 €33 €20,308 €0.73Netherlands 129 $2 $338 $31 $11,315 $0.28 €1 €250 €23 €11,315 €0.28Switzerland 32 $18 $175 $58 $8,832 $0.75 €13 €129 €43 €8,832 €0.75C&W EUROPE 710 $0.6 $1,354 $47 $17,931 $0.55 €0.5 €1,000 €35 €17,931 €0.55

Greece 15 $0.4 $14 $4 $27,660 $0.24 €0.3 €10 €3 €27,660 €0.24Italy 356 $0.3 $1,354 $30 $20,686 $0.70 €0.3 €1,000 €22 €20,686 €0.70Portugal 13 $1 $271 $51 $6,450 $0.19 €0.8 €200 €38 €6,450 €0.19Spain 220 $0.8 $677 $24 $17,295 $0.50 €0.6 €500 €18 €17,295 €0.50Turkey 26 $0.7 $190 $12 $7,159 $0.31 €0.5 €140 €9 €7,159 €0.31S. EUROPE 630 $0.3 $1,354 $28 $17,853 $0.60 €0.3 €1,000 €21 €17,853 €0.60

Czech Republic 28 $0.2 $271 $39 $2,822 $0.24 €0.2 €200 €29 €2,822 €0.24Estonia 8 <$0.1 $27 $4 $5,250 $0.28 <€0.1 €20 €3 €5,250 €0.28Hungary 49 <$0.1 $68 $5 $6,777 $0.08 <€0.1 €50 €4 €6,777 €0.08Latvia 6 $0.2 $9 $2 $3,025 $0.12 €0.1 €7 €2 €3,025 €0.12Lithuania 11 $0.2 $2 $1 $7,315 $0.08 €0.1 €2 €1 €7,315 €0.08Poland 24 <$0.1 $7 $1 $15,582 $0.05 <€0.1 €5 €1 €15,582 €0.05Russia 14 $0.3 $18 $3 $8,653 $0.10 €0.3 €13 €2 €8,653 €0.10Slovakia 15 $0.7 $203 $20 $10,886 $0.49 €0.5 €150 €15 €10,886 €0.49Slovenia 6 $0.5 $1 $1 $42,973 $0.50 €0.4 €1 €1 €42,973 €0.50E. EUROPE 161 <$0.1 $271 $11 $5,268 $0.17 <€0.1 €200 €8 €5,268 €0.17

Denmark 56 $0.9 $1,013 $61 $11,568 $0.87 €0.7 €748 €45 €11,568 €0.87Finland 44 $1 $167 $27 $10,312 $0.16 €1 €123 €20 €10,312 €0.16Norway 12 $2 $65 $15 $8,585 $0.12 €1 €48 €11 €8,585 €0.12Sweden 104 $1 $375 $30 $14,394 $0.40 €1 €277 €22 €14,394 €0.40NORDIC 216 $0.9 $1,013 $37 $12,430 $0.39 €0.7 €748 €27 €12,430 €0.39

EUROPE TOTALS 2,184 <$0.1 $1,354 $60 $13,493 $0.50 <€0.1 €1,000 €44 €13,493 €0.50

Argentina 67 $0.1 $150 $19 $6,017 $0.98 €0.1 €111 €14 €6,017 €0.98Brazil 63 $0.2 $150 $16 $12,649 $0.36 €0.1 €111 €12 €12,649 €0.36Chile 51 $1 $50 $7 $10,752 $0.37 €0.7 €37 €5 €10,752 €0.37Colombia 113 <$0.1 $206 $7 $4,469 $0.27 <€0.1 €152 €5 €4,469 €0.27Mexico 50 $1 $50 $6 $19,923 $0.48 €0.7 €37 €4 €19,923 €0.48Peru 43 $1 $168 $26 $2,981 $0.44 €0.7 €124 €19 €2,981 €0.44Venezuela 69 <$0.1 $150 $8 $18,818 $0.08 <€0.1 €111 €6 €18,818 €0.08LATIN AMERICA 456 <$0.1 $206 $12 $8,628 $0.42 <€0.1 €152 €9 €8,628 €0.42

AUSTRALIA 55 $0.8 $773 $160 $7,960 $0.78 €0.6 €571 €118 €7,960 €0.78

NEW ZEALAND 36 $4 $720 $51 $1,671 $0.24 €3 €532 €38 €1,671 €0.24

SOUTH AFRICA 29 $2 $558 $165 $1,210 $0.14 €1 €412 €122 €1,210 €0.14

Japan 23 $10 $486 $120 $15,415 $0.12 €7 €359 €89 €15,415 €0.12Korea 4 $25 $200 $74 $25,737 $0.21 €18 €148 €55 €25,737 €0.21Taiwan 5 $5 $105 $30 $15,429 $0.07 €4 €78 €22 €15,429 €0.07ASIA 32 $5 $487 $100 $16,366 $0.12 €4 €360 €74 €16,366 €0.12

GLOBAL TOTALS 6,032 <$0.1 $1,354 $58 $12,177 $0.40 <€0.1 €1,000 €43 €12,177 €0.40

b_Survey_8_26.qxd 8/26/05 2:16 PM Page 2



34

All Industries - Summary as of January 1, 2005 By Assets

AVERAGE MINIMUM MAXIMUM AVERAGE AVERAGE COST

NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000TOTAL ASSETS (MILLIONS) RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 823 $1 $500 $31 $9,803 $0.96

$201-$500 318 $3 $350 $47 $10,012 $0.94

$501-$1,000 218 $4 $360 $76 $12,848 $0.76

$1,001-$5000 292 $4 $890 $1,147 $16,363 $0.84

$5,001-$10,000 51 $5 $642 $176 $17,954 $0.51

$10,000+ 119 $8 $1,000 $247 $19,017 $0.19

Not Disclosed/Available 1,043 $1 $750 $76 $10,809 $0.35

ALL 2,864 $1 $1,000 $75 $13,222 $0.39


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000TOTAL REVENUES (MILLIONS) RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 1,199 $1 $1,000 $33 $8,323 $3.09

$201-$500 572 $1 $700 $47 $9,885 $1.37

$501-$1,000 354 $5 $340 $72 $11,054 $1.08

$1,001-$5,000 515 $2 $750 $120 $15,158 $0.77

$5,001-$10,000 94 $1 $1,000 $205 $16,114 $0.44

$10,000+ 130 $8 $950 $262 $17,769 $0.13

ALL 2,864 $1 $1,000 $75 $13,222 $0.39

All Industries - Summary as of January 1, 2005 By Revenues

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - UNITED STATES



$0-$200 1,177 $1 $500 $33 $8,714 $3.21

$201-$500 589 $1 $700 $51 $10,293 $1.56

$501-$1,000 373 $5 $456 $73 $12,906 $1.27

$1,001-$5,000 499 $2 $750 $124 $15,820 $0.86

$5,001-$10,000 96 $10 $1,000 $190 $13,398 $0.36

$10,000+ 118 $11 $1,005 $306 $19,517 $0.18

ALL 2,852 $1 $1,005 $77 $13,727 $0.48

All Industries - Summary as of January 1, 2004



$0-$200 1,020 $1 $400 $37 $6,330 $2.31

$201-$500 592 $3 $640 $53 $8,597 $1.30

$501-$1,000 362 $4 $790 $78 $9,964 $1.03

$1,001-$5,000 518 $2 $1,000 $129 $11,933 $0.67

$5,001-$10,000 112 $10 $1,300 $237 $13,949 $0.42

$10,000+ 122 $10 $1,200 $335 $16,882 $0.17

ALL 2,726 $1 $1,300 $87 $11,614 $0.40





35

Survey ResultsBY INDUSTRY GROUP - UNITED STATES

AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGELIMITS PRICE PER COST PER

INDUSTRY (MILLIONS) RANK MILLION RANK $1,000 REVENUE RANK

1. Food, Agriculture, Tobacco, Textiles $83 8 $8,594 6 $0.22 5

2. Mining, Energy $102 3 $14,804 17 $0.27 8

3. Construction $46 20 $29,895 22 $2.37 23

4. Lumber, Furniture, Packaging, Paper $67 15 $11,278 13 $0.45 12

5. Printing, Publishing $83 7 $5,684 1 $0.37 9

6. Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals $112 2 $22,852 21 $0.94 19

7. Rubber, Plastic $46 21 $13,149 14 $0.62 16

8. Primary Metals, Leather, Stone $78 10 $10,872 12 $0.51 15

9. Metal Products $63 18 $8,611 7 $0.44 11

10. Machinery $76 12 $9,117 8 $0.26 7

11. Electrical Equipment, Instruments $68 14 $9,185 10 $0.48 14

12. Transportation Equipment $85 6 $17,187 18 $0.25 6

13. Miscellaneous Manufacturing $66 17 $13,676 16 $0.40 10

14. Transportation Services $90 5 $18,166 19 $1.44 21

15. Telecommunications $77 11 $10,000 11 $0.18 4

16. Utility—Non-nuclear $113 1 $13,512 15 $0.81 18

17. Wholesale, Retail Trade $69 13 $9,122 9 $0.15 3

18. Finance—Banks, Holding Companies, Real Estate, Other $81 9 $5,737 2 $0.12 2

19. Insurance $98 4 $5,853 3 $0.06 1

20. Personal/Business Services, Hotels, Amusements $66 16 $6,749 4 $0.46 13

21. Health Care $37 23 $52,004 23 $1.47 22

22. Education, Nonprofit Institutions $53 19 $7,277 5 $0.77 17

23. Government $39 22 $21,724 20 $1.00 20

Industry Rankings - Summary as of January 2005




36



$0-$200 61 $1 $100 $25 $6,206 $1.57

$201-$500 35 $10 $150 $55 $5,888 $0.96

$501-$1,000 16 $10 $100 $56 $7,706 $0.61

$1,001-$5,000 36 $25 $350 $149 $7,848 $0.45

$5,001-$10,000 4 $25 $200 $138 $9,051 $0.18

$10,000+ 12 $50 $575 $283 $12,445 $0.11

ALL 164 $1 $575 $83 $8,594 $0.22

1. Food, Agriculture, Tobacco, Textiles



$0-$200 43 $1 $139 $40 $8,558 $3.81

$201-$500 15 $20 $167 $68 $10,074 $2.07

$501-$1,000 7 $8 $340 $118 $16,017 $2.59

$1,001-$5,000 14 $5 $300 $142 $11,005 $0.73

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 6 $40 $700 $451 $23,821 $0.15

ALL 86 $1 $700 $102 $14,804 $0.27

2. Mining, Energy

0100 Agricultural Production - Crops0200 Agricultural Production - Livestock0700 Agricultural Services0800 Forestry0900 Fishing, Hunting & Trapping2000 Food & Kindred Products2100 Tobacco Products2200 Textile Mill Products2300 Apparel & Other Textile Products

1000 Metal Mining1200 Coal Mining1300 Oil & Gas Extraction1400 Mining & Quarrying - Nonmetallic2900 Petroleum Refining4600 Pipeline




$0-$200 62 $3 $65 $21 $13,470 $4.18

$201-$500 12 $15 $100 $49 $17,235 $2.80

$501-$1,000 7 $10 $100 $50 $11,446 $0.77

$1,001-$5,000 8 $50 $300 $149 $26,889 $1.70

$5,001-$10,000 3 $44 $450 $291 $72,368 $2.76

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 92 $3 $450 $46 $29,895 $2.37

3. Construction



$0-$200 21 $1 $50 $22 $4,130 $0.94

$201-$500 14 $15 $100 $49 $4,443 $0.69

$501-$1,000 10 $25 $125 $62 $6,281 $0.53

$1,001-$5,000 15 $50 $200 $102 $11,957 $0.66

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 3 $195 $400 $298 $21,581 $0.32

ALL 64 $1 $400 $67 $11,278 $0.45

4. Lumber, Furniture, Packaging, Paper

1500 General Building Contractors1600 Heavy Construction1700 Special Trade Contractors

2400 Lumber and Wood Products2500 Furniture & Fixtures2600 Paper & Allied Products




37



NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000TOTAL REVENUES ($US M) RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 12 $5 $50 $27 $2,756 $0.55

$201-$500 13 $25 $180 $63 $3,502 $0.65

$501-$1,000 5 $25 $75 $45 $8,491 $0.54

$1,001-$5,000 10 $4 $400 $162 $4,742 $0.29

$5,001-$10,000 3 $175 $200 $192 $11,316 $0.35

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 43 $4 $400 $83 $5,684 $0.37

5. Printing, Publishing


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000TOTAL REVENUES ($US M) RESPONSES ($US M) ($US M) ($US M) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 50 $3 $1,000 $43 $14,768 $7.82

$201-$500 32 $1 $125 $44 $17,306 $2.55

$501-$1,000 11 $25 $300 $140 $16,031 $2.81

$1,001-$5,000 37 $4 $500 $165 $18,375 $1.48

$5,001-$10,000 6 $11 $642 $405 $18,232 $0.91

$10,000+ 7 $20 $950 $328 $53,294 $0.53

ALL 143 $1 $1,000 $112 $22,852 $0.94

6. Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals

2700 Printing, Publishing andAllied Trades

2800 Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals & DrugManufacturing



$0-$200 18 $3 $35 $18 $5,000 $0.89

$201-$500 10 $20 $50 $39 $7,056 $0.91

$501-$1,000 5 $35 $100 $77 $5,062 $0.52

$1,001-$5,000 5 $50 $200 $120 $27,704 $1.66

$5,001-$10,000 0 * * * * *

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 39 $3 $200 $46 $13,149 $0.62



$0-$200 23 $1 $50 $25 $6,057 $1.58

$201-$500 8 $15 $100 $43 $5,053 $0.68

$501-$1,000 12 $25 $100 $57 $5,784 $0.41

$1,001-$5,000 12 $2 $550 $172 $13,511 $0.96

$5,001-$10,000 2 * * * * *

$10,000+ 2 * * * * *

ALL 59 $1 $550 $78 $10,872 $0.51

8. Primary Metals, Leather, Stone

7. Rubber, Plastic3000 Rubber & Plastic Products

3100 Leather & Leather Products3200 Stone, Clay, Glass & Concrete3300 Primary Metal Industries




38




$0-$200 49 $1 $100 $24 $5,933 $1.39

$201-$500 35 $4 $200 $36 $7,166 $0.75

$501-$1,000 15 $5 $100 $51 $5,714 $0.42

$1,001-$5,000 25 $10 $500 $148 $11,320 $0.65

$5,001-$10,000 5 $75 $500 $235 $5,815 $0.16

$10,000+ 7 $100 $600 $321 $11,758 $0.12

ALL 136 $1 $600 $76 $9,117 $0.26

10. Machinery



$0-$200 33 $2 $350 $33 $4,365 $1.61

$201-$500 14 $15 $135 $62 $5,006 $0.92

$501-$1,000 13 $20 $200 $88 $8,925 $0.97

$1,001-$5,000 8 $35 $100 $55 $16,013 $0.45

$5,001-$10,000 3 $10 $400 $187 $9,628 $0.22

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 72 $2 $450 $63 $8,611 $0.44

9. Metal Products3400 Fabricated Metal Products

(except Machinery & Transportation Equip)

3500 Industrial, Commercial Machinery& Computer Equipment



$0-$200 58 $5 $100 $20 $5,149 $1.18

$201-$500 44 $10 $125 $40 $6,056 $0.71

$501-$1,000 20 $10 $250 $62 $9,152 $0.77

$1,001-$5,000 38 $10 $400 $134 $11,743 $0.66

$5,001-$10,000 3 $200 $290 $246 $7,356 $0.21

$10,000+ 6 $150 $500 $246 $8,109 $0.12

ALL 169 $5 $500 $68 $9,185 $0.48

11. Electrical Equipment, Instruments3600 Electronics & Other Electrical

Equipment (except Computer Equipment)

3800 Instruments & Related Products



$0-$200 19 $1 $50 $20 $5,532 $1.12

$201-$500 8 $10 $50 $25 $10,051 $0.73

$501-$1,000 13 $5 $325 $93 $10,568 $1.15

$1,001-$5,000 10 $30 $400 $132 $11,387 $0.70

$5,001-$10,000 2 * * * * *

$10,000+ 6 $125 $520 $255 $29,222 $0.17

ALL 58 $1 $520 $85 $17,187 $0.25

12. Transporation Equipment3700 Transportation Equipment




39




$0-$200 57 $1 $100 $24 $6,685 $1.72

$201-$500 34 $4 $100 $47 $7,781 $1.13

$501-$1,000 22 $10 $200 $80 $6,894 $0.78

$1,001-$5,000 22 $6 $350 $136 $11,874 $0.68

$5,001-$10,000 2 * * * * *

$10,000+ 4 $8 $900 $340 $33,581 $0.22

ALL 141 $1 $900 $66 $13,676 $0.40

13. Miscellaneous Manufacturing



$0-$200 67 $1 $500 $48 $13,756 $7.83

$201-$500 29 $1 $700 $80 $17,498 $3.20

$501-$1,000 7 $5 $100 $59 $11,077 $0.87

$1,001-$5,000 17 $6 $750 $159 $24,130 $2.03

$5,001-$10,000 4 $100 $1,000 $544 $18,281 $1.26

$10,000+ 2 * $300 * * *

ALL 126 $1 $1,000 $90 $18,166 $1.44

14. Transporation Services



$0-$200 26 $3 $125 $32 $3,139 $0.88

$201-$500 16 $5 $50 $27 $3,822 $0.28

$501-$1,000 12 $10 $100 $56 $5,697 $0.46

$1,001-$5,000 13 $50 $200 $117 $7,965 $0.39

$5,001-$10,000 5 $75 $150 $115 $21,108 $0.29

$10,000+ 10 $14 $400 $231 $14,282 $0.12

ALL 82 $3 $400 $77 $10,000 $0.18

15. Telecommunications

3900 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries

4000 Railroad Transportation4100 Local/Suburban/Interurban Highway

Passenger Transportation4200 Motor Freight Transp. &

Warehousing4400 Water Transportation4500 Transportation by Air4700 Transportation Services

4800 Communications, Telephone, Radio/TV Broadcasting



$0-$200 37 $5 $500 $40 $7,895 $4.21

$201-$500 20 $5 $250 $48 $10,845 $1.64

$501-$1,000 16 $9 $210 $87 $15,028 $1.82

$1,001-$5,000 23 $30 $703 $165 $16,274 $1.22

$5,001-$10,000 6 $10 $975 $383 $14,709 $0.68

$10,000+ 6 $15 $890 $390 $11,762 $0.34

ALL 108 $5 $975 $113 $13,512 $0.81

16. Utility—Non-nuclear4910 Electric Services4920 Gas Production & Distribution4930 Combined Electric & Gas Utility4999 Water, Sanitary, etc.




40




$0-$200 88 $2 $100 $21 $4,340 $0.88

$201-$500 72 $3 $110 $40 $4,922 $0.64

$501-$1,000 40 $9 $250 $66 $6,227 $0.53

$1,001-$5,000 80 $5 $400 $91 $10,726 $0.38

$5,001-$10,000 7 $25 $300 $114 $9,799 $0.17

$10,000+ 21 $75 $500 $280 $11,462 $0.07

ALL 308 $2 $500 $69 $9,122 $0.15

17. Wholesale, Retail Trade



$0-$200 105 $5 $750 $62 $4,272 $3.66

$201-$500 16 $3 $100 $50 $4,434 $0.68

$501-$1,000 22 $10 $250 $109 $6,717 $0.96

$1,001-$5,000 20 $10 $300 $104 $5,696 $0.24

$5,001-$10,000 7 $75 $400 $186 $8,159 $0.21

$10,000+ 14 $10 $300 $131 $8,228 $0.03

ALL 184 $3 $750 $81 $5,737 $0.12

18. Finance—Banks, Holding Co., Real Estate, Other



$0-$200 8 $10 $35 $21 $19,939 $4.46

$201-$500 1 * * * * *

$501-$1,000 7 $10 $75 $31 $4,385 $0.17

$1,001-$5,000 15 $15 $250 $70 $3,252 $0.08

$5,001-$10,000 9 $25 $200 $107 $6,583 $0.09

$10,000+ 14 $100 $400 $205 $5,887 $0.04

ALL 54 $10 $400 $98 $5,853 $0.06

19. Insurance

5000 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods5100 Wholesale Trade, Non-durable

Goods5200 Building Materials/Hardware Stores5300 General Merchandise Stores5400 Food Stores5500 Auto Dealers & Service Stations5600 Apparel & Accessory Stores5700 Furniture & Home Furnishings

Stores5800 Eating & Drinking Places5900 Miscellaneous Retail

6000 Depository Institutions6100 Nondepository Credit Institutions6200 Security & Commodities Brokers6500 Real Estate6700 Holding & Other Investment Offices

6300 Insurance Carriers6400 Insurance Agents, Brokers &

Services



$0-$200 169 $1 $350 $44 $4,254 $2.03

$201-$500 65 $3 $300 $58 $5,353 $0.92

$501-$1,000 48 $10 $300 $75 $6,625 $0.71

$1,001-$5,000 44 $10 $400 $106 $9,793 $0.46

$5,001-$10,000 12 $75 $350 $173 $7,885 $0.18

$10,000+ 3 $125 $395 $240 $15,347 $0.21

ALL 341 $1 $400 $66 $6,749 $0.46

20. Personal/Business Services, Hotels, Amusements7000 Hotels, Rooming Houses, Camps &

Other Lodging7200 Personal Services7300 Business Services7500 Auto Repair, Services & Parking7600 Miscellaneous Repair Services7800 Motion Pictures7900 Amusement & Recreation Services8100 Legal Services8700 Engineering, Accounting, Research,

Management & Related Services




41




$0-$200 96 $1 $150 $15 $49,323 $8.31

$201-$500 50 $4 $100 $27 $47,163 $3.70

$501-$1,000 25 $5 $200 $49 $51,415 $3.32

$1,001-$5,000 40 $4 $190 $76 $62,423 $2.19

$5,001-$10,000 7 $1 $245 $84 $30,040 $0.34

$10,000+ 4 $20 $400 $131 $32,650 $0.17

ALL 222 $1 $400 $37 $52,004 $1.47

21. Health Care



$0-$200 69 $1 $150 $38 $6,613 $3.21

$201-$500 18 $5 $150 $59 $6,498 $1.12

$501-$1,000 10 $25 $250 $91 $8,638 $1.10

$1,001-$5,000 14 $10 $160 $91 $8,300 $0.34

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 112 $1 $250 $53 $7,277 $0.77

22. Education, Nonprofit Institutions



$0-$200 28 $2 $250 $32 $9,616 $4.15

$201-$500 11 $4 $50 $25 $16,166 $1.33

$501-$1,000 11 $7 $135 $48 $20,173 $1.37

$1,001-$5,000 9 $8 $195 $62 $33,846 $1.01

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 61 $2 $250 $39 $21,724 $1.00

23. Government

8000 Health Services, Hospitals, Labs,Clinics, Nursing Homes

8200 Educational Services, Universities,Schools, Libraries, etc.

8300 Social Services, Daycare, Residential Care

8400 Museums, Art Galleries, Botanical& Zoological Gardens

8600 Membership Organizations

4300 U.S. Postal Service8940 Municipalities8950 Cities8960 Counties8970 States9100 Executive, Legislative & General9400 Administration of Human Resources9500 Environmental Quality & Housing




42


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000INDUSTRY GROUP RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) RANK MILLION RANK REVENUE RANK

Personal, Business Services, Hotels, Amusements 9 $2 $51 $19 1 $8,597 3 $3.95 5

Retail, Consumer Brands 36 $1 $77 $19 2 $7,873 2 $1.40 2

Engineering 8 $6 $32 $17 3 $12,330 5 $3.13 4

Finance--Banks,Holding Companies, Real Estate, Other 7 $7 $37 $17 4 $2,808 1 $0.14 1

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction, Mining 5 $10 $26 $14 5 $11,819 4 $5.17 6

Health Care 7 $1 $16 $5 6 $17,995 6 $1.79 3

Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics Manufacturing 2 * * * * *

Transportation 1 * * * * *

ALL 75 $1 $77 $17 $8,624 $1.35

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - PUERTO RICO


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000ANNUAL REVENUES (MILLIONS) RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 66 $1 $77 $15 $9,342 $2.51

$201-$500 7 $3 $52 $24 $5,946 $0.47

$501-$1,000 1 * * * * *

$1,001-$5,000 1 * * * * *

$5,001-$10,000 0 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 75 $1 $77 $17 $8,624 $1.35




43

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - CANADA



Power, Nuclear, Utilites, Construction, Mining 52 $2 $1,000 $121 1 $6,090 5 $0.38 4

Transportation 44 $2 $1,163 $80 2 $18,014 9 $2.41 9

Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 49 $3 $504 $69 3 $9,347 6 $0.44 5

Hi-Tech, Comuunications, Media 13 $19 $165 $58 4 $3,614 1 $0.09 2


Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 12 $4 $199 $57 6 $10,288 7 $1.17 8


Finance—Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 29 $3 $249 $40 8 $4,946 3 $0.07 1

Public Entities, Education, Nonprofit 19 $0.8 $229 $37 9 $13,313 8 $0.62 7

ALL 301 $0.8 $1,163 $69 $8,656 $0.45



$0-$200 156 $0.8 $171 $21 $7,519 $1.76

$201-$500 46 $8 $249 $44 $8,614 $1.12

$501-$1,000 29 $3 $231 $61 $7,223 $0.61

$1,001-$5,000 50 $8 $791 $148 $6,839 $0.41

$5,001-$10,000 10 $25 $1,163 $348 $16,722 $0.85

$10,000+ 10 $78 $1,000 $288 $5,604 $0.11

ALL 301 $0.8 $1,163 $69 $8,656 $0.45




44

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - NORTHWESTERN EUROPE (Ireland, United Kingdom)



Transportation 35 $10 $766 $141 1 $6,559 4 $0.65 7

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 54 $2 $1,197 $125 2 $9,159 7 $0.66 8


Finance - Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 37 $2 $230 $75 4 $2,409 1 $0.05 1


Food, Beverage 31 $2 $469 $69 6 $7,312 6 $0.32 4

Governmental 14 $19 $134 $68 7 $10,705 9 $0.55 5

Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 89 $0.6 $383 $62 8 $9,749 8 $0.72 9

Hi-Tech, Communications, Media 45 $2 $383 $59 9 $6,414 3 $0.15 2

Consumer, Retail Brands 62 $2 $191 $40 10 $5,743 2 $0.15 3

ALL 467 $0.6 $1,197 $77 $7,815 $0.39


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER €1,000ANNUAL REVENUES (MILLIONS) RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

€0-€200 265 €0.4 €566 €34 €4,291 €1.62

€201-€500 86 €0.8 €249 €54 €7,417 €1.28

€501-€1,000 40 €7 €226 €61 €11,708 €0.97

€1,001-€5,000 51 €1 €884 €132 €9,116 €0.52

€5,001-€10,000 14 €15 €283 €130 €16,947 €0.36

€10,000+ 11 €4 €594 €172 €6,909 €0.06

ALL 467 €0.4 €884 €57 €7,815 €0.39



$0-$200 265 $0.6 $766 $45 $4,291 $1.62

$201-$500 86 $1 $337 $73 $7,417 $1.28

$501-$1,000 40 $9 $306 $82 $11,708 $0.97

$1,001-$5,000 51 $2 $1,197 $179 $9,116 $0.52

$5,001-$10,000 14 $20 $383 $176 $16,947 $0.36

$10,000+ 11 $5 $804 $233 $6,909 $0.06

ALL 467 $0.6 $1,197 $77 $7,815 $0.39


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER €1,000INDUSTRY GROUP RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) RANK MILLION RANK REVENUE RANK

Transportation 35 €7 €566 €104 1 €6,559 4 €0.65 7

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 54 €1 €884 €92 2 €9,159 7 €0.66 8

Personal, Business Services, Hotels, Amusements 80 €1 €283 €56 3 €6,648 5 €0.63 6

Finance - Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 37 €1 €170 €56 4 €2,409 1 €0.05 1

Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 19 €0.8 €198 €54 5 €19,065 10 €1.85 10

Food, Beverage 31 €1 €346 €51 6 €7,312 6 €0.32 4

Governmental 14 €14 €99 €51 7 €10,705 9 €0.55 5

Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 89 €0.4 €283 €46 8 €9,749 8 €0.72 9

Hi-Tech, Communications, Media 45 €1 €283 €44 9 €6,414 3 €0.15 2

Consumer, Retail Brands 62 €1 €141 €30 10 €5,743 2 €0.15 3

ALL 467 €0.4 €884 €57 €7,815 €0.39




45

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - CENTRAL & WESTERN EUROPE (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland)



€0-€200 401 €0.5 €800 €13 €7,290 €1.12

€201-€500 145 €1 €120 €22 €14,859 €1.05

€501-€1,000 55 €3 €250 €46 €14,941 €0.93

€1,001-€5,000 76 €2 €590 €103 €20,769 €0.92

€5,001-€10,000 16 €10 €620 €97 €39,961 €0.55

€10,000+ 17 €5 €1,000 €249 €22,223 €0.24

ALL 710 €0.5 €1,000 €35 €17,931 €0.55



$0-$200 341 $0.6 $1,083 $18 $6,916 $1.31

$201-$500 168 $1 $162 $25 $13,001 $1.03

$501-$1,000 66 $2 $135 $33 $18,384 $0.85

$1,001-$5,000 86 $2 $745 $100 $19,021 $0.93

$5,001-$10,000 27 $3 $839 $223 $27,304 $0.88

$10,000+ 22 $7 $1,354 $281 $21,647 $0.22

ALL 710 $0.6 $1,354 $47 $17,931 $0.55



Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 52 $1 $1,354 $157 1 $27,153 8 $2.02 8



Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 68 $1 $523 $49 4 $24,103 7 $0.62 6

Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 307 $1 $1,083 $42 5 $13,546 3 $0.46 5

Transportation 19 $2 $227 $40 6 $16,552 5 $0.19 3



Engineering 14 $4 $34 $15 9 $63,992 9 $4.18 9

Government 1 * * * * *

ALL 710 $0.6 $1,354 $47 $17,931 $0.55



Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 52 €1 €1,000 €116 1 €27,153 8 €2.02 8


Finance—Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 25 €3 €200 €40 3 €6,570 1 €0.14 1



Transportation 19 €2 €168 €30 6 €16,552 5 €0.19 3

Retail, Consumer Brands 141 €0.5 €183 €15 7 €13,756 3 €0.25 4


Engineering 14 €3 €25 €11 9 €63,992 9 €4.18 9


ALL 710 €0.5 €1,000 €35 €17,931 €0.55




46

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - SOUTHERN EUROPE (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey)



€0-€200 400 €0.3 €260 €10 €11,121 €1.44

€201-€500 141 €0.3 €750 €19 €30,653 €1.93

€501-€1,000 39 €1 €780 €52 €10,884 €0.78

€1,001-€5,000 37 €2 €1,000 €56 €15,805 €0.45

€5,001-€10,000 7 €3 €300 €118 €19,445 €0.35

€10,000+ 6 €10 €500 €247 €25,184 €0.22

ALL 630 €0.3 €1,000 €21 €17,853 €0.60



Transportation 29 €0.3 €1,000 €138 1 €4,348 1 €1.45 9

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 69 €0.6 €620 €58 2 €18,905 7 €0.58 5

Engineering 6 €0.6 €120 €23 3 €33,658 8 €0.75 6

Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 38 €1 €90 €17 4 €10,789 5 €1.28 7

Hi-Tech, Communications and Media 18 €3 €52 €13 5 €10,001 3 €0.12 1


Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 143 €1 €70 €9 7 €18,211 6 €0.19 3

Retail and Consumer Brands 157 €0.5 €100 €7 8 €7,697 2 €0.18 2

Finance - Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 20 €0.5 €55 €7 9 €10,056 4 €0.29 4

Government 31 €1 €10 €4 10 €72,594 10 €1.45 8

ALL 630 €0.3 €1,000 €21 €17,853 €0.60



Transportation 29 $0.3 $1,354 $187 1 $4,348 1 $1.45 9


Engineering 6 $1 $162 $31 3 $33,658 8 $0.75 6

Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 38 $1 $122 $23 4 $10,789 5 $1.28 7

Hi-Tech, Communications and Media 18 $3 $70 $17 5 $10,001 3 $0.12 1



Retail and Consumer Brands 157 $0.6 $135 $10 8 $7,697 2 $0.18 2


Government 31 $1 $14 $6 10 $72,594 10 $1.45 8

ALL 630 $0.3 $1,354 $29 $17,853 $0.60



$0-$200 344 $0.6 $352 $14 $9,751 $1.54

$201-$500 173 $0.4 $1,015 $21 $31,404 $2.03

$501-$1,000 47 $0.3 $1,056 $70 $10,675 $1.05

$1,001-$5,000 49 $2 $1,354 $58 $17,098 $0.51

$5,001-$10,000 9 $14 $406 $119 $20,533 $0.36

$10,000+ 8 $3 $677 $285 $23,364 $0.21

ALL 630 $0.3 $1,354 $29 $17,853 $0.60




47

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - EASTERN EUROPE (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia)



€0-€200 119 <€0.1 €200 €4 €6,141 €0.35

€201-€500 20 €0.2 €133 €12 €4,132 €0.15

€501-€1,000 11 €1 €200 €34 €5,333 €0.28

€1,001-€5,000 11 €1 €150 €24 €4,707 €0.06

€5,001-€10,000 0 * * * * *

€10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 161 <€0.1 €200 €8 €5,268 €0.17





Hi-Tech, Communications and Media 10 €0.3 €20 €7 3 €2,512 1 €0.07 2

Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 8 €0.2 €10 €3 4 €8,194 4 €0.29 6



Retail and Consumer Brands 50 <€0.1 €7 €1 7 €10,654 7 €0.11 3


ALL 161 <€0.1 €200 €8 €5,268 €0.17



Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 38 $0.4 $271 $29 1 $5,528 3 $0.33 7


Hi-Tech, Communications and Media 10 $0.4 $27 $10 3 $2,512 1 $0.07 2

Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 8 $0.2 $14 $4 4 $8,194 4 $0.29 6

Finance - Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 11 $0.3 $7 $2 5 $8,205 5 $0.01 1


Retail and Consumer Brands 50 <$0.1 $10 $1 7 $10,654 7 $0.11 3


ALL 161 <$0.1 $271 $11 $5,268 $0.17



$0-$200 113 <$0.1 $271 $5 $6,025 $0.39

$201-$500 19 $0.1 $68 $6 $6,657 $0.12

$501-$1,000 16 $1 $271 $32 $2,074 $0.10

$1,001-$5,000 12 $1 $203 $46 $6,771 $0.16

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 161 <$0.1 $271 $11 $5,268 $0.17




48

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - NORDIC (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden)



€0-€200 124 €0.7 €201 €11 €7,468 €0.94

€201-€500 39 €0.7 €748 €33 €4,177 €0.46

€501-€1,000 19 €3 €215 €50 €10,458 €0.74

€1,001-€5,000 21 €6 €215 €49 €18,297 €0.40

€5,001-€10,000 11 €10 €277 €83 €27,402 €0.32

€10,000+ 2 * * * * *

ALL 216 €0.7 €748 €27 €12,430 €0.39



$0-$200 102 $0.9 $273 $12 $7,278 $1.00

$201-$500 55 $1 $1,013 $40 $4,689 $0.58

$501-$1,000 19 $4 $291 $56 $12,040 $0.89

$1,001-$5,000 23 $8 $291 $59 $16,616 $0.47

$5,001-$10,000 10 $30 $366 $101 $19,267 $0.27

$10,000+ 7 $14 $376 $146 $23,380 $0.27

ALL 216 $0.9 $1,013 $37 $12,430 $0.39




Transportation 12 $0.9 $1,013 $96 2 $1,497 1 $0.22 4




Retail and Consumer Brands 41 $2 $182 $27 6 $8,890 3 $0.10 3

Engineering 6 $3 $90 $25 7 $13,402 9 $0.47 7



Government 29 $4 $8 $7 10 $10,770 6 $0.69 8

ALL 216 $0.9 $1,013 $37 $12,430 $0.39



Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 12 €13 v215 €74 1 €13,076 8 €1.60 10

Transportation 12 €0.7 €748 €71 2 €1,497 1 €0.22 4

Personal, Business Services, Hotels, Amusements 19 €0.9 €277 €42 3 €30,324 10 €1.10 9



Retail and Consumer Brands 41 €1 €134 €20 6 €8,890 3 €0.10 3

Engineering 6 €2 €67 €18 7 €13,402 9 €0.47 7



Government 29 €3 €6 €5 10 €10,770 6 €0.69 8

ALL 216 €0.7 €748 €27 €12,430 €0.39




49

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - AUSTRALIA



$0-$200 20 $4 $585 $143 $3,133 $5.74

$201-$500 4 $39 $156 $78 $4,569 $1.02

$501-$1,000 9 $78 $234 $158 $7,727 $1.56

$1,001-$5,000 17 $39 $773 $198 $11,120 $1.00

$5,001-$10,000 3 $0.8 $195 $124 $24,175 $0.56

$10,000+ 2 * * * * *

ALL 55 $0.8 $773 $160 $7,960 $0.78



Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction, Mining 12 $0.8 $585 $206 1 $5,613 1 $1.08 4

Finance, Banks, Holding Companies, Real Estate, Other 8 $78 $308 $179 2 $9,952 6 $0.38 1

Public Entities, Education, Nonprofit Organizations 6 $78 $234 $169 3 $5,691 2 $3.30 7


Transportation 8 $39 $234 $132 5 $9,897 5 $1.32 5



Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 1 * * * * *

ALL 55 $0.8 $773 $160 $7,960 $0.78




50

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - NEW ZEALAND



$0-$200 19 $7 $720 $65 $1,152 $0.67

$201-$500 9 $4 $72 $33 $2,784 $0.29

$501-$1,000 7 $7 $72 $33 $3,286 $0.15

$1,001-$5,000 1 * * * * *

$5,001-$10,000 * * * * * *

$10,000+ * * * * * *

ALL 36 $4 $720 $51 $1,671 $0.24



Transportation 3 $7 $720 $262 1 $654 1 $1.37 4




Hi-Tech, Communications and Media 1 * * * * *

Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 2 * * * * *

ALL 36 $4 $720 $51 $1,671 $0.24




51

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - SOUTH AFRICA



$0-$200 7 $9 $450 $210 $404 $0.83

$201-$500 7 $2 $35 $14 $7,673 $0.32

$501-$1,000 4 $18 $558 $164 $807 $0.17

$1,001-$5,000 9 $34 $558 $213 $1,924 $0.21

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 29 $2 $558 $165 $1,210 $0.14





Transportation 3 $2 $18 $9 3 $13,003 3 $0.58 2


Retail and Consumer Brands 2 * * * * *

Finance - Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 1 * * * * *

ALL 29 $2 $558 $165 $1,210 $0.14




52

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - LATIN AMERICA (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela)


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000ANNUAL REVENUES ($US M) RESPONSES ($US M) ($US M) ($US M) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 333 <$0.1 $206 $9 $8,200 $0.82

$201-$500 91 $0.2 $168 $17 $7,751 $0.43

$501-$1,000 19 $0.6 $65 $13 $14,155 $0.26

$1,001-$5,000 13 $1 $150 $40 $10,974 $0.21

$5,001-$10,000 0 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 456 <$0.1 $206 $12 $8,628 $0.42



Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 129 <$0.1 $206 $26 1 $4,971 1 $0.44 6



Personal, Business Services, Hotels, Amusements 32 $0.1 $60 $9 4 $7,567 2 $0.95 9

Transportation 18 $1 $25 $9 5 $12,128 5 $0.93 8

Retail, Consumer Brands 57 <$0.1 $30 $3 6 $13,294 6 $0.18 3



Public Entities, Education, Nonprofit 25 <$0.1 $2 $1 9 $21,324 8 $0.14 1

ALL 456 <$0.1 $206 $12 $8,628 $0.42




53

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - ASIA (Japan, Korea, Taiwan)



$0-$200 2 * * * * *

$201-$500 0 * * * * *

$501-$1,000 4 $5 $50 $31 $19,364 $0.80

$1,001-$5,000 12 $20 $487 $137 $17,975 $0.94

$5,001-$10,000 6 $10 $214 $104 $13,374 $0.22

$10,000+ 8 $10 $249 $94 $15,913 $0.03

ALL 32 $5 $487 $100 $16,366 $0.12





Electric Appliances, Precision Instruments 13 $5 $150 $71 3 $8,649 1 $0.10 3

Machinery, Transportation Equipment 7 $10 $105 $42 4 $24,122 4 $0.07 2

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 2 * * * * *

ALL 32 $5 $487 $100 $16,366 $0.12




34

All Industries - Summary as of January 1, 2005 By Assets


NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000TOTAL ASSETS (MILLIONS) RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 823 $1 $500 $31 $9,803 $0.96

$201-$500 318 $3 $350 $47 $10,012 $0.94

$501-$1,000 218 $4 $360 $76 $12,848 $0.76

$1,001-$5000 292 $4 $890 $1,147 $16,363 $0.84

$5,001-$10,000 51 $5 $642 $176 $17,954 $0.51

$10,000+ 119 $8 $1,000 $247 $19,017 $0.19

Not Disclosed/Available 1,043 $1 $750 $76 $10,809 $0.35

ALL 2,864 $1 $1,000 $75 $13,222 $0.39



$0-$200 1,199 $1 $1,000 $33 $8,323 $3.09

$201-$500 572 $1 $700 $47 $9,885 $1.37

$501-$1,000 354 $5 $340 $72 $11,054 $1.08

$1,001-$5,000 515 $2 $750 $120 $15,158 $0.77

$5,001-$10,000 94 $1 $1,000 $205 $16,114 $0.44

$10,000+ 130 $8 $950 $262 $17,769 $0.13

ALL 2,864 $1 $1,000 $75 $13,222 $0.39

All Industries - Summary as of January 1, 2005 By Revenues

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - UNITED STATES



$0-$200 1,177 $1 $500 $33 $8,714 $3.21

$201-$500 589 $1 $700 $51 $10,293 $1.56

$501-$1,000 373 $5 $456 $73 $12,906 $1.27

$1,001-$5,000 499 $2 $750 $124 $15,820 $0.86

$5,001-$10,000 96 $10 $1,000 $190 $13,398 $0.36

$10,000+ 118 $11 $1,005 $306 $19,517 $0.18

ALL 2,852 $1 $1,005 $77 $13,727 $0.48




$0-$200 1,020 $1 $400 $37 $6,330 $2.31

$201-$500 592 $3 $640 $53 $8,597 $1.30

$501-$1,000 362 $4 $790 $78 $9,964 $1.03

$1,001-$5,000 518 $2 $1,000 $129 $11,933 $0.67

$5,001-$10,000 112 $10 $1,300 $237 $13,949 $0.42

$10,000+ 122 $10 $1,200 $335 $16,882 $0.17

ALL 2,726 $1 $1,300 $87 $11,614 $0.40


b_Survey_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:51 AM Page 3



35


AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGELIMITS PRICE PER COST PER

INDUSTRY (MILLIONS) RANK MILLION RANK $1,000 REVENUE RANK

1. Food, Agriculture, Tobacco, Textiles $83 8 $8,594 6 $0.22 5

2. Mining, Energy $102 3 $14,804 17 $0.27 8

3. Construction $46 20 $29,895 22 $2.37 23

4. Lumber, Furniture, Packaging, Paper $67 15 $11,278 13 $0.45 12

5. Printing, Publishing $83 7 $5,684 1 $0.37 9

6. Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals $112 2 $22,852 21 $0.94 19

7. Rubber, Plastic $46 21 $13,149 14 $0.62 16

8. Primary Metals, Leather, Stone $78 10 $10,872 12 $0.51 15

9. Metal Products $63 18 $8,611 7 $0.44 11

10. Machinery $76 12 $9,117 8 $0.26 7

11. Electrical Equipment, Instruments $68 14 $9,185 10 $0.48 14

12. Transportation Equipment $85 6 $17,187 18 $0.25 6

13. Miscellaneous Manufacturing $66 17 $13,676 16 $0.40 10

14. Transportation Services $90 5 $18,166 19 $1.44 21

15. Telecommunications $77 11 $10,000 11 $0.18 4

16. Utility—Non-nuclear $113 1 $13,512 15 $0.81 18

17. Wholesale, Retail Trade $69 13 $9,122 9 $0.15 3

18. Finance—Banks, Holding Companies, Real Estate, Other $81 9 $5,737 2 $0.12 2

19. Insurance $98 4 $5,853 3 $0.06 1

20. Personal/Business Services, Hotels, Amusements $66 16 $6,749 4 $0.46 13

21. Health Care $37 23 $52,004 23 $1.47 22

22. Education, Nonprofit Institutions $53 19 $7,277 5 $0.77 17

23. Government $39 22 $21,724 20 $1.00 20

Industry Rankings - Summary as of January 2005




36



$0-$200 61 $1 $100 $25 $6,206 $1.57

$201-$500 35 $10 $150 $55 $5,888 $0.96

$501-$1,000 16 $10 $100 $56 $7,706 $0.61

$1,001-$5,000 36 $25 $350 $149 $7,848 $0.45

$5,001-$10,000 4 $25 $200 $138 $9,051 $0.18

$10,000+ 12 $50 $575 $283 $12,445 $0.11

ALL 164 $1 $575 $83 $8,594 $0.22

1. Food, Agriculture, Tobacco, Textiles



$0-$200 43 $1 $139 $40 $8,558 $3.81

$201-$500 15 $20 $167 $68 $10,074 $2.07

$501-$1,000 7 $8 $340 $118 $16,017 $2.59

$1,001-$5,000 14 $5 $300 $142 $11,005 $0.73

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 6 $40 $700 $451 $23,821 $0.15

ALL 86 $1 $700 $102 $14,804 $0.27

2. Mining, Energy

0100 Agricultural Production - Crops0200 Agricultural Production - Livestock0700 Agricultural Services0800 Forestry0900 Fishing, Hunting & Trapping2000 Food & Kindred Products2100 Tobacco Products2200 Textile Mill Products2300 Apparel & Other Textile Products

1000 Metal Mining1200 Coal Mining1300 Oil & Gas Extraction1400 Mining & Quarrying - Nonmetallic2900 Petroleum Refining4600 Pipeline




$0-$200 62 $3 $65 $21 $13,470 $4.18

$201-$500 12 $15 $100 $49 $17,235 $2.80

$501-$1,000 7 $10 $100 $50 $11,446 $0.77

$1,001-$5,000 8 $50 $300 $149 $26,889 $1.70

$5,001-$10,000 3 $44 $450 $291 $72,368 $2.76

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 92 $3 $450 $46 $29,895 $2.37

3. Construction



$0-$200 21 $1 $50 $22 $4,130 $0.94

$201-$500 14 $15 $100 $49 $4,443 $0.69

$501-$1,000 10 $25 $125 $62 $6,281 $0.53

$1,001-$5,000 15 $50 $200 $102 $11,957 $0.66

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 3 $195 $400 $298 $21,581 $0.32

ALL 64 $1 $400 $67 $11,278 $0.45

4. Lumber, Furniture, Packaging, Paper

1500 General Building Contractors1600 Heavy Construction1700 Special Trade Contractors

2400 Lumber and Wood Products2500 Furniture & Fixtures2600 Paper & Allied Products




37



NUMBER OF LIMITS LIMITS LIMITS PRICE PER PER $1,000TOTAL REVENUES ($US M) RESPONSES (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) (MILLIONS) MILLION REVENUE

$0-$200 12 $5 $50 $27 $2,756 $0.55

$201-$500 13 $25 $180 $63 $3,502 $0.65

$501-$1,000 5 $25 $75 $45 $8,491 $0.54

$1,001-$5,000 10 $4 $400 $162 $4,742 $0.29

$5,001-$10,000 3 $175 $200 $192 $11,316 $0.35

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 43 $4 $400 $83 $5,684 $0.37

5. Printing, Publishing



$0-$200 50 $3 $1,000 $43 $14,768 $7.82

$201-$500 32 $1 $125 $44 $17,306 $2.55

$501-$1,000 11 $25 $300 $140 $16,031 $2.81

$1,001-$5,000 37 $4 $500 $165 $18,375 $1.48

$5,001-$10,000 6 $11 $642 $405 $18,232 $0.91

$10,000+ 7 $20 $950 $328 $53,294 $0.53

ALL 143 $1 $1,000 $112 $22,852 $0.94

6. Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals

2700 Printing, Publishing andAllied Trades

2800 Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals & DrugManufacturing



$0-$200 18 $3 $35 $18 $5,000 $0.89

$201-$500 10 $20 $50 $39 $7,056 $0.91

$501-$1,000 5 $35 $100 $77 $5,062 $0.52

$1,001-$5,000 5 $50 $200 $120 $27,704 $1.66

$5,001-$10,000 0 * * * * *

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 39 $3 $200 $46 $13,149 $0.62



$0-$200 23 $1 $50 $25 $6,057 $1.58

$201-$500 8 $15 $100 $43 $5,053 $0.68

$501-$1,000 12 $25 $100 $57 $5,784 $0.41

$1,001-$5,000 12 $2 $550 $172 $13,511 $0.96

$5,001-$10,000 2 * * * * *

$10,000+ 2 * * * * *

ALL 59 $1 $550 $78 $10,872 $0.51

8. Primary Metals, Leather, Stone

7. Rubber, Plastic3000 Rubber & Plastic Products

3100 Leather & Leather Products3200 Stone, Clay, Glass & Concrete3300 Primary Metal Industries




38




$0-$200 49 $1 $100 $24 $5,933 $1.39

$201-$500 35 $4 $200 $36 $7,166 $0.75

$501-$1,000 15 $5 $100 $51 $5,714 $0.42

$1,001-$5,000 25 $10 $500 $148 $11,320 $0.65

$5,001-$10,000 5 $75 $500 $235 $5,815 $0.16

$10,000+ 7 $100 $600 $321 $11,758 $0.12

ALL 136 $1 $600 $76 $9,117 $0.26

10. Machinery



$0-$200 33 $2 $350 $33 $4,365 $1.61

$201-$500 14 $15 $135 $62 $5,006 $0.92

$501-$1,000 13 $20 $200 $88 $8,925 $0.97

$1,001-$5,000 8 $35 $100 $55 $16,013 $0.45

$5,001-$10,000 3 $10 $400 $187 $9,628 $0.22

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 72 $2 $450 $63 $8,611 $0.44

9. Metal Products3400 Fabricated Metal Products

(except Machinery & Transportation Equip)

3500 Industrial, Commercial Machinery& Computer Equipment



$0-$200 58 $5 $100 $20 $5,149 $1.18

$201-$500 44 $10 $125 $40 $6,056 $0.71

$501-$1,000 20 $10 $250 $62 $9,152 $0.77

$1,001-$5,000 38 $10 $400 $134 $11,743 $0.66

$5,001-$10,000 3 $200 $290 $246 $7,356 $0.21

$10,000+ 6 $150 $500 $246 $8,109 $0.12

ALL 169 $5 $500 $68 $9,185 $0.48

11. Electrical Equipment, Instruments3600 Electronics & Other Electrical

Equipment (except Computer Equipment)

3800 Instruments & Related Products



$0-$200 19 $1 $50 $20 $5,532 $1.12

$201-$500 8 $10 $50 $25 $10,051 $0.73

$501-$1,000 13 $5 $325 $93 $10,568 $1.15

$1,001-$5,000 10 $30 $400 $132 $11,387 $0.70

$5,001-$10,000 2 * * * * *

$10,000+ 6 $125 $520 $255 $29,222 $0.17

ALL 58 $1 $520 $85 $17,187 $0.25

12. Transporation Equipment3700 Transportation Equipment




39




$0-$200 57 $1 $100 $24 $6,685 $1.72

$201-$500 34 $4 $100 $47 $7,781 $1.13

$501-$1,000 22 $10 $200 $80 $6,894 $0.78

$1,001-$5,000 22 $6 $350 $136 $11,874 $0.68

$5,001-$10,000 2 * * * * *

$10,000+ 4 $8 $900 $340 $33,581 $0.22

ALL 141 $1 $900 $66 $13,676 $0.40

13. Miscellaneous Manufacturing



$0-$200 67 $1 $500 $48 $13,756 $7.83

$201-$500 29 $1 $700 $80 $17,498 $3.20

$501-$1,000 7 $5 $100 $59 $11,077 $0.87

$1,001-$5,000 17 $6 $750 $159 $24,130 $2.03

$5,001-$10,000 4 $100 $1,000 $544 $18,281 $1.26

$10,000+ 2 * $300 * * *

ALL 126 $1 $1,000 $90 $18,166 $1.44

14. Transporation Services



$0-$200 26 $3 $125 $32 $3,139 $0.88

$201-$500 16 $5 $50 $27 $3,822 $0.28

$501-$1,000 12 $10 $100 $56 $5,697 $0.46

$1,001-$5,000 13 $50 $200 $117 $7,965 $0.39

$5,001-$10,000 5 $75 $150 $115 $21,108 $0.29

$10,000+ 10 $14 $400 $231 $14,282 $0.12

ALL 82 $3 $400 $77 $10,000 $0.18

15. Telecommunications

3900 Miscellaneous Manufacturing Industries

4000 Railroad Transportation4100 Local/Suburban/Interurban Highway

Passenger Transportation4200 Motor Freight Transp. &

Warehousing4400 Water Transportation4500 Transportation by Air4700 Transportation Services

4800 Communications, Telephone, Radio/TV Broadcasting



$0-$200 37 $5 $500 $40 $7,895 $4.21

$201-$500 20 $5 $250 $48 $10,845 $1.64

$501-$1,000 16 $9 $210 $87 $15,028 $1.82

$1,001-$5,000 23 $30 $703 $165 $16,274 $1.22

$5,001-$10,000 6 $10 $975 $383 $14,709 $0.68

$10,000+ 6 $15 $890 $390 $11,762 $0.34

ALL 108 $5 $975 $113 $13,512 $0.81

16. Utility—Non-nuclear4910 Electric Services4920 Gas Production & Distribution4930 Combined Electric & Gas Utility4999 Water, Sanitary, etc.




40




$0-$200 88 $2 $100 $21 $4,340 $0.88

$201-$500 72 $3 $110 $40 $4,922 $0.64

$501-$1,000 40 $9 $250 $66 $6,227 $0.53

$1,001-$5,000 80 $5 $400 $91 $10,726 $0.38

$5,001-$10,000 7 $25 $300 $114 $9,799 $0.17

$10,000+ 21 $75 $500 $280 $11,462 $0.07

ALL 308 $2 $500 $69 $9,122 $0.15

17. Wholesale, Retail Trade



$0-$200 105 $5 $750 $62 $4,272 $3.66

$201-$500 16 $3 $100 $50 $4,434 $0.68

$501-$1,000 22 $10 $250 $109 $6,717 $0.96

$1,001-$5,000 20 $10 $300 $104 $5,696 $0.24

$5,001-$10,000 7 $75 $400 $186 $8,159 $0.21

$10,000+ 14 $10 $300 $131 $8,228 $0.03

ALL 184 $3 $750 $81 $5,737 $0.12

18. Finance—Banks, Holding Co., Real Estate, Other



$0-$200 8 $10 $35 $21 $19,939 $4.46

$201-$500 1 * * * * *

$501-$1,000 7 $10 $75 $31 $4,385 $0.17

$1,001-$5,000 15 $15 $250 $70 $3,252 $0.08

$5,001-$10,000 9 $25 $200 $107 $6,583 $0.09

$10,000+ 14 $100 $400 $205 $5,887 $0.04

ALL 54 $10 $400 $98 $5,853 $0.06

19. Insurance

5000 Wholesale Trade, Durable Goods5100 Wholesale Trade, Non-durable

Goods5200 Building Materials/Hardware Stores5300 General Merchandise Stores5400 Food Stores5500 Auto Dealers & Service Stations5600 Apparel & Accessory Stores5700 Furniture & Home Furnishings

Stores5800 Eating & Drinking Places5900 Miscellaneous Retail

6000 Depository Institutions6100 Nondepository Credit Institutions6200 Security & Commodities Brokers6500 Real Estate6700 Holding & Other Investment Offices

6300 Insurance Carriers6400 Insurance Agents, Brokers &

Services



$0-$200 169 $1 $350 $44 $4,254 $2.03

$201-$500 65 $3 $300 $58 $5,353 $0.92

$501-$1,000 48 $10 $300 $75 $6,625 $0.71

$1,001-$5,000 44 $10 $400 $106 $9,793 $0.46

$5,001-$10,000 12 $75 $350 $173 $7,885 $0.18

$10,000+ 3 $125 $395 $240 $15,347 $0.21

ALL 341 $1 $400 $66 $6,749 $0.46

20. Personal/Business Services, Hotels, Amusements7000 Hotels, Rooming Houses, Camps &

Other Lodging7200 Personal Services7300 Business Services7500 Auto Repair, Services & Parking7600 Miscellaneous Repair Services7800 Motion Pictures7900 Amusement & Recreation Services8100 Legal Services8700 Engineering, Accounting, Research,

Management & Related Services




41




$0-$200 96 $1 $150 $15 $49,323 $8.31

$201-$500 50 $4 $100 $27 $47,163 $3.70

$501-$1,000 25 $5 $200 $49 $51,415 $3.32

$1,001-$5,000 40 $4 $190 $76 $62,423 $2.19

$5,001-$10,000 7 $1 $245 $84 $30,040 $0.34

$10,000+ 4 $20 $400 $131 $32,650 $0.17

ALL 222 $1 $400 $37 $52,004 $1.47

21. Health Care



$0-$200 69 $1 $150 $38 $6,613 $3.21

$201-$500 18 $5 $150 $59 $6,498 $1.12

$501-$1,000 10 $25 $250 $91 $8,638 $1.10

$1,001-$5,000 14 $10 $160 $91 $8,300 $0.34

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 112 $1 $250 $53 $7,277 $0.77

22. Education, Nonprofit Institutions



$0-$200 28 $2 $250 $32 $9,616 $4.15

$201-$500 11 $4 $50 $25 $16,166 $1.33

$501-$1,000 11 $7 $135 $48 $20,173 $1.37

$1,001-$5,000 9 $8 $195 $62 $33,846 $1.01

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 61 $2 $250 $39 $21,724 $1.00

23. Government

8000 Health Services, Hospitals, Labs,Clinics, Nursing Homes

8200 Educational Services, Universities,Schools, Libraries, etc.

8300 Social Services, Daycare, Residential Care

8400 Museums, Art Galleries, Botanical& Zoological Gardens

8600 Membership Organizations

4300 U.S. Postal Service8940 Municipalities8950 Cities8960 Counties8970 States9100 Executive, Legislative & General9400 Administration of Human Resources9500 Environmental Quality & Housing




42





Engineering 8 $6 $32 $17 3 $12,330 5 $3.13 4

Finance--Banks,Holding Companies, Real Estate, Other 7 $7 $37 $17 4 $2,808 1 $0.14 1

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction, Mining 5 $10 $26 $14 5 $11,819 4 $5.17 6

Health Care 7 $1 $16 $5 6 $17,995 6 $1.79 3

Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics Manufacturing 2 * * * * *


ALL 75 $1 $77 $17 $8,624 $1.35

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - PUERTO RICO



$0-$200 66 $1 $77 $15 $9,342 $2.51

$201-$500 7 $3 $52 $24 $5,946 $0.47

$501-$1,000 1 * * * * *

$1,001-$5,000 1 * * * * *

$5,001-$10,000 0 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 75 $1 $77 $17 $8,624 $1.35




43

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - CANADA



Power, Nuclear, Utilites, Construction, Mining 52 $2 $1,000 $121 1 $6,090 5 $0.38 4

Transportation 44 $2 $1,163 $80 2 $18,014 9 $2.41 9


Hi-Tech, Comuunications, Media 13 $19 $165 $58 4 $3,614 1 $0.09 2





Public Entities, Education, Nonprofit 19 $0.8 $229 $37 9 $13,313 8 $0.62 7

ALL 301 $0.8 $1,163 $69 $8,656 $0.45



$0-$200 156 $0.8 $171 $21 $7,519 $1.76

$201-$500 46 $8 $249 $44 $8,614 $1.12

$501-$1,000 29 $3 $231 $61 $7,223 $0.61

$1,001-$5,000 50 $8 $791 $148 $6,839 $0.41

$5,001-$10,000 10 $25 $1,163 $348 $16,722 $0.85

$10,000+ 10 $78 $1,000 $288 $5,604 $0.11

ALL 301 $0.8 $1,163 $69 $8,656 $0.45




44

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - NORTHWESTERN EUROPE (Ireland, United Kingdom)



Transportation 35 $10 $766 $141 1 $6,559 4 $0.65 7

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 54 $2 $1,197 $125 2 $9,159 7 $0.66 8




Food, Beverage 31 $2 $469 $69 6 $7,312 6 $0.32 4

Governmental 14 $19 $134 $68 7 $10,705 9 $0.55 5



Consumer, Retail Brands 62 $2 $191 $40 10 $5,743 2 $0.15 3

ALL 467 $0.6 $1,197 $77 $7,815 $0.39



€0-€200 265 €0.4 €566 €34 €4,291 €1.62

€201-€500 86 €0.8 €249 €54 €7,417 €1.28

€501-€1,000 40 €7 €226 €61 €11,708 €0.97

€1,001-€5,000 51 €1 €884 €132 €9,116 €0.52

€5,001-€10,000 14 €15 €283 €130 €16,947 €0.36

€10,000+ 11 €4 €594 €172 €6,909 €0.06

ALL 467 €0.4 €884 €57 €7,815 €0.39



$0-$200 265 $0.6 $766 $45 $4,291 $1.62

$201-$500 86 $1 $337 $73 $7,417 $1.28

$501-$1,000 40 $9 $306 $82 $11,708 $0.97

$1,001-$5,000 51 $2 $1,197 $179 $9,116 $0.52

$5,001-$10,000 14 $20 $383 $176 $16,947 $0.36

$10,000+ 11 $5 $804 $233 $6,909 $0.06

ALL 467 $0.6 $1,197 $77 $7,815 $0.39



Transportation 35 €7 €566 €104 1 €6,559 4 €0.65 7



Finance - Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 37 €1 €170 €56 4 €2,409 1 €0.05 1

Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 19 €0.8 €198 €54 5 €19,065 10 €1.85 10

Food, Beverage 31 €1 €346 €51 6 €7,312 6 €0.32 4

Governmental 14 €14 €99 €51 7 €10,705 9 €0.55 5



Consumer, Retail Brands 62 €1 €141 €30 10 €5,743 2 €0.15 3

ALL 467 €0.4 €884 €57 €7,815 €0.39




45

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - CENTRAL & WESTERN EUROPE (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland)



€0-€200 401 €0.5 €800 €13 €7,290 €1.12

€201-€500 145 €1 €120 €22 €14,859 €1.05

€501-€1,000 55 €3 €250 €46 €14,941 €0.93

€1,001-€5,000 76 €2 €590 €103 €20,769 €0.92

€5,001-€10,000 16 €10 €620 €97 €39,961 €0.55

€10,000+ 17 €5 €1,000 €249 €22,223 €0.24

ALL 710 €0.5 €1,000 €35 €17,931 €0.55



$0-$200 341 $0.6 $1,083 $18 $6,916 $1.31

$201-$500 168 $1 $162 $25 $13,001 $1.03

$501-$1,000 66 $2 $135 $33 $18,384 $0.85

$1,001-$5,000 86 $2 $745 $100 $19,021 $0.93

$5,001-$10,000 27 $3 $839 $223 $27,304 $0.88

$10,000+ 22 $7 $1,354 $281 $21,647 $0.22

ALL 710 $0.6 $1,354 $47 $17,931 $0.55



Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 52 $1 $1,354 $157 1 $27,153 8 $2.02 8




Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 307 $1 $1,083 $42 5 $13,546 3 $0.46 5

Transportation 19 $2 $227 $40 6 $16,552 5 $0.19 3



Engineering 14 $4 $34 $15 9 $63,992 9 $4.18 9


ALL 710 $0.6 $1,354 $47 $17,931 $0.55



Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 52 €1 €1,000 €116 1 €27,153 8 €2.02 8


Finance—Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 25 €3 €200 €40 3 €6,570 1 €0.14 1



Transportation 19 €2 €168 €30 6 €16,552 5 €0.19 3

Retail, Consumer Brands 141 €0.5 €183 €15 7 €13,756 3 €0.25 4


Engineering 14 €3 €25 €11 9 €63,992 9 €4.18 9


ALL 710 €0.5 €1,000 €35 €17,931 €0.55




46

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - SOUTHERN EUROPE (Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey)



€0-€200 400 €0.3 €260 €10 €11,121 €1.44

€201-€500 141 €0.3 €750 €19 €30,653 €1.93

€501-€1,000 39 €1 €780 €52 €10,884 €0.78

€1,001-€5,000 37 €2 €1,000 €56 €15,805 €0.45

€5,001-€10,000 7 €3 €300 €118 €19,445 €0.35

€10,000+ 6 €10 €500 €247 €25,184 €0.22

ALL 630 €0.3 €1,000 €21 €17,853 €0.60



Transportation 29 €0.3 €1,000 €138 1 €4,348 1 €1.45 9


Engineering 6 €0.6 €120 €23 3 €33,658 8 €0.75 6




Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 143 €1 €70 €9 7 €18,211 6 €0.19 3

Retail and Consumer Brands 157 €0.5 €100 €7 8 €7,697 2 €0.18 2


Government 31 €1 €10 €4 10 €72,594 10 €1.45 8

ALL 630 €0.3 €1,000 €21 €17,853 €0.60



Transportation 29 $0.3 $1,354 $187 1 $4,348 1 $1.45 9


Engineering 6 $1 $162 $31 3 $33,658 8 $0.75 6





Retail and Consumer Brands 157 $0.6 $135 $10 8 $7,697 2 $0.18 2


Government 31 $1 $14 $6 10 $72,594 10 $1.45 8

ALL 630 $0.3 $1,354 $29 $17,853 $0.60



$0-$200 344 $0.6 $352 $14 $9,751 $1.54

$201-$500 173 $0.4 $1,015 $21 $31,404 $2.03

$501-$1,000 47 $0.3 $1,056 $70 $10,675 $1.05

$1,001-$5,000 49 $2 $1,354 $58 $17,098 $0.51

$5,001-$10,000 9 $14 $406 $119 $20,533 $0.36

$10,000+ 8 $3 $677 $285 $23,364 $0.21

ALL 630 $0.3 $1,354 $29 $17,853 $0.60




47

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - EASTERN EUROPE (Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia)



€0-€200 119 <€0.1 €200 €4 €6,141 €0.35

€201-€500 20 €0.2 €133 €12 €4,132 €0.15

€501-€1,000 11 €1 €200 €34 €5,333 €0.28

€1,001-€5,000 11 €1 €150 €24 €4,707 €0.06

€5,001-€10,000 0 * * * * *

€10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 161 <€0.1 €200 €8 €5,268 €0.17





Hi-Tech, Communications and Media 10 €0.3 €20 €7 3 €2,512 1 €0.07 2

Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals 8 €0.2 €10 €3 4 €8,194 4 €0.29 6



Retail and Consumer Brands 50 <€0.1 €7 €1 7 €10,654 7 €0.11 3


ALL 161 <€0.1 €200 €8 €5,268 €0.17



Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 38 $0.4 $271 $29 1 $5,528 3 $0.33 7






Retail and Consumer Brands 50 <$0.1 $10 $1 7 $10,654 7 $0.11 3


ALL 161 <$0.1 $271 $11 $5,268 $0.17



$0-$200 113 <$0.1 $271 $5 $6,025 $0.39

$201-$500 19 $0.1 $68 $6 $6,657 $0.12

$501-$1,000 16 $1 $271 $32 $2,074 $0.10

$1,001-$5,000 12 $1 $203 $46 $6,771 $0.16

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 161 <$0.1 $271 $11 $5,268 $0.17




48

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - NORDIC (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden)



€0-€200 124 €0.7 €201 €11 €7,468 €0.94

€201-€500 39 €0.7 €748 €33 €4,177 €0.46

€501-€1,000 19 €3 €215 €50 €10,458 €0.74

€1,001-€5,000 21 €6 €215 €49 €18,297 €0.40

€5,001-€10,000 11 €10 €277 €83 €27,402 €0.32

€10,000+ 2 * * * * *

ALL 216 €0.7 €748 €27 €12,430 €0.39



$0-$200 102 $0.9 $273 $12 $7,278 $1.00

$201-$500 55 $1 $1,013 $40 $4,689 $0.58

$501-$1,000 19 $4 $291 $56 $12,040 $0.89

$1,001-$5,000 23 $8 $291 $59 $16,616 $0.47

$5,001-$10,000 10 $30 $366 $101 $19,267 $0.27

$10,000+ 7 $14 $376 $146 $23,380 $0.27

ALL 216 $0.9 $1,013 $37 $12,430 $0.39




Transportation 12 $0.9 $1,013 $96 2 $1,497 1 $0.22 4





Engineering 6 $3 $90 $25 7 $13,402 9 $0.47 7



Government 29 $4 $8 $7 10 $10,770 6 $0.69 8

ALL 216 $0.9 $1,013 $37 $12,430 $0.39




Transportation 12 €0.7 €748 €71 2 €1,497 1 €0.22 4

Personal, Business Services, Hotels, Amusements 19 €0.9 €277 €42 3 €30,324 10 €1.10 9



Retail and Consumer Brands 41 €1 €134 €20 6 €8,890 3 €0.10 3

Engineering 6 €2 €67 €18 7 €13,402 9 €0.47 7



Government 29 €3 €6 €5 10 €10,770 6 €0.69 8

ALL 216 €0.7 €748 €27 €12,430 €0.39




49

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - AUSTRALIA



$0-$200 20 $4 $585 $143 $3,133 $5.74

$201-$500 4 $39 $156 $78 $4,569 $1.02

$501-$1,000 9 $78 $234 $158 $7,727 $1.56

$1,001-$5,000 17 $39 $773 $198 $11,120 $1.00

$5,001-$10,000 3 $0.8 $195 $124 $24,175 $0.56

$10,000+ 2 * * * * *

ALL 55 $0.8 $773 $160 $7,960 $0.78



Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction, Mining 12 $0.8 $585 $206 1 $5,613 1 $1.08 4

Finance, Banks, Holding Companies, Real Estate, Other 8 $78 $308 $179 2 $9,952 6 $0.38 1

Public Entities, Education, Nonprofit Organizations 6 $78 $234 $169 3 $5,691 2 $3.30 7


Transportation 8 $39 $234 $132 5 $9,897 5 $1.32 5



Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals 1 * * * * *

ALL 55 $0.8 $773 $160 $7,960 $0.78




50

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - NEW ZEALAND



$0-$200 19 $7 $720 $65 $1,152 $0.67

$201-$500 9 $4 $72 $33 $2,784 $0.29

$501-$1,000 7 $7 $72 $33 $3,286 $0.15

$1,001-$5,000 1 * * * * *

$5,001-$10,000 * * * * * *

$10,000+ * * * * * *

ALL 36 $4 $720 $51 $1,671 $0.24



Transportation 3 $7 $720 $262 1 $654 1 $1.37 4





Rubber, Plastics, Machinery, Electronics, Manufacturing 2 * * * * *

ALL 36 $4 $720 $51 $1,671 $0.24




51

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - SOUTH AFRICA



$0-$200 7 $9 $450 $210 $404 $0.83

$201-$500 7 $2 $35 $14 $7,673 $0.32

$501-$1,000 4 $18 $558 $164 $807 $0.17

$1,001-$5,000 9 $34 $558 $213 $1,924 $0.21

$5,001-$10,000 1 * * * * *

$10,000+ 1 * * * * *

ALL 29 $2 $558 $165 $1,210 $0.14





Transportation 3 $2 $18 $9 3 $13,003 3 $0.58 2


Retail and Consumer Brands 2 * * * * *

Finance - Banks, Insurance, Real Estate, Other 1 * * * * *

ALL 29 $2 $558 $165 $1,210 $0.14




52

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - LATIN AMERICA (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Mexico, Peru, Venezuela)



$0-$200 333 <$0.1 $206 $9 $8,200 $0.82

$201-$500 91 $0.2 $168 $17 $7,751 $0.43

$501-$1,000 19 $0.6 $65 $13 $14,155 $0.26

$1,001-$5,000 13 $1 $150 $40 $10,974 $0.21

$5,001-$10,000 0 * * * * *

$10,000+ 0 * * * * *

ALL 456 <$0.1 $206 $12 $8,628 $0.42



Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 129 <$0.1 $206 $26 1 $4,971 1 $0.44 6



Personal, Business Services, Hotels, Amusements 32 $0.1 $60 $9 4 $7,567 2 $0.95 9

Transportation 18 $1 $25 $9 5 $12,128 5 $0.93 8

Retail, Consumer Brands 57 <$0.1 $30 $3 6 $13,294 6 $0.18 3



Public Entities, Education, Nonprofit 25 <$0.1 $2 $1 9 $21,324 8 $0.14 1

ALL 456 <$0.1 $206 $12 $8,628 $0.42




53

Survey ResultsALL INDUSTRIES - ASIA (Japan, Korea, Taiwan)



$0-$200 2 * * * * *

$201-$500 0 * * * * *

$501-$1,000 4 $5 $50 $31 $19,364 $0.80

$1,001-$5,000 12 $20 $487 $137 $17,975 $0.94

$5,001-$10,000 6 $10 $214 $104 $13,374 $0.22

$10,000+ 8 $10 $249 $94 $15,913 $0.03

ALL 32 $5 $487 $100 $16,366 $0.12





Electric Appliances, Precision Instruments 13 $5 $150 $71 3 $8,649 1 $0.10 3

Machinery, Transportation Equipment 7 $10 $105 $42 4 $24,122 4 $0.07 2

Power, Nuclear, Utilities, Construction and Mining 2 * * * * *

ALL 32 $5 $487 $100 $16,366 $0.12



Appendix A:

Around the World:What’s New?


from foreign expertise in developing its insurance

system. Part of China’s commitment to the WTO

was to lift nearly all geographic and business-scope

restrictions on foreign insurers, which CIRC says has

been done. The next step, CIRC said, is to remove

restrictions that impede foreign insurers’ establish-

ment of motor-vehicle liability insurance.

JapanThere is a growing awareness of liability exposures—

not only general liability and products liability, but

also errors and omissions and professional liability.

This awareness has been the prime factor driving

six consecutive years of premium increases. Overall,

liability insurance premiums increased to ¥374

billion ($3.6 billion) in 2004, a 5 percent increase

over 2003.

The Personal Protection Information Law was

established on April 1, 2005. It requires companies

holding personal data on more than 5,000 individu-

als—including their own employees—to follow a set

of government-issued guidelines in handling that

information. Japanese insurers provide insurance to

cover liability arising from the revelation of personal

information.

ASIA

ChinaThe insurance landscape in China is steadily chang-

ing. New product-safety and consumer-protection

laws are creating new exposures for companies.

Environmental liability is developing rapidly, with

cities such as Shanghai and Beijing introducing new

laws and tougher compliance standards. There is a

general lack of awareness among corporations on

directors and officers exposures—an area that is like-

ly to receive increased attention as more Chinese

companies expand abroad and become global players.

In 2005, Chinese officials said they will continue to

honor the commitments they made to the World

Trade Organization (WTO) to open the country’s

insurance markets to foreign companies, which

currently hold less than a two percent share of

China’s insurance market. In a speech in May 2005,

the chairman of the China Insurance Regulatory

Commission (CIRC)—China’s insurance industry

watchdog—said the country has already benefited


A r o u n d t h e W o r l d : W h a t ’ s N e w ?

A-1

Appendix A: Around the World: What’s New?

In an effort to keep abreast of changes in liability issues in the countries covered by this report,

Marsh asked its offices: “What happened in the last year that had the greatest material impact on

the liability environment in your country? What is about to happen this year?”

The intent is to track insurance-market developments; changes to tort-liability systems;

new legislation and regulations; important judicial rulings; and/or political, social, or economic

developments relevant to liability exposures.

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 2

Companies have accelerated their development

and implementation of systems to comprehensively

review the amounts they compensate patent holders.

This stems from the outcome of a court case known

as the “Blue LED patent-compensation litigation,”

in which Nichia Corp. agreed to pay ¥840 million

($8.1 million) to settle a lawsuit brought by a former

employee. The case has raised concerns about

patent-infringement liability.

KoreaThe biggest news in Korea’s legal environment in

2005 came with enactment of a law that allows

shareholders to file securities-related class-action

lawsuits. Under the law, suits can be filed when

shareholders incur securities-related losses resulting

from false reporting in securities and business state-

ments, false reporting in financial reports, use of

unreported information, tampering with the stock

market, and fraudulent auditing. The law has

spurred concern about potential lawsuits among

directors and officers—more of whom are now look-

ing for directors and officers (D&O) liability coverage

and into increasing their current limits of liability.

The Road Hauler’s Liability Law, enacted in 2004,

requires every road hauler to buy liability insurance

by the end of March 2005.

TaiwanTaiwanese manufacturers have recently been

asked by customers—especially those in the United

States—to purchase commercial general liability

(CGL) policies, including coverage for premises and

operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and

products and completed operations, as well as errors

and omissions/professional liability. Such coverage is

needed to comply with the insurance requirements

set forth in sales contracts that encourage manufac-

turers to review their risks and transfer them, as

appropriate, to insurers.

Since the 1994 enactment of the Consumer

Protection Law, based on strict liability, there have

been some court verdicts verifying that the law

applies not only to products consumed, but also to

services, including those professional services

provided by doctors and architects. The net result

is that the Taiwanese people are becoming more

accustomed to their right to seek tort damages.

The D&O liability insurance market has grown rapidly

over the past two years. After the Enron scandal, the

Taiwanese government aggressively pursued

corporate governance measures and encouraged

companies to purchase D&O liability policies. The

risk of D&O lawsuits rose following enactment of

the Securities Investor and Future Trader Protection

Act. Personal injury insurance markets for other

than doctors and architects are emerging only

recently. One area worth keeping an eye on is

professional liability for accountants.

EUROPE

AustriaCompensation claims are on the rise in medical

malpractice, employers liability, product recall, mali-

cious product tampering, and professional indemni-

ty. Awards are rising, and courts are increasingly

deciding in favor of claimants. As a result, fewer

insurers are interested in writing liability risks, and

more exclusions are inserted in policies. Capacity

constraints are still a characteristic of the domestic

insurance market for some exposures.



A-2

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 3

BelgiumIn 2004, Belgium suffered a major industrial disas-

ter—a gas pipeline explosion that killed 23 people.

That incident may trigger regulatory change and

affect Belgium’s liability insurance market.

Business disputes leading to litigation continue to

increase in Belgium, especially in the areas of prod-

ucts liability and completed-operations liability. More

than ever, negotiations of contracts involve complex

indemnification and insurance clauses. Given that

risk transfer to insurance markets can be difficult,

companies are resorting to contract management as

the main form of risk management.

Stricter regulation is leading to greater liability expo-

sures for Belgian companies. For example, the appli-

cation of European Community Directive 1999/44—

the Consumer Sales Directive—extends consumer-

protection law. The Belgian insurance market contin-

ues to offer capacity for most sectors, but with

restrictive conditions. Extensions such as pure finan-

cial loss, rip-and-tear damages, and product recall

are more difficult to obtain.

Eastern EuropeLitigation continues to exist at low levels across

Eastern Europe. The region is expected to experience

greater alignment with the West in terms of insur-

ance pricing, terms, and conditions. A few items of

note in individual Eastern European countries follow:

■ In the Czech Republic, there is a gradual trend for

shareholders to seek compensation from company

directors following the spate of business scandals

in the United States and elsewhere. A number of

cases are being heard in the courts. However, one

problem affecting these cases—and levels of

litigation in general—is that Czech courts remain

sluggish in making decisions, meaning that cases

can take considerable time to be resolved. For

ordinary people, the time factor and the payment

of up-front costs make it unappealing to pursue

compensation claims. The main talking point in

the country is how the courts can speed up the

rising number of cases in which small businesses

are suing their customers for nonpayment. Finally,

a change is afoot involving new discussions in

government circles about granting private insurers

the right to offer employers liability insurance.

■ In Hungary, there has been a small increase in

claims over the last year—particularly in the area

of personal injuries, as medical costs have

increased and people are suing for compensation.

European Union membership and associated

new regulation in the country will mean that

consumers will have more rights to seek

compensation in the future.

■ In Russia, a high-profile lawsuit against

McDonald’s has helped to increase awareness of

litigation. Products liability claims are on the rise,

albeit slowly, affecting manufacturers of automo-

biles, household appliances, and medical products.

Elsewhere, a major new development is the intro-

duction of compulsory auto insurance, which is

unpopular among the general population given

the cost. There is little discussion at present of

introducing compulsory insurance for other lines.

FranceThe first class-action lawsuit in France began in early

2005. DVD and video publishers are being sued on

the allegation that their anti-piracy mechanisms also

prevent private individuals from making legitimate

copies. A group of French lawyers has contacted

several hundred owners of DVDs and videos and is

demanding damages of €1,000 per consumer.

Early in the year, French president Jacques Chirac

proposed that class-action lawsuits should be made

more feasible to punish “abusive practices.” His

announcement has provoked debate about “class

actions à la française.”



A-3

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 4

GermanyLawsuits, in general, are not increasing in Germany;

and the bulk of insurance claims continue to be set-

tled between insurers and insureds. Two areas of

exception are automobile recall and D&O. With the

former, there is a suspicion that product quality has

declined because of changes in the motor industry.

Production sites have moved to countries with lower

labor costs, and the drive to cut costs by manufactur-

ers has led to charges of compromises in quality.

Also, defects tend to affect larger numbers of cars

due to changes in manufacturing practices. The

latter area of exception, the greater number of D&O

liability claims, can be explained by increased media

attention paid to large claims and more stringent

corporate-governance standards.

GreeceThe Greek liability insurance market has been affected

by rising litigation levels, especially in products lia-

bility, product guarantee, professional indemnity, and

medical malpractice. Insurers are more reluctant to

provide coverage where risks are perceived to be

high. Brokers are reporting greater difficulty in plac-

ing risks; and companies are facing new exclusions,

limitations of coverage, and higher deductibles.

IrelandIreland continues to be one of the few countries in

the world that is implementing specific policies to

contain the cost of litigation. For example, lawyers

can no longer advertise as “no win, no fee,” nor

can they charge clients based on a percentage of

compensation won. The new Personal Injuries

Assessment Board, in operation since 2004, has

removed the need to retain a lawyer in cases where

the defendant admits liability, as the board now

assesses the amount of compensation payable. The

board estimates that since it commenced operations

in July 2004, most noncontentious claims are settled

within months rather than in as much as three years

under the traditional system. Insurers in Ireland

report that the frequency of compensation claims

has fallen by about 25 percent in the last 12 to 18

months as a result of various government initiatives.

ItalyLitigation continues to increase rapidly in Italy. Of

particular note is the rise of D&O liability claims,

which grew an estimated 105 percent last year. This

trend is likely to continue due to changes to the

Italian Civil Code that became effective at the begin-

ning of 2005. As well as enhancing the ability of

shareholders to make claims against directors, the

changes provide shareholders with a personal right

of action for their own financial losses. This, in turn,

is driving greater buying activity in the D&O liability

insurance market. Claims are also rising in the areas

of medical malpractice, products liability, employers

liability, and pollution liability. Insurance coverage is

especially difficult to place for medical malpractice.

The D&O liability insurance market has contracted

to four foreign insurers.

NetherlandsA significant new law in the Netherlands, under

review by the Dutch parliament at the time of this

writing, will make class actions easier. At present,

corporations must make individual settlements in

claims that involve a number of people. The new

proposal would mean that individuals could receive

compensation as part of a group.

Many Dutch companies with exposures in the United

States continue to be wary of securities litigation,

especially in the context of the ongoing legal action

against Dutch retailer Royal Ahold for accounting

irregularities. In a further development for the D&O

liability insurance market, French-Belgian bank

Dexia settled a €400 million claim involving Dutch

investors who purchased share-leasing products.

In recent years, the general liability insurance

market has become more restricted. However, there

have been signs recently of greater flexibility and

stabilization. There has been a tendency to grant

extensions such as for pure financial loss, to

disregard certain exclusions, and to allow

reductions in deductibles.



A-4

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 5



A-5

Nordic RegionNordic countries, for the most part, continue to be

akin to Germany in controlling lawsuits, though

some are seeing changes related to class-action law-

suits. A few items of note in individual Nordic coun-

tries follow:

■ In Denmark, compensation awards are still low

compared to those of other European nations, and

legal costs are comparatively higher. However,

business-to-business litigation is increasing slightly

due to the ongoing trends of cost cutting and out-

sourcing. Denmark has experienced a small rise in

claims in the areas of product recall and employ-

ers liability.

■ In Finland, consumers must bring claims on an

individual basis with the risk of nonrecoverable

legal expenses. Claims and lawsuits remain at

low levels as a result.

■ In Norway, class-action lawsuits—already legal in

Sweden—may begin to appear due to new legisla-

tion. The Dispute Act, which updates a law passed

in 1915, is expected to include provisions on class

actions and introduce a number of measures

aimed at streamlining claims through the court

system. Given that litigation will be easier for

parties to pursue, observers are expecting an

increase in claims.

■ Sweden is set to experience another class-action

lawsuit this year. On behalf of 7,000 consumers,

the Swedish consumer ombudsman is suing a

Swedish electricity distributor for breach of con-

tract. The distributor stopped providing electricity

in 2002, forcing consumers to sign up for more

expensive electricity contracts. Elsewhere, the

number of professional negligence claims against

accountants and consultants continues to rise;

insurers are becoming more reluctant to under-

write this class. Products liability claims relating to

the risks of mobile phones have started to appear.

PortugalPortugal is experiencing an increase in litigation

related to tourist activity as more visitors from

Western Europe pursue compensation for personal

injuries. The upward trend of medical malpractice

lawsuits continues, with further impetus expected

from the forthcoming privatization of hospitals. In

the workplace, a new government initiative has

enabled insurers to void employers liability policies

in cases of gross negligence by employers. Overall,

these changes have not significantly affected the

Portuguese liability insurance market, which remains

restricted. Major companies and brokers still place

many risks overseas.

SpainThe courtroom drama involving allegations of fraud

against Emilio Botin, the chief executive of Banco

Santander Central Hispano, has raised awareness of

shareholder lawsuits against company directors in

Spain. Botin is accused of acting outside the law in

giving multimillion dollar retirement payments to

two of the bank’s executives.

Compensation claims continue to rise in Spain.

Employers liability, products liability, and professional

indemnity continue to be the areas with the greatest

increases. Medical malpractice coverage is not being

written by most traditional insurers. Lawyers are

becoming more aggressive in encouraging people

to claim for damages, especially those related to

traffic accidents. However, premiums are decreasing

across the board as more British and U.S. insurers

enter the Spanish liability insurance market.

TurkeyCourt cases to settle compensation claims from ordi-

nary people still remain rare in Turkey. However, liti-

gation within business relationships is becoming

more prevalent. Business demand for liability cover-

age is on the rise, especially from companies that

provide services to international clients. Liability

insurance is becoming mandatory for various parties

in Turkey as a result of new government initiatives.

For example, firms in the security industry are now

obliged to buy coverage.

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 6

United KingdomAlthough the number of compensation claims is

declining in the United Kingdom, award sizes are

increasing, presenting a significant challenge for the

U.K. insurance industry. The average value of personal

injury claims, for example, continues to rise by

around 15 percent to 20 percent per annum. Insurers

continue to suffer losses from employers liability

risks and, to a lesser extent, general liability risks.

With a continued softening of rates, the insurance

market has favored buyers over the last year. Clients

have had more options in areas such as retentions,

limits, and coverage. Capacity has expanded signifi-

cantly in the products liability insurance market

due to the re-emergence of several large European

insurers.

The employers liability insurance market remains

volatile, especially for companies with hazardous

exposures and unproven risk management practices.

Some rate reductions have been achieved in cases

where insurers have been under competition to

maintain their insurance-market share and where

corporate health and safety procedures have

improved.

Insurers in the U.K. insurance market face issues

associated with new National Health Service (NHS)

cost-recovery legislation, which becomes effective

October 1, 2006. NHS trusts will be able to recover

costs from insurers—estimated to be £250 million a

year—in cases where employers liability is proven.

To absorb these extra costs, insurers are expected

to push rates up between 5 percent and 8 percent.

A recent £5 million payout in the auto insurance

market represents one of the largest awards ever

seen in the United Kingdom. Insurers are expected

to receive a boost from ongoing initiatives to tackle

uninsured motorists—an estimated 1 in 20 motorists

in the United Kingdom drive without insurance.

LATIN AMERICA

BrazilThe enforcement of the Civil Code along with the

population’s growing awareness of civil rights have

led to more litigation, court decisions, and settle-

ments. Brazil is witnessing an escalation in the fre-

quency and severity of general liability claims, prod-

ucts liability losses, and product recall cases.

Despite heavy fines and continuing lawsuits, pollu-

tion events are relatively common, with environmen-

tal problems arising from waste-disposal sites a

major concern. The authorities have announced

measures intended to ensure compliance with envi-

ronmental laws. In the second half of 2004, insurer

AIG launched the first insurance product that can

be called an environmental impairment broad form

policy, providing an array of coverages. This has

drawn much attention from potential buyers and is

considered a major step in improving the environ-

mental awareness in local business communities,

although few placements have been made thus far.

The majority of court awards still remain, on aver-

age, under $100,000. However, one case involving

premises liability loss reported last year has exceeded

$10 million in claims/lawsuits filed. Products

liability cases have averaged $400,000, with peak

awards to $1 million. Finally, a product recall case

reported in 2005 may reach $10 million.

ChileIn Chile’s increasingly litigious legal environment,

plaintiffs are demanding more, and the courts are

granting increasingly high awards. This is especially

visible in employers liability claims. Insurance-

market conditions are slightly harder than they

were a year ago, as companies with the capacity to

underwrite this business react to higher awards with

slightly higher premiums and deductibles. Employers

liability is being granted, albeit with more restric-

tions. No other major change is anticipated.



A-6

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 7



A-7

ColombiaColombia has seen a sizeable increase in litigation in

recent years, with a particular rise in lawsuits for

moral and noneconomic damages. The Supreme

Court and the Counsel of State, through their rulings,

have created limits on awards that other judges typi-

cally follow, although it is not compulsory for them

to do so. The Penal Code mentions award limits for

pain and suffering, and specific statutory limits exist

in air transportation. These limits are still low

compared to those in the United States and Europe.

The insurance-buying habits of companies in

Colombia have not altered substantially in the past

year. Most companies tend to purchase limits of $1

million or less, although larger companies have shown

interest in reviewing and increasing their limits.

MexicoCivil codes in Mexico establish the amounts of

awards for third-party damage and bodily injury—

in cases resulting in death or total and permanent

disability, awards are set at approximately $20,000

to $30,000 per person. There are few claims, and/or

lawsuits and awards are much lower than in the

United States. The main exceptions to this rule are

seen in the relatively few losses in the oil industry

that are caused by explosion or spills and that

involve deaths and cleanup expenses. Also, in a

case two years ago, an electrocution that resulted in

the victim losing both arms brought an award of

$1.8 million, while two recent medical malpractice

claims brought awards between $300,000 and

$400,000, mainly for pain and suffering. Changes in

the business and legal environment bear watching

in the coming years

PeruThe past year has seen an increase in both the

number of claims and the monetary value of those

claims. However, the compensation amounts awarded

by Peruvian judges continue to be low. The industries

generating the largest number of claims are energy,

water, and gas. Enactment of a law that would have

made liability insurance for doctors mandatory has

been postponed. There has been an increase in the

purchase of professional liability insurance policies,

especially D&O coverage.

Puerto RicoLegal evolution in Puerto Rico follows U.S. trends in

kind, if not in degree. Growing environmentalism

and awareness of labor-related issues have resulted

in accelerating environmental and employment

practices claims, respectively. The severity and

frequency of these claims continue to rise, with

awards and/or damages increasing dramatically.

The insurance market is otherwise expected to

remain unchanged.

VenezuelaDespite political and economic turmoil, the liability

insurance market has not experienced any major

changes. A largely nonlitigious environment prevails.

In January 2004, a new automobile third-party liability

tariff was levied that significantly increased limits

and premiums in an effort to compensate for infla-

tion and the steep devaluation of the local currency.

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 8



A-8

NORTH AMERICA

United StatesEfforts to reform the federal tort system received a

boost with passage of the Class Action Fairness Act

of 2005 (CAFA). The main target of the legislation is

so-called “venue shopping,” in which plaintiffs’

attorneys in class-action lawsuits seek to file cases

in state jurisdictions perceived as sympathetic to

plaintiffs.

A topic of major concern for many organizations

involves the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA),

which is scheduled to expire at midnight, December

31, 2005. As of this writing, Congress had not decided

whether to extend the bill as is, let it expire, or

renew it with changes. The Treasury Department

released a report in June 2005 saying it would sup-

port extension of the Act only if significant changes

were incorporated, a view later shared by the Bush

administration. Since becoming law in November

2002, TRIA has helped stabilize terrorism insurance

markets by providing a federal reinsurance backstop

in the event of acts of terrorism that meet the Act’s

definitions of a certified act of terrorism.

SOUTH AFRICA

The Constitution continues to provide an overarch-

ing influence over civil litigation in South Africa. Very

few short-term insurance matters have been chal-

lenged constitutionally. However, commercial con-

tracts are increasingly being measured against the

spirit, purport, and objects of the Bill of Rights. In

the event that a clause in an insurance contract is

challenged constitutionally by an insured, the

insurer would bear the onus of proving that the

limitation of the right by the offending clause in the

contract is reasonable and justifiable in an open and

democratic society.

The High Court recently held that a contractual limi-

tation of the period during which an insured can sue

his insurer is invalid. The relevant clause in the

insurance policy provided that the insured could sue

the insurer only within 90 days after the date on

which the insurer repudiated liability under the policy.

The court held that the limitation on the insured’s

constitutional right of access to courts was neither

reasonable nor justifiable. This case is important

because it indicates that in the event that such

clauses are challenged in court, insurers will now

have to prove that the time limitations in their

insurance contracts are reasonable and justifiable.

Where an insurer repudiates a claim based on

nondisclosure of material facts by the insured, the

courts have continued to use an objective test of

materiality to determine whether a nondisclosure of

information is material to the insurer’s assessment

of risk. The court will judge the issue from the point

of view of the prudent or reasonable person rather

than from the point of view of the reasonable insurer

or reasonable insured.

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 9


Appendix B:

Liability Program Structures


ASIA

JapanUsually, Japanese companies purchase liability

coverage separately for domestic and overseas

products liability. Japanese insurers write overseas

products liability coverage that includes U.S.

exposures, with the following conditions:

■ claims-made basis;

■ defense costs included; and

■ punitive damages excluded.

Layered programs are not popular. Generally,

companies purchase coverage from a single insurer

or on a quota-share basis from several insurers if

there is any broker involvement.

KoreaIn Korea, policy wording is based on the insurance-

market standard forms; tailor-made policy wording

can be used for specific clients. Foreign insurers,

including Chubb and AIG, are using their own

wordings.

Coverage triggers are most commonly occurrence-

based with respect to public liability (general liabili-

ty); however, claims-made wording is used for prod-

ucts liability and professional liability, including

directors and officers (D&O), medical malpractice,

and so on. Insurers will not write policies for U.S.-

domiciled risks; however, they can write policies

for products exported to the United States with

North American conditions—costs-inclusive basis,

punitive damage exclusions, and total-pollution-

exclusion clauses. Excess layers predominantly

follow the form of underlying policies’ wording,

with amendments where required.

TaiwanFor general liability, most local liability policies

use the Chinese version. However, the Insurance

Services Office, Inc. (ISO) commercial general liability

(CGL) form can be used to meet clients’ needs.

As for D&O coverage, there is no uniform policy

available for comparison. Other personal injury

policies, as mentioned in Appendix A, are just

emerging. More time is needed to customize the

policies and coverage needs under the current

legal environment.


L i a b i l i t y P r o g r a m S t r u c t u r e s

B-1

Appendix B: Liability Program Structures

The structure of liability insurance programs varies greatly from country to country, making it difficult

to compare coverage from one country to the next. Prices in Germany, for example, may seem high;

but the typical coverage offered by a German insurance policy is broader in scope than that offered

in many other countries.

The following is a brief overview of liability program structures in a variety of countries and regions.

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 10



B-2

EUROPE

BelgiumBecause Belgian insurers do not use standard poli-

cies exclusively, it is still possible to negotiate tailor-

made wording or manuscript clauses—especially for

larger companies. The Belgian insurance market is

competitive, with premium levels generally not as

high as they are elsewhere in Europe. The exceptions

are for highly hazardous activities and companies

with large operations or sales in North America. The

terms and conditions of coverage tend to reflect the

practices of larger countries, such as the United

Kingdom, France, and Germany.

DenmarkIn 1987, European reinsurance markets tried to

change the trigger on general liability (GL) and

products liability (PL) insurance programs. Only

Denmark succeeded. Since then, all insurers repre-

sented in Denmark offer only claims-made policies

(with a number of limitations). As a result, programs

typically need additional clauses to be completed. As

employers liability claims are partly covered under

the current wordings, the Danish GL/PL policy does

vary from European insurance-market standards.

Eastern EuropeDue to the legal and economic diversity among

countries, Eastern Europe has no one type of

program structure. However, the inclusion of many

Eastern and Central European countries in the

European Union will likely lead to more consistency

of service and the harmonization of liability pro-

grams; although they remain very different from

those in the United States.

FranceFrench liability insurance policies generally provide

very broad coverage compared to policies in other

European countries. For example, pure financial

losses and rip-and-tear damages are systematically

covered; and extensions of coverage to include first-

party products are very frequent as well. In August

2003, a law was passed that allows the use of claims-

made triggers, which had previously been prohibited.

French claims-made policies provide for unlimited

retroactive coverage and a five-year discovery period.

GermanyGerman policies tend to be much wider in scope

than average—Austrian, Belgian, and French policies

may also be considered relatively broad. The inclu-

sion of additional coverages in the GL/PL policy pro-

duces a significant effect on the liability premium.

Among included coverages are extended products

liability (replacement cost coverage), recall costs,

errors and omissions for planning and design,

elements of professional indemnity, and aspects

of contractual liability. Only Germany offers environ-

mental liability policies with gradual pollution

coverage—so-called “normal operations coverage.”

The typical international insurance program

includes higher premiums because of exposures

such as those provided under the U.S. CGL primary

policy and the U.S. umbrella policy, as well as those

covered by the master policy and other excess

liability policies. Most German liability programs, as

well as typical international programs, also include

the premium for rest-of-world (ROW) subsidiaries,

reflecting local country liability policies and their

inclusion in the master policy. The large number of

German companies having significant operations

outside Germany—particularly in Eastern Europe—

also affects pricing.

In contrast to most U.S. and U.K. companies,

European companies, including the larger German

companies, have relatively low deductibles. Most

policies include broker commissions in the pricing,

as opposed to the separately paid fee systems

common in the United States.

GreeceGreek liability policies have a narrower scope of

coverage than do those of other European countries.

Some coverages are not provided at all by local

insurers; others may be offered, but are limited.

Excluded are professional indemnity, product

guarantee, product recall, and D&O liability.

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 11

Greek policies distinguish between per-event and

aggregate limits. The aggregate limit is usually a

multiple of the per-event limit, with the result that

the per-event limit may be relatively lower than that

in other European countries’ policies. Local insur-

ance markets are more conservative than interna-

tional insurers and depend upon reinsurance treaties

with international reinsurers to provide additional

limits and coverages.

IrelandLiability programs in Ireland are similar to those of

the United Kingdom. Employers liability is not yet a

compulsory insurance, although most companies

buy it. Limits for public liability and products liability

are generally lower than they are elsewhere—except

for Irish companies that operate internationally.

Some companies have accepted higher deductibles,

and some have gone a step further and set up cap-

tives—even as pricing declines.

ItalyIn comparison to standard U.S. insurance programs,

Italian policies typically exclude a number of types

of exposures. The Italian insurance market is usually

unwilling to accept products liability written on

an occurrence basis. When it is allowed, it is often

subject to a maximum two-to-three-year limit for

losses claimed after the policy period—even if they

occurred during the policy period. It is nearly impos-

sible to include clients and suppliers as “additional

insureds”—even if they request it and such inclusion

is a condition for a trading or commercial agree-

ment.

NetherlandsIn the Dutch insurance market, broker language,

which tends to be broader than insurer language, is

used. Insurers have started to insist on claims-made

triggers to cap long-tail risks. Exceptions are made

only for international liability programs, as long as

they are not pharmaceutical or chemical companies.

Until 2003, one integrated wording was applicable,

covering all liabilities, including general liability,

employers liability, products liability, environmental

liability, and so on. For many reasons—such as

increasing employers liability losses—insurers now

insist on a policy consisting of three distinct sec-

tions: general liability (including products liability),

employers liability, and environmental liability.

PortugalPortuguese liability insurance programs are some-

what more restrictive in scope and limits than other

programs because of limited financial capacity and

the tendency for insurers to specialize. Typical exclu-

sions for the GL/PL policy—which can be issued only

on a claims-made basis—include terrorism, gradual

pollution, contractual liability, punitive damages,

pure financial loss, consequential loss, and employers

liability. Professional indemnity typically excludes

terrorism and property appraisals for real-estate

agents. Given local insurance-market restrictions,

coverage is often placed using the more specialized

insurance markets overseas.

SpainIn Spain, large third-party liability programs are

heavily dependent on the reinsurance markets.

The current trend is for local insurers to underwrite

these risks in accordance with the capacity stipulated

in their contracts, rarely seeking facultative reinsur-

ance. Increased limits are usually obtained via excess

programs. The capacity for large industrial risks is

relatively small within the local Spanish insurance

markets. Historically, policies without deductibles

were common in Spain, but they are now disappear-

ing from the insurance market for industrial risks.

There is increasing demand for product recall cover-

age for two reasons—recent European Union legisla-

tion and the fact that more Spanish companies

are expanding their activities into the United States.

Asbestosis and electromagnetic fields are increasingly

common exclusions. The largest source for claims

continues to be employers liability, accounting for 60

percent to 70 percent of claims.



B-3

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 12



B-4

SwedenStandard Swedish and other Scandinavian policy

language is generally rather broad in terms of cover-

age scope. Insurers in Sweden, domestic as well as

international, are generally more competitive in

pricing than their Continental peers.

SwitzerlandThe standard liability program covers premises/

operations, products liability, and employers liability.

Sudden and accidental pollution coverage is avail-

able free of charge. Auto excess liability is normally

chosen for global programs. Optional extensions to

cover pure financial losses—to a limited extent—are

normally negotiated with sublimits far below the

regular program limit.

Program restrictions often apply to U.S. locations

and subsidiaries for pollution, employers liability,

and auto liability. In Switzerland, the occurrence

trigger is the rule, although claims-made policies are

available. Insurers are flexible regarding the structure

of programs and will assess structure against client

size, needs, and geographical locations.

TurkeyLiability risks are not underwritten by local insurers.

Most multinational companies that operate in Turkey

employ a global program designed by their head-

quarters.

United KingdomWordings are based on the individual insurer’s

standard form with amendments negotiated, as

appropriate, to provide specialized coverage required

by the clients. Coverage triggers are most commonly

occurrence-based; however, claims-made wordings

are imposed in the pharmaceutical and chemical

sectors because of long-tail risks. Insurers will also

write U.S.-domiciled risks on a “costs inclusive”

basis, as opposed to the standard “costs in addition”

basis that U.S. domestic insurers use.

Excess layers will predominantly follow the form

of underlying wordings, with amendments where

required. Often, the coverage may not be as broad

on higher excess layers as in the primary layer. For

example, terrorism coverage is available at the

primary level, but generally not in excess layers.

c_App. A–B–8–26 9/14/05 10:56 AM Page 13


Appendix C:

“2004’s LargestVerdicts”

The National Law Journal


Smaller at the TopBig awards continue to drop, as punitives decline after 2003 State Farm decision.

By David Hechler staff reporter

The numbers were still large, but the largest juryverdicts seemed to be returning to earth in 2004.And a big reason was a reduction in punitive dam-ages awards. That’s the message in The National Law Journal’s annual review of the 100 largest jury verdicts (compiled by NLJ affiliate VerdictSearch).

Some jury consultants think it’s a sign that theanger spurred by Enron and other scandals hasreceded. Yet the verdicts on the list are also proofthat, as one consultant put it, anger “is quick to rise up again” when jurors confront malfeasance.

For all 100 verdicts, jurors awarded a relativelymodest total of $11.1 billion in 2004. Compare thatwith the $12.1 billion total in 2001, the whopping $40billion in 2002 (most of it attributable to one verdict),and $20.1 billion in 2003 (all inflation-adjusted).

The top award—$1.6 billion—was considerablylower than the $11.9 billion in 2003, $28 billion in2002 and $3 billion in 2001. But the downward trendwas even clearer down the list. In 2002, jurors deliv-ered more than $20 million in all 100 verdicts. In theyears before and after, 97 and 92 verdicts reachedthat level. Last year, only 83 did. The lowest verdictlisted in those years was $18.6 million in 2003. Lastyear, it was only $17.1 million.

PU N I T I V E S WAY D OW N

The most dramatic changes were seen in the ratiosof punitive-to-compensatory damages for the top 50verdicts. The average ratios were 8-to-1 in 2001, 27-to-1 in 2002, and 19-to-1 in 2003. In 2004 it was lessthan 3-to-1. But those numbers were skewed by thetop verdicts. Median verdicts often say more aboutentire lists. In 2001, the median ratio was 3-to-1; in2002, 4.4-to-1; in 2003, 1.6-to-1; in 2004, 0.7-to-1.

The 2004 ratio “is very close to the way nonblock-buster awards behave,” said Theodore Eisenberg, aCornell Law School professor and an expert onpunitive damages.

The NLJ data, Eisenberg said, are consistent witha Bureau of Justice Statistics sample from statecourts in 1992, 1996, and 2001. Neither data setshows signs of awards rising, despite politicallycharged debates on the subject. He was cautiousabout drawing conclusions from the top verdicts,which may reflect random fluctuation, but added:“At least there’s no evidence of an increase.”

As for the punitives, Eisenberg said they mayreflect the influence of the Supreme Court’s 2003 decision in State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538U.S 408, in which it warned that “few awards exceed-ing a single-digit ratio...will satisfy due process.”

“Maybe it reined in the top ones a bit,” he said,referring to the court’s decision. He has longbelieved, however, that the punitive damages system “is not random or crazy.” As he wrote in anarticle to be published this year in the Journal ofEmpirical Legal Studies, “Much of the angst over punitive damages concerns the large-award out-liers.” Yet the state court data revealed that “most punitive awards were small. More than 23 percent...were for less than $10,000; 60 percent were for less than $100,000 [and]...less than 11 percent...in excess of one million dollars.”


N L J — 2 0 0 4 ’ s L a r g e s t V e r d i c t s

C-1

Appendix C: “2004’s Largest Verdicts”The National Law Journal

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 2



C-2

State Farm, which took aim at extreme awards,wasn’t likely to affect the average ones, he noted.“But it might be expected to have a greater impacton a data set such as The National Law Journal’s.This is because your cases are, by definition,somewhat extreme to begin with.”

KEEPING IT IN THE BALLPARK

How does a Supreme Court decision influencejurors? Through the lawyers, said SusanMacpherson, a consultant at the National JuryProject/Midwest. In the wake of State Farm, plaintiffs’lawyers—with whom she works most often—are“trying to be careful in how they present the ratio,”Macpherson said.

“If you have a jury that’s really mad, one of thechallenges is to make sure that they don’t get wayout of the ballpark on the punitive side,” she said.“You’re better off keeping it within whatever ratioanalysis your trial judge is going to apply.”

Verdicts have been driven up in recent years,Macpherson added, by the cost of health care forinjured plaintiffs. “It isn’t because juries are out ofwhack. It’s because health care is out of whack.”Medical inflation has flattened somewhat, she said,and that may have helped hold the line last year.

Plaintiffs’ lawyers have enhanced some verdictsby advising juries to award damages in categoriesnot affected by state caps. For example, if pain andsuffering is capped and disfigurement is not, shesaid, lawyers may try to steer jurors that way.

Conversely, a downward trend, she noted, is theincreased use of mandatory arbitration clauses thatbusinesses incorporate into contracts, diverting disputes that might have yielded large verdicts.

Phil Anthony, CEO of DecisionQuest, doesn’t seeverdicts dropping—attitudes toward business are.“Trust in corporate America declined among jurorsnationwide,” said Anthony, whose firm consultsmost often for corporate defendants. It’s been truesince Enron, but “we saw a further erosion this pastyear,” he said. “I think, in part, this explains whyjurors have been more willing to convict in criminalcases” like Martha Stewart’s.

Although jury awards declined in the top 100, themedian verdict did not dip much. From $45 millionin 2001 it rose to $51 million in 2002, dropped to $36million in 2003 (all inflation-adjusted) to $34 millionlast year.

While the largest may have leveled, “generallyspeaking, across a wide range of litigation, jurors aremore willing to award larger sums of money thanthey used to be.” They are, in effect, acclimated tolarger numbers, Anthony said.

But David Shafer, a consultant at Best Evidence,in St. Petersburg, Fla., called 2004 “the year of thedefense.”

“More and more people think that jury verdictshave gotten out of hand—that there’s too many lawsuits,” said Shafer, whose company works bothsides. “If there is enough evidence of malfeasance,”he added, “juries are not reluctant to give largeawards.” But they want to see the evidence, heemphasized.

Karen Jo Koonan, a consultant at the NationalJury Project/West, said anger at Enron “has dieddown.” And it takes more anger to get a large ver-dict: “I think the bar gets a little higher each year.”One reason, she said, is that jurors, who may beskeptical of big business, are also suspicious ofplaintiffs. Koonan works on about 20 jury selectionsa year, two-thirds civil and most for plaintiffs. Shehasn’t been to one in years in which the defensefailed to bring up the McDonald’s hot coffee verdict, widely regarded as a frivolous lawsuit.

Fifteen years of tort reform has influenced jurors’attitudes, Koonan said. She thinks the war in Iraqhas also changed their perspective. All are factorsthat plaintiffs must overcome.

“It always comes down to the facts of the case,” she concluded. If the facts demonstratemalfeasance, “there’s going to be a huge award.”

This appendix excerpts 64 of the top 100 lawsuitsappearing in The National Law Journal’s annualreview. Selection is based on applicability to Marsh’sreport and cases have been renumbered for the editorialpurpose of this report.

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 3

User of diet drug fen-phen developed fatal lung disease

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: From November 1996 through June 1997, plain-tiffs’ decedent Cynthia Cappel-Coffey was prescribed the diet drugPondimin, also known as fenfluramine hydrochloride, in combination

with phentermine. Dr. Carlton Tyrrell prescribed the drugs. In 1997, the Food and DrugAdministration ordered Pondimin off the market amid allegations that it caused heart-valve damage. Cappel-Coffey contracted lung disease. She died in 2003 at age 41.The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants created the image of safety with regard totheir products by publishing positive testimonials; withholding relevant information;misrepresenting the severity, frequency and discomfort of side effects; and manipulat-ing statistics while downplaying known adverse health effects. In addition, the plain-tiffs alleged, manufacturers and distributors encouraged off-label combination use ofthe drugs while concealing information that combining them was hazardous and hadnot been appropriately tested. The plaintiffs alleged fraudulent concealment, strictproducts liability, negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation,Restatement (Second) Torts 402B misrepresentation, fraud, civil conspiracy, breach ofcontinuing duty to warn, breach of express warranties, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and forgery for allegedly altering adverse event reports. They sought wrongful death andsurvival damages.

RESULT: The jury found that (1) Wyeth’s negligence was a proximate cause of bodilyinjury to the decedent and her subsequent death; (2) Wyeth failed to adequately warnabout the risks and dangers of Pondimin; (3) Pondimin was “unreasonably dangerous”and a producing cause of Cappel-Coffey’s death; and (4) the above conduct resultedfrom malice. Further, jurors found that Wyeth knowingly altered public documents.The jury awarded $1,013,353,000 in total.

Sheriff and deputies conspired to assassinate sheriff-elect

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Dec. 15, 2000, plaintiff’s decedent DerwinBrown, 46, the sheriff-elect of DeKalb County, Ga., was returning homeafter a night of celebrating his graduation from Sheriff’s Academy and

his upcoming inauguration. While walking up his driveway, he was shot 12 times anddied. Then-Sheriff Sidney Dorsey, who Brown had beaten in the August election, wascharged with conspiring with four men—two them his deputies—to murder Brown.Prosecutors argued that the killing was committed to prevent Brown from revealingcorruption in Dorsey’s office.

Former deputies Patrick Cuffy and Paul Skyers admitted to taking part in planningthe assassination and testified against Dorsey and two other alleged conspirators,David Ramsey and Melvin Walker, in exchange for immunity. Dorsey was convicted in2002, and is serving life in prison. Walker, the alleged triggerman, and Ramsey wereacquitted of murder by a DeKalb County jury in 2002. Separate murder-for-hire chargesare pending against them in federal court.

RESULT: The jury awarded $776,136,398, which is to date the largest jury award inGeorgia history.



C-3

1■ Case 1 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYPharmaceutical—Wrongful Death—Survival

Verdict(P)$1,013,353,000

CaseJerry Coffey, Individually and asRepresentative of the Estate ofCynthia Cappel-Coffey, Deceased andas Next Friend of Rachel Coffey, SarahCoffey and Jennifer Coffey, Minors v.Wyeth, f/k/a American Home ProductsCorporation; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals,f/k/a Wyeth-Ayerst LaboratoriesDivision of American Home ProductsCorporation; A.H. Robins Company;and Kevin Tyrrell, Jointly and Severally,No. E-167334

CourtJefferson County District Court,172nd, TX

Date05/14/2004

■ Case 2 ■

INTENTIONAL TORTSAssault and Battery—WrongfulDeath—Civil Rights—Police asDefendant

Verdict(P) $776,136,398

CasePhyllis Brown, individually as survivingspouse and as executrix of the estateof Derwin Brown, deceased v. SidneyDorsey, Patrick Cuffy, and Paul Skyers,No. 02A-12722-7

CourtGwinnett County, Superior Court, GA

Date11/19/2004

2

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 4

Jury orders tobacco industry to fund smoker-cessation programs

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1996, class representatives Gloria Scott andDiania M. Jackson, individually and on behalf of other persons similarlysituated, sued the four major American tobacco companies and other

companies and a trade organization, seeking to have them finance medical-monitor-ing and smoking-cessation programs.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants fraudulently concealed and misrepre-sented their knowledge of nicotine’s addictive qualities, and conspired with each other to do the same. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants concealed their abilityto manipulate nicotine content, and violated their duty not to market cigarettes tominors. They also made products liability claims, alleging the defendants’ cigaretteswere unreasonably dangerous, and were defective under Louisiana law. The defen-dants denied any wrongdoing.

RESULT: On July 25, 2003, the jury found in the defendant’s favor on the products liability claims. They found that the defendants conspired to distort public knowledgeconcerning smoking and health, but that said actions did not cause the plaintiffs tobegin smoking. The jury did not grant the medical testing and monitoring sought bythe class, but did require the defendants to fund smoking-cessation programs. Thejury awarded $591 million.

Control system sent improper signals, resulting in explosion

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Feb. 17, 1999, a large gas explosion occurred at plaintiff Kansas City Power & Light Co.’s (KCP&L) Hawthorn 5 powerplant in Kansas City, Mo. The plant was off-line at the time, and though

it was virtually destroyed, no injuries resulted. Prior to the explosion, plumbing workon toilets inadvertently caused sewer water from the plant’s holding tank to flood a computerized control room. The explosion—caused by natural gas entering the boiler—occurred during replacement and troubleshooting procedures.

KCP&L sued numerous companies involved in the plant’s construction, mainte-nance and safety systems. All but one reached confidential settlements or were dis-missed on summary judgment. Only the products liability claims against Allen-BradleyCo. Inc., which recently became part of Rockwell Automation Inc., remained when thetime came for trial. Allen-Bradley further claimed that actions by KCP&L’s own techni-cians resulted in the opening of valves and activation of igniters when the intentionwas to do just the opposite. Allen-Bradley claimed that KCP&L’s claim that its PLC-5unit should have detected the discrepancy was groundless because, in part, it is nottechnically possible.

RESULT: The jury assigned 30 percent of the fault to Allen-Bradley and 70 percent to theplaintiff. They found $452 million in damages.

■ Case 1 ■



C-4

■ Case 3 ■

INTENTIONAL TORTSFraudulent Concealment—ProductsLiability—Tobacco—Misrepresentation—Conspiracy—Products Liability—Advertising

Verdict(P) $591,000,000

CaseGloria Scott and Deania M. Jackson,on behalf of themselves and all otherpersons similarly situated v. TheAmerican Tobacco Company Inc.;American Brands, Inc., R.J. ReynoldsTobacco Company; RJR Nabisco, Inc.,Brown & Williamson TobaccoCorporation; Batus, Inc.; Batus Holdings,Inc., Philip Morris, Inc.; Philip MorrisCompanies, Inc.; Lorillard TobaccoCompany, Inc.; Lorillard, Inc.; LoewsCorporation; United States TobaccoCompany; UST, Inc.; The TobaccoInstitute, Inc.; Quaglino Tobacco andCandy Company, Inc.; Imperial TradingCompany, Inc.; George W. Groetsch, Inc.;and J&R Vending Service, Inc.,No. 96-8461

CourtOrleans Parish District Court, LA

Date05/21/2004

■ Case 4 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYDesign Defect—Products Liability—Equipment—Property—Warnings

Verdict(P) $452,000,000

CaseKansas City Power & Light Company v.Bibb & Associates, Inc., Peter KiewitSons’, Inc., Forney Corporation, Allen-Bradley Company, Inc., Black & VeatchCorporation, CDFM2 Architecture, Inc.,Jenkins & Associates, Inc., Norton &Schmidt Consulting Engineers, L.L.P.,BES Company, Inc., U.S. Engineering Co.,Williams Gas Pipelines Central, Inc.,Reddi-Root’r, Inc., No. 01-CV-207987

CourtJackson County Circuit Court, 16th, MO

Date03/05/2004

3

4

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 5



C-5

Explorer rollover-prone and roof not crashworthy, driver claimed

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Jan. 19, 2002, plaintiff Benetta Buell-Wilson,47, was driving her 1997 Ford Explorer when she attempted to steeraround a piece of metal on the road. The Explorer tipped on two

wheels, rolled four times and came to rest upside down. Buell-Wilson sued the FordMotor Co., alleging products liability (design defect). Plaintiff’s counsel contended theExplorer had a high center of gravity and a narrow track width, making it susceptibleto rollovers during sharp maneuvers. They claimed that Ford engineers had recom-mended changes, but those suggestions were ignored. The plaintiff also asserted thatthe roof was too weak. Buell-Wilson claimed she was not speeding, had not beendrinking and was wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Ford contended thatthere was no defect in the design of the Explorer, that the vehicle was safe, and that it met or exceeded all federal safety requirements.

RESULT: The jury awarded the plaintiffs $123 million in compensatory damages.Buell-Wilson was awarded economic damages of $4.6 million and noneconomic damages of $105.4 million. Her husband received $13 million for loss of consortium.The jury awarded the plaintiffs $246 million jointly in punitive damages, for a totalaward of $369 million.

Charities that gave to Hamas sued by family of murdered teen

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1996, plaintiffs’ decedent David Boim, 17,was killed in a drive-by shooting at a bus stop in the Beit El settlementin the Israeli-occupied territory known as the West Bank. Hamas, also

known as the Islamic Resistance Movement, claimed responsibility. The car’s driverwas arrested and convicted. The shooter escaped, but subsequently died while perpetrating a suicide bombing.

Boim’s family, which had moved to Israel in 1985, returned to the United States and brought the instant action against Hamas’ domestic supporters under the federal Anti-Terrorism Act. The defendants comprised the Oak Lawn, Ill.-based QuranicLiteracy Institute; its leader, Mohammed Abdul Hamid Khalil Salah; and three PalosHills, Ill.-based organizations: the American Muslim Society, the Islamic Association for Palestine and the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. The plaintiffsalleged that Hamas received funds from all three charities, that Salah acted as courierof those funds and that the Quranic Literacy Institute provided monetary support toSalah. In a summary judgment ruling, the judge held that Salah was liable for Boim’sshooting and that Hamas had received funds from all three charities, thus renderingthem liable.

RESULT: The jury found that the institute was liable for Boim’s death. Liability was jointand several. The plaintiffs were awarded $52 million, but the judge trebled the award,pursuant to the Anti-Terrorism Act’s provisions, to $156 million. This case marked thefirst private-party suit against domestic supporters of terrorism.

■ Case 5 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYDesign Defect—Motor Vehicle—SUV—Rollover

Verdict(P) $369,000,000

CaseBenetta Buell-Wilson and Barry S.Wilson v. Ford Motor Co., No. GIC800836

CourtSuperior Court of San Diego County,San Diego, CA

Date06/03/2004

5

6■ Case 6 ■

INTENTIONAL TORTSGovernment—Federal Anti-TerrorismAct

Verdict(P) $156,000,000

CaseStanley Boim, individually and asadministrator of the estate of DavidBoim, and Joyce Boim v. QuranicLiteracy Institute, Holy Land Foundationfor Relief and Development, IslamicAssociation for Palestine, AmericanMuslim Society, and Mohammed AbdulHamid Khalil Salah, No. 00-C-2905

CourtU.S. District Court, Northern District,Chicago, IL

Date12/08/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 6



C-6

Failure to induce birth left child disabled

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1996, plaintiff Elizabeth Reden, 28, beganreceiving prenatal care from WGM Obstetrics and Gynecology inHuntington, N.Y. On Jan. 28, five weeks prior to her delivery date, she

performed a fetal kick count test, but did not detect any movement. Reden presentedto WGM, where Dr. Karen Moriarty Morris performed a sonogram and a non-stresstest. Reden’s score indicated the fetus was normal. The non-stress test was non-reactive, however, Morris claimed that the results were “not worrisome.”

On Feb. 2, Reden reported the absence of fetal movement. Another of the practice group’s doctors, John Wagner, told her to meet him at Huntington Hospitalimmediately. Reden and her husband arrived at about 3:40 p.m. and Wagner examinedher shortly thereafter. The external fetal heart monitor’s readings were essentially flat.Despite this, a Caesarean delivery was not performed until 7:15 p.m. Baby Danielle wasacidotic and hypoglycemic. She was transferred to North Shore University Hospital at Glen Cove [N.Y.] the following day and diagnosed with periventricular leukomalacia.Danielle, now 6, suffers from a seizure disorder and cortical blindness. Her parentsclaimed she will require custodial care for the remainder of her life.

RESULT: The jury found Morris to be 50 percent liable for Danielle Reden’s injuries;Goldman and Wagner were each assigned 25 percent liability. The jury awarded Reden$111.7 million.

Dodge Caravan seatback collapsed on baby in car seat

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On June 30, 2001, plaintiff’s decedent Joshua Flax, an 8-month-old, was a passenger in his grandparents’ 1998 DodgeCaravan, seated in a children’s car seat located behind the front passen-

ger seat. His mother, plaintiff Rachel Sparkman, was seated next to him. A friend ofthe family was seated in the front passenger seat. The van pulled out of a drivewayonto a rural road near Nashville, Tenn., and was rear-ended by a vehicle driven byLouis Stockell Jr. at approximately 55 mph. The impact caused the seatback of thefront passenger seat to fall backward as if fully reclined, resulting in the passenger’shead striking Joshua’s head, causing a fatal skull fracture.

Flax’s estate and his mother sued Stockell for wrongful death and negligence,arguing that Stockell drove too fast and failed to exercise reasonable caution or keep a proper lookout. Stockell was not insured and did not appear at trial. The plaintiffsalso sued DaimlerChrysler Corp., the manufacturer of the Caravan, for wrongful death,products liability and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

RESULT: The jury found DaimlerChrysler and Stockell each 50 percent negligent andawarded $7.5 million in compensatory damages. The jury found DaimlerChrysler liable for punitive damages and awarded the plaintiffs $98 million.

7■ Case 7 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—OB-GYN

Verdict(P) $111,700,000

CaseElizabeth Reden and John Reden, asParents and Natural Guardians ofDanielle Reden, an Infant, and ElizabethReden and John Reden, Individually v.John R. Wagner, M.D.; Karen MoriartyMorris, M.D.; Theodore L. Goldman,M.D.; and WGM Obstestrics andGynecology P.C., No. 16543/99

CourtSuffolk Supreme, NY

Date01/26/2004

8■ Case 8 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYAutomobiles—Products Liability—Design Defect—Wrongful Death

Verdict(P) $105,500,000

CaseJeremy Flax and Rachel Sparkman, asthe Natural Parents of Joshua Flax,deceased; Rachel Sparkman, individual-ly; Plaintiffs v. DaimlerChryslerCorporation, and Louis Stockell, Jr.,Defendants, No. 02C-1288

CourtDavidson County Circuit Court, TN

Date11/23/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 7

Police officer shot unarmed man 21 times

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On March 15, 2001, defendant Rodney Price, aBaltimore police officer, was on his way to drop off his two childrenbefore reporting for duty when he saw plaintiff’s decedent Tristan Little,

a 28-year-old male, reaching into the back of his car. Price believed that Little might becommitting a crime and began to approach him. Price, who was in his police-issuepants, boots and gun belt, saw Little turn towards him with what he thought was agun in his hand. Little approached Price and Price drew his gun, but Little continuedwalking toward him. Price opened fire, emptying one magazine into Little’s body. Heproceeded to reload his weapon, stand over Little, and fire four more rounds into him,for a total of 21 shots.

Little’s estate, his mother, and his two minor children sued Price for wrongful death.The plaintiffs claimed that Little, a truck driver, was not committing a crime and thatPrice should not have used deadly force against him. Price contended that he was justified in his use of force because he believed that Little was committing a crime and had a weapon

RESULT: The jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded $105 million in damages.

Laborer impaled on rebar when plank collapsed

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Sept. 1, 2000, plaintiff Frank Miraglia, 42, alaborer, was navigating some parts of the construction site he wasworking in by walking on 10-inch-wide wooden planks, which traversed

an 8-to-10-foot-deep trench. One of the planks collapsed beneath him and he fell intothe trench and landed on a 5-foot steel reinforcement bar, which impaled his body andsevered his spinal cord. Miraglia sued H & L Holding Corp., which owned the construc-tion site. He alleged that the planks constituted a violation of New York labor law. H &L Holding contended that Miraglia’s employer, Lane & Sons Construction Corp., did notproperly supervise the job site, and that it did not furnish adequate safety equipment.It initiated a third-party action against Lane & Sons Construction based on a contrac-tual indemnification clause. Prior to the trial, the court rendered a directed verdict andfound that there was a complete pass-through of liability to Lane & Sons Construction,and thus, that H & L Holding would not need to participate in the trial. The court alsodirected a liability verdict in favor of Miraglia. It held that Lane & Sons Constructionwould not be able to present proof that the planks did not constitute a violation ofNew York law.

RESULT: The court rendered a directed verdict in denial of Lane & Sons Construction’srecalcitrant-worker defense. The jury awarded Miraglia $86,735,134.



C-7

■ Case 9 ■

WRONGFUL DEATHSurvival—Wrongful Death—Government—Excessive Force—CivilRights—Police as Defendant

Verdict(P) $105,000,000

CaseEmma Brown Individually and asPersonal Representative of the Estateof Tristan D. Little Sr., Barbara Ross asNext Friend to Britney Ross, andDorlene Simon as Next Friend to TristanD. Little Jr. v. Officer Rodney Price, No.24-C-0200997

CourtBaltimore City, Circuit Court, MD

Date01/09/2004

■ Case 10 ■

CONSTRUCTION Labor Law—Construction—Accidents

Verdict(P) $86,735,134

CaseFrank Miraglia v. H & L Holding Corp. /H & L Holding Corp. v. Lane & SonsConstruction Corp., No. 25228/00

CourtBronx Supreme, NY

Date02/13/2004

9

10

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 8



C-8

Endotracheal tube dislodged, depriving baby of oxygen

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Sept. 25, 1998, plaintiff Casey Pellicer, four-months old, was admitted to St. Barnabas Hospital in Livingston, N.J., forsurgery to remove a cyst near his spine. The surgery was performed by

Dr. Peter Ruzicka and was a complete success. Casey was taken to the pediatric inten-sive care unit (PICU). About an hour later, the endotracheal tube that was supplyinghim with oxygen became dislodged for anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes, depriving himof oxygen and causing severe brain damage.

Evidence presented at trial suggested that while Casey was in the PICU, he movedslightly, causing the endotracheal tube to become dislodged, prompting his mother,Areli Pellicer, to call for nurse Delphine Anderson, who had left the room. Dr. AnneOlesnicky was the first doctor at the scene. She fixed the tube whereupon Andersonand another nurse, Jean Rue, gave Casey the paralyzing agent Nocuron to prevent himfrom moving again and thereby dislodging the tube. However, by the time the tube was reinstated, the oxygen deprivation had taken its toll.

RESULT: Jurors awarded the plaintiff $75,967,140. They found Olesnicky 50 percent neg-ligent, Zeig 25 percent, Vallee 15 percent, and Anderson 10 percent. The award included$50 million for pain and suffering, disability and loss of enjoyment of life; $10.5 millionfor future medical expenses and life-care planning needs; and $1.6 million for futurelost wages.

Bar liable for worker who got drunk on the job and hit flagger

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Jan. 17, 2001, while plaintiff Joseph Tuski,34, a construction worker, was flagging vehicles at a Buck’s County, Pa.,construction site, a Volkswagen Jetta driven by Michael Petaccio struck

him and fled the scene. Tuski was severely injured and was rushed to the hospital.Petaccio drove home, crashed into the pillar of his garage and then took off in his girl-friend’s car for his sister’s house in New Jersey. His sister called the police and Petacciowas apprehended. He subsequently pled guilty to DUI and was sentenced to 30 days injail. Tuski sued Petaccio for negligence. He also sued the Ivyland Cafe in Warminster,Pa., and its owner, Victor Petaccio, under Pennsylvania’s Dram Shop Act, claiming thatMichael Petaccio, who was the manager (and had a 20 percent ownership interest inthe establishment), had been serving himself drinks there before he got behind thewheel. Tuski argued that Ivyland was liable because Petaccio, acting as an employee,served himself alcohol after he was visibly intoxicated.

Result: The jury found against both defendants on the dram shop claim and awardedthe plaintiff $75,684,000 in damages.

■ Case 11 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEMedical Malpractice—Failure toMonitor—Hospital—Post-OperativeCare—Negligence—Negligent Training

Verdict(P) $75,967,140

CaseCasey Pellicer, by his guardian ad litemAreli Pellicer, and Areli PellicerIndividually v. St. Barnabas MedicalCenter, Delphine Anderson, R.N., JeanRue, R.N., Anne Olesnicky, M.D., MichaelVallee, M.D., and Norman Zeig, M.D.,Samuel Edelman, M.D.,No. ESX-L-3571-00

CourtSuperior Court of Essex County, NJ

Date11/15/2004

■ Case 12 ■

HOTEL/RESTAURANTDram Shop—Motor Vehicle—AlcoholInvolvement

Verdict(P) $75,684,000

CaseJoseph Tuski v. Ivyland Cafe, MichaelPetaccio, and Victor Petaccio, No. Feb.Term 2002 No. 4436

CourtCourt of Common Pleas,Philadelphia County

Date01/13/2004

11

12

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 9

Bus driver who fell asleep had drugs in his system

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Approximately 40 members of a church youthgroup were in a bus when it hit a concrete abutment on Highway 20near Terrell, Texas, on June 24, 2002. Four teens were killed, as was the

driver, Ernest Carter. Of the 17 injured plaintiffs, one was 21 years old and the restwere teenagers. The church had contracted with Green’s Transportation for a bus and driver, and Green’s subcontracted the job to Discovery Tours of Texas. WhenDiscovery’s regular driver did not show up, it hired Carter for the job. The plaintiffsalleged that he fell asleep at the wheel. An autopsy showed that he had Valium and a trace of cocaine in his blood.

The plaintiffs, which included parents of the minors, sued Eric Rockmore, operatingas Discovery Tours of Texas; ABC Bus Leasing Inc., which leased the bus to Rockmore;and James Green, individually and operating as Green’s Transportation.

RESULT: The jury found Discovery negligent and awarded $70,918,798. In a separatecase decided in September 2003, a probate court jury found Discovery negligent andawarded $10,056,000 to the estate of Lindsay Kimmons and her family.

High-forceps delivery left infant brain damaged

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In early 1997, plaintiff Jennifer Korzeniowski, 21,became pregnant with her and her husband’s first child. The couple sought a referral from Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton

Beach, Fla., for a competent physician to provide prenatal care. The hospital referredthem to Atila Eagleman, a doctor affiliated with the hospital since 1987. At about 30weeks into the pregnancy, Eagleman told the Korzeniowskis that their child wouldweigh more than 10 pounds at birth and recommended inducing labor early. He notedthat the pregnancy had progressed at a remarkable rate since the last visit and thecervix was dilated and effaced.

When the Korzeniowskis went to the hospital on Oct. 30, Ms. Korzeniowski’s cervixwas neither dilated nor effaced. The plaintiffs claimed that, while attempting toinduce labor, Eagleman administered too much contraction-causing Pitocin, hyper-stimulating uterine contractions and causing the baby to suffer a sudden, rapid racingof the heart. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that Eagleman panicked and, desiring to deliverthe baby quickly, removed it from the womb by grasping its head with forceps andpulling it through the birth canal. As a result, baby Luke spent three weeks in theneonatal intensive care unit. Upon discharge, the Korzeniowskis were told their childhad probably sustained brain damage. The Korzeniowskis, individually and on Luke’sbehalf, sued Eagleman for medical malpractice and Bethesda Memorial for negligentreferral.

RESULT: The jury found both defendants jointly and severally liable and awarded $63million in damages.



C-9

■ Case 13 ■

MOTOR VEHICLENegligence—Negligent Hiring—MotorVehicle—Passenger—Wrongful Death—Survival

Verdict(P) $70,918,798

CaseMultiple plaintiffs v. Eric D. Rockmore,d/b/a Discovery Tours, ABC Bus LeasingInc., and James Green, Individually andd/b/a Green’s Transportation, No. 02-06189

CourtDallas County District Court, 14th, TX

Date09/16/2004

■ Case 14 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth

Verdict (P) $63,000,000

CaseLuke Korzeniowski, by and through hisparents and natural guardians, Jenniferand Derik Korzeniowski v. BethesdaMemorial Hospital and Dr. AtilaEagleman, No. 502000CA004828XXONAO

CourtPalm Beach Circuit Court, FL

Date02/26/2004

13

14

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 10

O-ring split caused tractor’s hydraulic fluid to leak and ignite

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Sept. 10, 1998, plaintiff Thomas Bryant Griggs,40, a heavy-equipment operator, was preparing land for construction inValley Springs, Calif. While operating a Caterpillar J-621 tractor-scraper,

an O-ring (a rubber circle used to seal mechanical parts against air and fluids) in theequipment’s hydraulic system split, causing hydraulic fluid to enter the cab. The fluidignited and Griggs was severely burned. Griggs sued West-Pac Industries, distributor ofthe O-ring; Tools Exchange, the importer of the O-ring; O’Connor’s Parts, the hardwarestore that sold the O-ring to Griggs’ employer, Lee Moyle, who was not named as adefendant; and Caterpillar Inc., the manufacturer of the tractor-scraper, alleging strictproducts liability.

RESULT: The jury awarded Griggs $58,137,361. The jury found that the product wasdefective and assigned 95 percent fault to West-Pac and Tools Exchange, and 5 percentfault to Lee Moyle.

F-350 parking brake was prone to disengage

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Oct. 9, 1994, plaintiffs Ginny and JimmieWhite’s 1993 Ford F-350 pickup truck was parked in their driveway, infirst gear with the parking brake engaged. Their son, Walter, age 3,

climbed into it and accidentally moved the gear selector to neutral, causing the park-ing brake to disengage and the truck to roll. The frightened child jumped out of thetruck, whereupon he was run over by a rear tire and killed.

In 1995, Walter’s estate and parents sued Ford Motor Co. for strict products liability(design defect), negligence and intentional misrepresentation. They alleged that theparking brake in the F-350 was prone to disengage. The brake was supposed to beengaged when the tooth of a gear fit into another gear. However, in the F-350 andother Ford pickups, the gears sometimes would not fully mesh, as a result of whichthe brake would not fully engage. The plaintiffs alleged that Ford knew the brake wasdefective yet it failed to warn consumers. Ford argued that the brake was not defective.It claimed that it tested the parking brake in question, which did not disengage afterapplication. Ford also disputed that it failed to warn consumers about a known dangeror that it intentionally misrepresented the facts about its parking brake.

RESULT: The jury awarded the Whites $52 million in punitive damages.



C-10

■ Case 1 ■■ Case 15 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYManufacturing Defect—Strict Liability

Verdict(P) $58,137,361

CaseJoseph Bryant Griggs v. West-PacIndustries; Tools Exchange; Caterpillar,Inc.; and O’Connor’s Parts, No.BC216425

CourtSuperior Court of Los Angeles County,Central, CA

Date03/23/2004

■ Case 16 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYAutomobiles—Products Liability—Design Defect—Wrongful Death—Intentional Misrepresentation

Verdict(P) $52,000,000

CaseGinny and Jimmie White, individually,and as representatives of the estate ofWalter White, deceased v. Ford MotorCo., No. CV-N-95-279-DWH

CourtUnited States District Court,District of Nevada, NV

Date03/19/2004

15

16

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 11

Girl paralyzed when seatback of Lincoln collapsed

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On June 15, 2000, plaintiff Kelsey Sasser, age 6,was a rear-center-seat passenger in a 2000 Lincoln LS driven by hermother, Rhonda Sasser. The Lincoln was involved in a head-on collision

in Blakely, Ga. Kelsey’s three-point restraint held her in place, but her seatback crushedin on her, severely injuring her. Rhonda Sasser, on Kelsey’s behalf, sued Ford Motor Co.for products liability, claiming that Kelsey’s injuries were caused by a design defect inthe Lincoln. The Sassers claimed that the latch connecting the seatback to the rearshelf of the vehicle failed to properly engage, causing the seatback to crush in onKelsey during the collision. The plaintiff also claimed that the Lincoln should haveincluded an indicator light to inform the occupants when the latch was not engaged.

The plaintiff contended that Ford knew about the latch engagement problems, anddid not correct them. Up until the date of the accident, approximately 150 customershad made warranty complaints about the latching problem. Furthermore, assemblyworkers and vehicle auditors testing the Lincolns for defects told Ford that the seatswere not latching properly. The plaintiffs maintained the latching problem violated theFederal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards.

RESULT: The jury found Ford liable and awarded $33,868,000 in compensatory damagesand $13,959,311 in punitive damages, for a total of $47,827,311.

Uattended resident drowned in bathtub

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff’s decedent Ilana Solomon, 26, was adevelopmentally disabled woman who was entitled, under Arizona law,to services from the state of Arizona and its Department of Economic

Security’s Division of Developmental Disabilities (DDD). The DDD contracted withdefendant Developmental Systems Inc. (DSI) to provide her with 24-hour care at agroup home. In September 2001, DSI recommended a group home run by someonewhose employment record, Solomon’s estate claimed, contained numerous instancesof abuse and neglect. Solomon’s parents, Martin and Judy Solomon, who are also plaintiffs, alleged that they specifically inquired about the caregiver’s prior history andreceived no negative information.

On Nov. 20, 2001, the caregiver placed Solomon in a bathtub filled with water, thenleft her alone for anywhere from 5 to 30 minutes, during which time her face slippedunder the water and she died of asphyxiation. Solomon’s parents, individually and onbehalf of her estate, sued the state of Arizona, DDD, DSI and American HabilitationServices Inc, which owned DSI, for wrongful death, abuse, neglect, consumer fraud,breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and negligent hiring, trainingand supervision.

RESULT: The jury found the defendants liable and awarded $45.5 million in damages.



C-11

■ Case 17 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYAutomobiles—Products Liability—Failure to Warn—Design Defect

Verdict(P) $47,827,311

CaseRhonda Sasser, on behalf of her child,Kelsey Sasser v. Ford Motor Company,No. 2003-CV-68680

CourtFulton County, Superior Court, GA

Date03/02/2004

■ Case 18 ■

NURSING HOMESAbuse or Neglect—NegligentSupervision—Negligent Hiring—Wrongful Death—Elder Law

Verdict(P) $45,500,000

CaseMartin J. Solomon and Judy V. Solomon,Co-Personal Representatives of theEstate of Ilana Solomon, deceased,both individually and on behalf of the Estate of Ilana Solomon v.Developmental Systems, Inc., anArizona corporation; AmericanHabilitation Services, Inc., a Florida corporation; and The State of Arizona,No. PB2002-000496

CourtMaricopa County Superior Court, AZ

Date12/01/2004

18

17

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 12

Rescission of insurance leaves lung-bypass candidate in lurch

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On June 6, 2000, plaintiff Lewis J. MacKool, 55, agunsmith, applied to Medical Savings Insurance Co. (MSI) for a healthinsurance policy with a $2 million lifetime benefit. The policy went into

effect on July 1, 2000. A year later, MacKool was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonaryfibrosis and, in October 2001, he had heart-bypass surgery costing $75,000. TheIndianapolis-based insurer denied coverage and, on Jan. 9, 2002, rescinded the policy,claiming that MacKool misrepresented on his application that he had never been diagnosed with heart or lung problems. Records from March 2000 showed thatMacKool had EKG results indicating a mild pulmonary obstruction, MSI contended.

After coverage was denied, one of MacKool’s attorneys, Walt Haskins, wrote a letterto MSI asking it to reconsider. In March 2002, it responded that it would not. MacKoolwas unable to afford the bypass and sued MSI and its parent, Medical SavingsInvestment Inc., for breach of contract and bad faith denial. Plaintiff’s counsel arguedthat the physician reading the EKG interpreted it as normal, and that MacKool wastherefore never diagnosed as having heart or lung problems.

RESULT: The jury found the defendants liable and awarded MacKool $5 million in compensatory damages on his breach of contract claim, $13 million in compensatorydamages for the bad faith claim, and $26 million in punitive damages.

Failed rudder control system blamed for jet’s fatal crash

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Dec. 19, 1997, plaintiffs’ decedents were passengers on flight MI-185 of SilkAir, Singapore Airlines Ltd.’s regionalunit. Approximately 30 minutes into the flight, the 10-month-old Boeing

737 entered into a steep dive and crashed near Palambang, Indonesia, killing all 104people on board. Crash investigators were unable to recover data pertaining to theaccident sequence. The plaintiffs sued the manufacturer of the plane’s rudder controlsystem, Parker Hannifin Corp.; the plane’s manufacturer, The Boeing Co.; and twomanufacturers whose products were installed in the plane, Kavlico Corp., and ITTIndustries Inc. alleging strict products liability and negligence.

The plaintiffs contended that design and manufacturing defects in the rudder control system caused the loss of control of the plane. The plaintiffs argued that ParkerHannifin did not conform to manufacturing specifications and that the design of therudder control system made it susceptible to jamming. Parker Hannifin contendedthat its components were not defective and did not cause the accident. It argued thatthe plane’s pilot intentionally caused the crash because he was despondent overfinancial setbacks.

RESULT: Before trial, Boeing settled for an undisclosed amount. SilkAir paid $200,000 to each family under the Warsaw Convention, which limits airlines’ liability in interna-tional accidents. Both Kavlico and ITT Industries were voluntarily dismissed beforetrial. Jurors found Parker Hannifin 100 percent liable and awarded a total of $43.6 million. Families of approximately 30 other crash victims will go to trial in the samecourt; 40 other cases are pending in federal court in Seattle.



C-12

19

20

■ Case 19 ■

INSURANCEBad Faith—Breach of Contract—Insurance

Verdict(P) $44,000,000

CaseLewis J. MacKool v. Medical SavingsInsurance Co. and Medical SavingsInvestment Inc., No. CJ-2002-2962

CourtTulsa County District Court, OK

Date04/30/2004

■ Case 20 ■

AVIATIONAirplane Accidents—Wrongful Death—Products Liability—Design Defect—Manufacturing Defect

Verdict(P) $43,600,000

Case(Sun v. Parker Hannifin Corp.) JunithaBee et al. v. Kavlico Corp. et al.,No. BC 202587


Date07/06/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 13

Plume from gasoline spill affected property values

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff is the Sunburst School District No. 2 inMontana. In 1955, approximately 200,000 gallons of raw gasoline leakedat the nearby Sunburst Works Refinery, contaminating a 19-acre under-

ground area in a residential neighborhood. Chevron-Texaco, which owned the refinery,and Texaco Corp., which operated it, performed cleanups in 1955 and 1993, but resi-dents contended the cleanups were not sufficient. In 2001, the school district, actingindividually and on behalf of 82 similarly situated claimants, commenced a toxic tortclass action against Texaco Inc., subsidiary Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., andseveral company executives, named as John Does A through Z.

The plaintiffs alleged that an underground plume migrated to the town and causedproperty damage and that the cleanups did not address the residential area. The plain-tiffs noted that the cleanup method—known as natural attenuation—is best used as afinal cleanup action, not a primary one. They contended that natural attenuation didnot address the continuing source of the contamination.

RESULT: The judge found that Texaco had trespassed on the properties situated on thecontaminated plume and was strictly liable for any residual damage. The jury awardedthe class $41,117,500.

Headlock used on man in cuffs and leg irons

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Nov. 3, 1997, plaintiff Jeffrey Adrian Alston, 32,a trade-school student, was arrested in Baltimore for speeding and DUI.He claimed that after he was handcuffed and placed in leg irons, he was

strip-searched on the street. Then, he claimed, Officer Mark Warble put him in a head-lock, which caused his neck to break. Warble drove him to Sinai Hospital in Baltimore,accompanied by Officer Lewis Yamin, who was also present during the arrest. Anotherofficer, Mike Gentile, witnessed the strip search and the headlock.

Alston sued Warble, Yamin and Gentile for assault, battery, violations of theMaryland Constitution (which provides for protection of life, liberty and freedom),gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defense deniedthat Alston was placed in a headlock and claimed he injured his neck when he fell outof his seat in the police van. The plaintiff argued that there was no evidence of injuryto his head, proving that his neck was broken in a headlock.

RESULT: The jury found Warble liable for assault, battery, violations of the MarylandConstitution, gross negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It foundYamin liable for violations of the Maryland Constitution, and gross negligence. It foundno liability on the part of Gentile. The jury awarded the plaintiff $39,059,334.



C-13

■ Case 21 ■

TOXIC TORTSHazardous Waste—Real Property—Trespass—Nuisance—Class Action

Verdict(P) $41,117,500

CaseSunburst School District No. 2 v.Texaco, Inc., a Delaware Corporationfor Profit; Texaco Refining andMarketing, Inc., a DelawareCorporation for Profit; and Does A-Z,No. CDV01179

CourtMontana Eighth Judicial District Court,Cascade County, MT

Date08/18/2004

■ Case 22 ■

INTENTIONAL TORTSAssault—Battery—Gross Negligence—Intentional Infliction of EmotionalDistress—Civil Rights

Verdict(P) $39,059,334

CaseJeffrey Adrian Alston v. Mark Warble,Lewis Yamin, and Mike Gentile, No.97322053CC7950

CourtBaltimore City, Circuit Court, MD

Date06/01/2004

21

22

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 14

Accident left family of four with one dead, three injured

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Feb. 12, 1999, plaintiff Jerelyn Yoder, 36, anadministrative assistant, was a front-seat passenger in a 1995 GMCJimmy driven by her husband, Scott, 36. Their children, Teagan, 4, and

Zachary, 2, were in the back seat. As they were driving during a sudden snowstorm onI-90 in Rockford Township, Ill., they came upon a multivehicle accident at the end of anicy bridge. The pileup blocked most of the road and shoulders and the Yoders’ vehiclestruck the rear corner of a tractor-trailer that was in the median, but extended partlyinto the left lane. Teagan was killed and the rest of the family sustained severeinjuries.

In separate suits, Mr. and Ms. Yoder, individually and on behalf of her children, suednumerous parties for causing the accident and their injuries. Their cases were consoli-dated for trial. Ms. Yoder also sued her husband, from whom she is now divorced. Shesettled with him for his policy limits of $500,000. He was then removed from the caseas a defendant, but remained as a plaintiff.

RESULT: The jury completed separate verdict forms for Mr. and Ms. Yoder. They foundthat Mr. Yoder was more than 50 percent liable for his injuries, and awarded him nodamages. All defendants shared liability and the jury awarded Mrs. Yoder a total of$38.3 million.

State knew intersection was unsafe, but did nothing about it

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Jan. 28, 1998, a rainy and overcast day, plain-tiff Natalie Robley, 27, a hotel hostess, was a backseat passenger in a1986 Nissan Sentra driven by Mahamadou Sima. As the Sentra proceed-

ed on Church Lane in East Lansdowne, Pa., it came to the intersection with Long Lane.While Sima was making a left onto Long, his vehicle was struck by an Oldsmobile Olds88 driven by Maria Papatsiaras that was proceeding down Church from the oppositedirection. Robley was severely injured.

Robley sued Papatsiaras and Sima for negligence, as well as the Borough of EastLansdowne, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) and DelawareCounty. She also sued Nissan Motors for products liability, a claim that was resolved byconfidential settlement prior to trial. Robley voluntarily dismissed Delaware Countyand, prior to trial, reached a settlement with Papatsiaras. Sima, who was uninsuredand had previously declared bankruptcy, represented himself and did not appear attrial. Robley contended that the borough had been aware for nearly 30 years that theintersection of Church and Long was hazardous. Robley also claimed that the boroughfailed to respond to a PennDOT request in 1979 to report to it periodically concerningany safety issues at the intersection. She also claimed that PennDOT decided, based ona 1997 traffic study, that multiway stop signs at the intersection were not warranted,despite the fact that the borough had requested them, and despite a high rate of accidents at the intersection.

RESULT: The jury awarded Robley $38.2 million in damages.



C-14

23

24

■ Case 23 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEWeather Conditions—Tractor-Trailer—SUV—Wrongful Death—Ice

Verdict(P) $38,300,000

CaseJerelyn Yoder, Individually and asSpecial Administrator of the Estate ofTeagan Yoder, deceased, and JerelynYoder as Mother and Next Friend ofZachary S. Yoder, a minor v. James N.Ferguson, Ro-Mar TransportationSystems, Inc., Thomas I. Alexander, Jr.,Ruan Leasing Company, Single SourceTransportation Company, Roy JohnAlder, Berg Grain & Produce, Inc.,Rolling Plains, Inc., David Knoll, KeeTrans, Inc., Roundy’s. Inc. and Mary BethMarshall, No. 02-L-3002

CourtCook County Circuit Court, IL

Date03/26/2004

■ Case 24 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEIntersection—Government—NegligentMaintenance—Motor Vehicle—Transportation

Verdict(P) $38,200,000

CaseNatalie Robley v. Nissan MotorsCompany Ltd., Nissan North AmericaInc., Nissan Motor Manufacturing Corp.USA, Commonwealth of PennsylvaniaDepartment of Transportation, TheBorough of East Lansdowne, MariaPapatsiaras, Delaware County,Mahamadou Sima, No. 00-811

CourtDelaware County Court of CommonPleas, PA

Date02/10/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 15

Road to school lacked sidewalks; teen killed by underage driver

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 2001, plaintiffs’ decedent Karen Medina, 14,was walking on Cypress Avenue to A.B. Miller High School in Fontana,Calif. Because there was no sidewalk, she was walking on the right side

of the two-lane residential road, as was the students’ custom and practice. YaderCastro, a 15-year-old unlicensed driver, was traveling down Cypress. In an attempt topass a car in front of him, he accelerated to 60 mph (the speed limit was 35 mph) and,while swerving to avoid pedestrians on the left side of the road, lost control of hisvehicle and hit Medina, who was on the other side of the road. Castro was convicted of felony vehicular manslaughter.

Medina’s mother and father sued the city of Fontana, claiming dangerous conditionof public property. The city filed a cross-complaint against Castro as well as his motherand his stepfather, who gave him permission to take the car. The plaintiffs claimedthat the city had long known that student pedestrians could get hurt or killed on theroad because students were sharing it with cars since 1991.

RESULT: The jury found the city 75 percent at fault and Castro’s parents each 12.5 percent at fault and awarded the plaintiffs $37.5 million.

Lutheran church protected pedophile pastor

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Between 1996 and 2001, the 14 plaintiff JohnDoes, all minors, were sexually assaulted by Gerald Patrick Thomas Jr.,a minister of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America who served

at congregations in Texas and Ohio. In 2001, Thomas was charged with possession of child pornography and sentenced to five years in federal prison. In 2003, he wassentenced to more than 397 years in state prison for sexually assaulting boys in Texas.The plaintiffs alleged negligent hiring, retention and supervision; negligent assump-tion of risk of intentional or criminal conduct; negligent misrepresentation involvingrisk of physical harm; gross negligence; malice; conspiracy; concert of action; jointenterprise liability; and criminal responsibility for Thomas’ behavior.

RESULT: The individual awards, ranging from $50,000 to $9.8 million, totaled$36,789,797.



C-15

25

26

■ Case 25 ■

PREMISES LIABILITYDangerous Condition of PublicProperty—Motor Vehicle—Pedestrian—Wrongful Death—Government

Verdict(P) $37,500,000

CaseCruz Medina and Agueda Miranda v.City of Fontana v. Walter AntonioGrande, Claudia Fatima Rivas, and YaderHernaldo Castro, No. SCVSS 094904

CourtSuperior Court of San BernardinoCounty, San Bernardino, CA

Date09/20/2004

■ Case 26 ■

EMPLOYMENTNegligent Retention—NegligentSupervision—Malice—Conspiracy—Joint Enterprise—Sexual Assault

Verdict(P) $36,789,797

CaseJohn Alfred Doe #1 and others v.TrinityLutheran Seminary, The NorthernTexas/Northern Louisiana Synod, Rev.Earl Eliason, Rev. Mark B. Herbener andthe Evangelical Lutheran Church ofAmerica, No. 02-0157

CourtHarrison County District Court, 71st, TX

Date04/22/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 16

Exposure to gaskets and joint compound caused mesothelioma

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: From 1965 to 1972, plaintiff Robert Treggett, now60, was a nuclear-trained machinist mate aboard the USS Marshall, anuclear submarine. His duties involved the overhaul, repair and mainte-

nance of the nuclear propulsion plant equipment, duties which, Treggett claimed,exposed him to enormous amounts of asbestos dust. He also claimed that he wasexposed to various asbestos-containing products, including gaskets manufactured byGarlock Sealing Technologies.

Treggett also claimed that for six months in 1975 and 1976 he performed home-remodeling work that involved working with asbestos-containing joint compound.Specifically, he claimed that he was exposed to asbestos while mixing and sandingKelly-Moore Paint Co.’s “Paco Quik-Set” compound. On Oct. 1, 2003, Treggett was diag-nosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer in which malignantcells are found in the mesothelium, a protective sac that covers most of the body’sinternal organs. It is caused by exposure to asbestos.

RESULT: The jury found Garlock 40 percent liable, Kelly-Moore 14 percent liable andother non-parties 46 percent liable (including 39 percent to the U.S. Navy). The juryawarded Mr. Treggett a total of $36,688,496, including $18 million in punitive damages.

Woman hit and left paralyzed by drunken speeder

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On May 21, 1998, plaintiff Sally Schwartz, 42, amedical assistant, was driving her Kia sedan in Cape Coral, Fla. StevenR. English, 41, in a Mazda sedan, was driving about 70 mph in a 45-mph

zone when he slammed into the rear of Schwartz’s car, causing it to roll several times.She is now paralyzed. English fled the scene and went home. Because he had cuts onhis face, his wife called for an ambulance. English told conflicting stories. After tellingparamedics that he drank five beers prior to driving, he told police that he only drankthree beers. He was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. The arrestreport indicated a blood-alcohol level of more than twice the state’s legal limit. He wasconvicted of driving while intoxicated and served time in jail. Prior to the accident, hehad been arrested three times for driving on a suspended license and had served jailtime for a 1994 offense. Schwartz sued English for negligence, and cited his inebriationand his attempt to flee the scene as factors warranting an award of punitive damages.

RESULT: The jury found that English was negligent, and recklessly and wantonly indifferent to the life and safety of Schwartz and the public. It awarded Schwartz $35 million.



C-16

27

28

■ Case 27 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYAsbestos—Strict Liability—ProductsLiability—Failure to Warn—DesignDefect—Negligence—Workplace

Verdict(P) $36,688,496

CaseRobert Treggett and Linda Treggett v.Garlock Sealing Technologies and Kelly-Moore Paint Company, Inc., No.BC307058


Date10/20/2004

■ Case 28 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEAlcohol Involvement—Motor Vehicle—Hit and Run—Rollover

Verdict(P) $35,000,000

CaseSally Schwartz v. Steven R. English,No. 02-3039-CA

CourtLee County Circuit Court, 20th, FL

Date09/14/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 17

Failure to monitor blood flow after surgery resulted in paralysis

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1999, plaintiff Iwona Miller, a 39-year-old deliclerk, went to Dr. Richard Berg for an angiogram. While performing theprocedure, Berg, who had operated on an artery in Miller’s left leg months

earlier, inadvertently damaged her aorta. He operated later that day to repair the dam-age and create an arterial bypass. While in recovery, she developed blood clots whichseverely limited the flow of blood to her legs. The decreased blood flow resulted in herbeing paralyzed below the waist; she also had to undergo a below-the-knee amputationof her right leg. Miller sued Berg and his practice, St. Clair Vascular Associates Michigan,for medical malpractice. She claimed that Berg failed to properly monitor her circulationafter surgery. (She did not sue over the damaged aorta, which is a common risk of thesurgery, and within the standard of care, according to her attorney, Stephen Schaefer.)The defendants argued that they acted according to the standard of care, and attributedMiller’s problems to underlying vascular disease.

RESULT: The jury found the defendants liable and awarded $34,361,253.

Coin boxes in armored van surged forward, hurting messenger

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Oct. 31, 1998, plaintiff Daniel Hiscock, a 50-year-old armed messenger for Loomis Fargo, was a passenger in anarmored van built by Griffin, Inc. The van was traveling in heavy fog on

U.S. 41 in Gibsonton, Fla., when it rear-ended a tanker truck. At the moment of impact,the van was going about 25 mph. Boxes of coins in the cargo area located behindHiscock surged forward, breaking through the hollow metal bar designed to restrainthem. The boxes pushed his seatback forward, causing serious crush injuries. Hiscocksued Griffin for strict products liability. He claimed that the van was defectivelydesigned because it lacked an effective device to prevent cargo from shifting while thevehicle was in motion. He argued that a feasible alternative restraining device couldhave been built for $214.

RESULT: The jury found Griffin liable and awarded the plaintiffs $33,890,000 in damages.



C-17

■ Case 29 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICENegligent Treatment

Verdict (P) $34,361,253

CaseIwona Miller and Michael Miller v.Richard Berg, M.D., and St. ClairVascular Associates, P.C., No. 02-214453NH

CourtWayne County, Circuit Court, MI

Date02/05/2004

■ Case 30 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYDesign Defect—Strict Liability—MotorVehicle—Rear-ender

Verdict(P) $33,890,000

CaseDaniel Hiscock, individually and as personal representative of the Estateof June Hiscock v. Griffin, Inc., No.01004080

CourtHillsborough County Circuit Court,13th, FL

Date04/27/2004

29

30

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 18

Decision to go with vaginal delivery led to brain damage

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On the morning of Aug. 8, 1997, plaintiff MistyCampbell, 20, went to St. Francis Hospital & Health Center in BlueIsland, Ill. In the late stages of her first pregnancy, Campbell was experi-

encing uterine contractions. She had experienced no prior prenatal problems. Doctorshooked her up to an external fetal-heart monitor which indicated a healthy baby. Aftereight hours, Campbell’s contractions were still not consistent, and there was no evidence of cervical change, so she was discharged. At approximately 7:30 p.m.,Campbell returned to the hospital. Her contractions were now consistent, and she wasentering the early stage of labor. Pitocin was administered to move things along. At2:10 a.m., Campell’s blood pressure began to increase dramatically. For the next fivehours, her blood pressure was recorded every half hour. Her readings were all abnor-mally high. Her nurses recorded the readings. Campbell began to experience uterinehyperstimulation—five or more contractions during a 10-minute period. Between 3a.m. and 7:30 a.m., she experienced eight separate episodes of hyperstimulation. Thenewborn, Tairay Sewell, exhibited low Apgar scores, indicating poor physical condition.Tairay, now 7, sustained hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy that resulted in severe brain damage. He suffers from cognitive deficits, seizure disorder, cortical blindness,spasticity, cerebral palsy and scoliosis. He cannot walk, talk or feed himself.

RESULT: The jury found that the defendants were jointly and severally liable andawarded the plaintiffs $34 million.

C-section should have been ordered after drop in heart rate

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Oct. 19, 1998, plaintiff Maira Jiminian, oneweek beyond her due date, presented to New York’s ColumbiaPresbyterian Medical Center. She underwent a non-stress test and a

biophysical profile, which predicts the presence or absence of fetal asphyxia. The pro-file produced an acceptable score. However, her non-stress test indicated the absenceof sufficient heart-rate accelerations. Jiminian was sent to the hospital’s labor anddelivery unit, where labor was induced via a Cervidi insertion. The insertion wasremoved one hour later. Doctors observed that Jiminian’s membranes were now ruptured, a moderate amount of meconium was noted and the fetal heart monitor’stracings showed occasional variable decelerations. Approximately four hours after hermembranes ruptured, her son, Ernesto Estrada, was delivered via C-section, which wasperformed because of the arrest of dilatation. At the time of Ernesto’s delivery, meconi-um aspiration was observed. Ernesto, now 6, is mentally handicapped. At age five, hedeveloped seizures. He does not experience motor deficits, but he suffers from cerebralpalsy that causes gait impairments. The defense argued that Ernesto’s conditionstems from a genetic defect.

RESULT: The jury rendered a plaintiff’s verdict. It awarded Ernesto $31,860,112



C-18

32

31■ Case 31 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—Failure to Communicate—Failure to Treat

Verdict(P) $34,000,000

CaseMisty Campbell, Individually, and asMother and Next Friend of TairaySewell, a minor v. Rush-PrudentialHMO, Inc., a corporation, Mary AnnDean-Onayemi, M.D., and SSM HealthCare Corporation, a/k/a St. FrancisHospital & Health Center, a corpora-tion, No. 99-L-8730


Date10/21/2004

■ Case 32 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—Delayed Treatment

Verdict(P) $31,860,112.

CaseErnesto Estrada, an Infant by Hism/n/g, Maira Jiminian v. New YorkPresbyterian Medical Center,No. 119989/01

CourtNew York Supreme, NY

Date11/19/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 19

Delays blamed for infant’s brain damage

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Feb. 4, 1987, plaintiff Suzana Umerovska, anunemployed woman in her 30th week of pregnancy, visited one of herobstetricians, Dr. Paul Ennin. Umerovska reported that she was experi-

encing abdominal pain and vaginal leakage. Ennin determined that hospitalizationwas not necessary. The next evening, Umerovska’s amniotic membrane ruptured.She called her doctors, and one of her obstetricians, Dr. Paul Owusu-Baah, told her toreport to Interfaith Medical Center in Brooklyn. Umerovska reported to the hospital’semergency room. At approximately 1:13 a.m. on Feb. 6, she was prepared for aCaesarean delivery. At 2:40 a.m., a hospital resident delivered a girl, plaintiff DritaManuka. Drita had sustained umbilical-cord prolapse, a condition in which the umbilical cord lodges in the mother’s vagina, thus interrupting nutrient intake. Herarms, chest and legs were bruised, and she exhibited jaundice, an absence of motorreflexes and hypotonia, or decreased muscle tone. Doctors subsequently determinedthat she had sustained hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, as a result of which she now suffers from cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia and mental retardation.

RESULT: The jury awarded $31.1 million, ruling the medical center held 40 percent lia-bility, Owusu-Baah 40 percent, and Ennin 20 percent.

Blood of jaundiced baby wasn’t tested in a timely manner

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On May 8, 1999, plaintiff’s decedent Na’eemShahid was born at home to Ayesha Shahid. Just after delivery, Dr. MarkZumhagen of Mayer Eisenstein, MD, SE, in Chicago, using Home First, a

Chicago-based nursing agency, took blood samples from Na’eem’s umbilical cord totest his bilirubin level. Zumhagen placed the samples in a refrigerator in his home.The next day, Na’eem’s parents and a nurse noticed that Na’eem was jaundiced.Zumhagen and Dr. Peter Rosi of Home First were informed. Zumhagen, Rosi and thenurse all knew that the blood samples had not been tested yet. On May 10, Rosi wastold that Na’eem was more jaundiced, so he ordered a bilirubin test, which was notscheduled until the next day.

On May 11, Zumhagen brought the blood sample to Home First’s clinic, which sent it to South Suburban Hospital in Chicago. Meanwhile, Na’eem was taken to theUniversity of Illinois at Chicago Hospital. He was hyper-irritable and he couldn’t hear;he was crying and inconsolable. He had already sustained brain damage resulting frombilirubin reaching a high level. The hospital eventually lowered his bilirubin level, butthe damage had already been done. On May 16, Na’eem was discharged. However, hiscondition worsened and he stopped breathing in the early morning hours of May 24,and was taken to the University of Chicago Hospital, where he died.

RESULT: The jury found the defendants jointly and severally liable and awarded $30 million in damages.



C-19

■ Case 33 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—Delayed Treatment—Failure to Admit—Wrong Procedure Surgery—EmergencyRoom

Verdict(P) $31,100,000

CaseDrita Manuka, an Infant by Her Motherand Natural Guardian, SuzanaUmerovska v. Dr. Paul Ennin andInterfaith Medical Center / InterfaithMedical Center v. Ennin & Baah, M.D.,P.C. and Paul Owusu-Baah, M.D.,No. 38396/95; 76393/01

CourtKings Supreme, NY

Date03/16/2004

■ Case 34 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—Failure to Treat—Nurse

Verdict(P) $30,000,000

CaseAyesha Shahid, special administrator of the Estate of Na’eem Shahid v. HomeCare Home Health Agency d/b/a HomeFirst, Mayer Eisenstein, MD, SE, Dr.Peter Rosi, and Dr. Mark Zumhagen,No. 00L-734


Date02/24/2004

33

34

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 20

Man stabbed wife 26 times, once for each month of marriage

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff’s decedent Brandy L. Swope, 26, was theonly child of plaintiffs Ronald and Patricia Swope. On Oct. 12, 1996, shemarried defendant Todd Johnson. They had been married for 26 months

at the time of her death on Dec. 19, 1998. She died of 26 separate and significant knifewounds. Johnson called 911 and said his wife had committed suicide. He later signed asix-page statement admitting that he had killed her. However, with the help of experttestimony, including that of a human-fatigue expert who explained away the confes-sion, Johnson was found not guilty in the criminal trial. In the criminal trial, Johnsonclaimed that his paramour, Revonna Nutt, with whom he had sex on the night ofSwope’s death, killed his wife. Nutt invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to testify in front of the jury in Johnson’s criminal trial. The Swopes brought the instantwrongful death action against both Johnson and Nutt.

RESULT: The jury found Johnson liable and Nutt not liable. It awarded the plaintiffs $30 million.

Three-hour delay in C-section resulted in retardation, palsy

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff Walter Hollins, now 17, was born in 1987with severe mental retardation and cerebral palsy. On July 4, 1986, hismother, Regina Harris, then 19, went to Northeast Ohio Neighborhood

Health Services in Cleveland where she learned that she was pregnant, and was givena due date of Feb. 7, 1987. At an office visit on Jan. 22, 1987, Dr. Ronald Jordan noted agestational age of 37 weeks and a fundal height (measurement from the top of thepubic bone to the top of the uterus) of 34 centimeters. Jordan claimed that he felt thatgiven Harris’ age and the gestational age of the fetus, the fetus had simply becomeengaged, or dropped below the pelvis, which explained why it was not showing larger.On Jan. 29, Harris presented with a gestational age of 38 weeks and a fundal height of32 centimeters. She was transported to Mt. Sinai Medical Center in Cleveland and wasadmitted at about 6:30 p.m. Harris was given Pitocin for a total of 12 minutes, whichrevealed late decelerations. The Pitocin was stopped and an emergency cesarean delivery was scheduled.

Walter was not doing well and was transferred to University Hospitals of Cleveland,where he was diagnosed with severe mental retardation and cerebral palsy. Walter,through his guardian, sued Jordan; Jordan’s employer, Ohio Neighborhood HealthServices; and Mt. Sinai Hospital, for medical malpractice. The plaintiff claimed thatHarris had to wait more than three hours for the emergency C-section, during whichtime the flow of oxygen to Walter’s brain was cut off.

RESULT: On the first day of trial, before the jury was sworn in, University Hospitals settled for an undisclosed amount. The jury found the remaining defendants jointlyand severally liable and awarded the plaintiff $30 million.



C-20

36

35■ Case 35 ■

WRONGFUL DEATHSurvival—Evidence—Expert Witnesses

Verdict(P) $30,000,000

CaseRonald and Patricia Swope v. ToddJohnson and Revonna Nutt,No. CV101-8917 CC

CourtClay County Circuit Court, 7th, MO

Date05/21/2004

■ Case 36 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—Delayed Treatment

Verdict(P) $30,000,000

CaseMark McCloud as the guardian ofWalter Hollins v. Mt. Sinai MedicalCenter, Dr. Ronald Jordan, NortheastOhio Neighborhood Health Services,University Hospitals of Cleveland.,No. CV-02-484240

CourtCuyahoga County Court of CommonPleas, OH

Date05/24/2004

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 21

Child who stepped on nail died from failure to monitor antibiotic

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On April 14, 2001, plaintiff’s decedent Nathan O.Swilley, 10, stepped on a nail. His mother, Christina Wallace, took him toFlorida Hospital in Apopka on April 15 and 17. His wound was treated

and he was sent home each time. On April 18, Nathan was seen by orthopedic surgeonAdam Fenichel, who recommended hospital admission. Fenichel referred the child toDr. Vivek S. Desai. On April 25, Nathan was prescribed IV antibiotics, which Dr. AyodejiB. Otegbeye ordered home health care nursing to administer. The order was arrangedand managed by Florida Hospital of Orlando and Children’s First Home Health Care.

These IV antibiotics have the potential to cause liver and kidney damage, meaningthe blood needs to be monitored carefully. Nathan’s blood was never monitored. OnApril 25, Wallace was instructed to bring the boy to Otegbeye’s office for drug-levelmonitoring. Wallace testified that she “forgot” to make the appointment. On May 6,Wallace called Desai and said Nathan suffered from a high fever, vomiting and diarrhea and was told that if he felt no better in two to four hours to bring him to theemergency room. Desai also told her to bring Nathan in the next morning for lab work.Wallace arrived at Florida Hospital with Nathan at 9:40 p.m. that night. Nathan wasadmitted and renal failure was confirmed. During treatment, Nathan developed dialysis disequilibrium syndrome, which caused brain swelling and death.

RESULT: The jury found Otegbeye 59 percent at fault, Desai 33 percent at fault and set-tling defendant Children’s First 8 percent at fault. It found $30 million in damages

After exiting subway car, unwary rider clipped by train

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Dec. 10, 2001, plaintiff Alice Huang, 18, a college student, boarded the fifth car of an eight-car New York CityTransit Authority subway train. When the train arrived at the 23rd

Street station in Manhattan, Huang began to exit. As she was stepping off the train,she dropped a book onto the station’s platform. She was bending over to pick it upwhen the train began to exit the station. The train’s side struck Huang’s head, causingher to spin three or four times and stumble toward the train. Her left leg becamecaught between the train’s sixth and seventh cars, and she was dragged through thestation, sustaining severe head and leg injuries.

Huang sued the Transit Authority. She contended that the train’s conductor, JohnRogers, was negligent for failing to observe her and for directing the train’s operator toproceed while there was insufficient clearance between the train and a passenger injeopardy. She noted that Rogers was stationed in the train’s fifth car at the time of the incident.

RESULT: The jury rendered a plaintiff’s verdict, awarding Huang $28,574,587.



C-21

■ Case 37 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEPrescription and Medication—MedicalMalpractice—Negligent Treatment—Nurse

Verdict(P) $30,000,000

CaseChristina Marie Wallace, as personalrepresentative of the Estate of NathanOliver Swilley, deceased v. Vivek S.Desai, Ayodeji B. Otegbeye M.D. andCentral Florida Pediatric Intensive CareSpecialists, Florida Hospital andChildren’s First Home Health Care,No. CI002-2410

CourtOrange County Circuit Court, FL

Date07/29/2004

■ Case 38 ■

RAILROADSubway Accident—Negligence

Verdict(P) $28,574,587

CaseAlice Huang v. New York City TransitAuthority, No. 106258/02


Date09/22/2004

37

38

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 22

Foot-dragging on claim affected insured’s ability to earn

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Nov. 3, 1998, plaintiff George Hofmeister, anentrepreneur, was severely injured in a head-on collision with a vehicledriven by Eugene Clark in the course and scope of employment for

Dasher Express. Hofmeister filed a negligence suit against Dasher’s insurer, Fairfield,Ohio-based Cincinnati Insurance Co., which hired attorney Daniel Murner to defend it.From June 2000 to Oct. 3, 2002, no offer was made to settle the claim. Cincinnati thenoffered $109,000 to settle all claims except the claim for lost wages, which Hofmeisterhad shown through W-2 forms to be in the millions. Hofmeister asserted that 10 daysbefore Cincinnati made the offer a supervisor at the insurer wished the claims handler “good luck” supporting Murner’s efforts to poke holes in Hofmeister’s claims.Hofmeister argued that the statement indicated Cincinnati’s belief that his lost-wageclaim was valid.

RESULT: The court directed a verdict in favor of Cincinnati on Hofmeister’s claim forintentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury found for Hofmeister on the badfaith claim and awarded him $28,405,505.

Continued administration of Pitocin was harmful to fetus

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Aug. 28, 1998, Judy Sapp went to BaptistHospital East in Louisville, Ky., to deliver her son Spencer. Labor wasinduced with Pitocin. Fetal monitoring showed a decline in the amount

of oxygen reaching the fetus, and physician Maria Schweichler performed a vacuumextraction. The infant suffered hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, resulting in braindamage and cerebral palsy. The Sapps sued Baptist Healthcare Systems Inc., operatingas Baptist Hospital East, and Schweichler for medical negligence.

The Sapps claimed a nurse was negligent in continuing to administer Pitocin afterthe fetus’ vital signs began to drop. The Sapps further claimed that the hospital wasnegligent in permitting Schweichler, who had done only a few vacuum extractions, toperform the delivery without a mentor. Schweichler settled before trial for a confiden-tial amount. The hospital contended that the problem was caused by an “unexpected,unforeseeable and unpreventable” movement of the fetus that constricted the umbili-cal cord. The hospital further maintained that Schweichler had the proper credentialsfor performing the delivery.

RESULT: The jury found Baptist Hospital 80 percent at fault and Schweichler 20 percentat fault. The jury set damages at $27,599,000.



C-22

■ Case 39 ■

INSURANCEBad Faith—Insurance—Coverage—Intentional Infliction of EmotionalDistress

Verdict (P) $28,405,505

CaseGeorge Hofmeister and KayHofmeister v. Cincinnati Insurance Co.,No. 00-CI-00030

CourtScott County Circuit Court, KY

Date06/04/2004

■ Case 40 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—Hospital

Verdict(P) $27,599,000

CaseDonald J. Laduke, as conservator ofSpencer Sapp, a minor v. BaptistHealthcare Systems, Inc., d/b/a BaptistHospital East, and Maria Scweichler,M.D., No. 99-CI-07336

CourtJefferson County Circuit Court, KY

Date04/16/2004

39

40

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 23

Lane changing on I-435 results in family’s death

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On July 13, 2001, Mary Coleman was driving aPontiac Sunfire in rush-hour traffic, heading south on Interstate I-435 in Kansas City with her husband of six weeks, Richard, in the front

passenger seat, and Richard’s mother Earlene Coleman and Mary’s nephew BrandonColeman in the back seat. Jasmine Besares was driving her Oldsmobile Cutlass slightlyahead of the Coleman’s vehicle in the right exit lane when she attempted to exit theinterstate. But when she noticed that the exit was backed up due to a stalled vehicle,she abruptly moved back into Coleman’s lane, sideswiping her vehicle and pushingColeman into the next lane, where it was struck in the rear by an AuctionTransportation truck that was carrying several vehicles.

The accident involved multiple vehicles and resulted in the death of Mary Coleman and Earlene Coleman, and caused a knee injury and closed head injury to Mary Coleman’s husband, and serious brain damage and physical injuries toBrandon Coleman.

RESULT: The jury returned a plaintiffs’ verdict for $27 million.

Mall parking lot exit endangered highway drivers

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Jan. 16, 1998, plaintiff Alexander Lacy, 17, ajunior at Wyoming Valley High School, was a passenger in the front ofThomas Rolland’s Pontiac Grand Am; another friend sat in the back.

Proceeding southbound on SR 11 in Edwardsville on their way to school, they passedthe Mark Plaza, a shopping mall with two driveways exiting onto SR 11. As theyapproached the second driveway, a car pulled in front of Rolland, who tried to move over but found his path blocked by a vehicle veering left into the merge lane.Rolland turned sharply to the right, lost control and skidded across the highway into oncoming traffic.

A northbound vehicle, operated by Leonard Kovaleski, struck the passenger side ofRolland’s car. Kovaleski was killed, and Lacy was severely injured. Lacy’s parents suedRolland; the owner of Mark Plaza, Acadia Realty Trust, formerly Mark Realty Trust;Mattress Man, which had an eight-foot-high sign posted at the exit; and thePennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The plaintiffs contended thatMark Plaza was supposed to have constructed an acceleration lane at the exit of themall where the accident took place since it was built in 1968. The occupancy permit it was issued required it build such a lane, which the plaintiffs argued would haveprevented the accident.

RESULT: The jury found Rolland 68 percent at fault and Acadia 32 percent at fault andawarded Lacy $24,875,000 in damages.



C-23

■ Case 41 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEWrongful Death—Survival

Verdict(P) $27,000,000

CaseRichard Coleman, Mary Coleman,Brandon Coleman, and EarleneColeman v. Auction Transport Inc. andJasmine D. Besares, No. 02CV201825

CourtJackson County Circuit Court, MO

Date09/28/2004

■ Case 42 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEMultiple Vehicle—Motor Vehicle—Passenger

Verdict(P) $24,875,000

CaseAlexander Lacy, a minor, by his parentsRoger and Ann Lacy, plaintiffs, v.Acadia Realty Trust, f/k/a Mark RealtyTrust, Thomas Rolland, Mattress Man,and the Pennsylvania Department ofTransportation, No. 629-C of 2000

CourtLuzerne County Court of CommonPleas, PA

Date11/23/2004

41

42

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 24

Man with suspended license and DWIs was able to rent car

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Nov. 29, 2000, plaintiff Helen Nettles, 56,director of a dialysis clinic, was rear-ended by Jeffrey Lamont Tate onHarrisburg Road in Houston. Nettles’ Toyota pickup caught fire and she

died later that day. Tate, who was driving an Enterprise rental car, was intoxicated. Hepleaded guilty to intoxicated manslaughter. In the two months before the accident,Tate had been cited twice for DWI. The second time, he received a one-year licensesuspension and a 30-day jail term.

Nettles’ estate, husband and children sued Tate; Enterprise Leasing Co.; ProgressiveCounty Mutual Insurance Co., which the plaintiffs alleged had arranged the rental car for Tate, its policyholder, the preceding day; and Toyota, for defects relating to the design and location of the pickup’s fuel tank. Toyota settled for an undisclosedamount. The plaintiffs alleged that after Tate finished the jail term for his second DWI,he bought a new insurance policy from Progressive. Tate’s vehicle was damaged in theaccident that led to the second DWI arrest, and Progressive referred him to an on-siteEnterprise agent on Nov. 28. The plaintiffs alleged that Enterprise was negligent forrenting to Tate since his license was suspended at the time. Enterprise settled for anundisclosed amount just before jury selection.

RESULT: The jury awarded the plaintiffs $24.75 million. It found Progressive 20 percentat fault, Enterprise 20 percent negligent and Tate 60 percent negligent.

Illegal alien with fake driver’s license hit SUV, killing four

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Dec. 17, 2002, plaintiffs’ decedent KimberlyHughes, 38, was driving a GMC Yukon east of Paradise, Texas. Her mother, plaintiffs’ decedent Joyce Watkins, 71; her daughter, plaintiffs’

decedent Afton Hughes Royse, 17; her son, plaintiffs’ decedent Shiloh Hughes, 14; and her grandson, plaintiff Jagr, age 1, were passengers. The Yukon collided with anoncoming 18-wheeler, went into a spin and was broadsided by a pickup that wasbehind the tractor-trailer. Shiloh Hughes and Joyce Watkins were pronounced dead atthe scene. Afton Royse died the next day, and Kimberly Hughes died three days afterthe accident. Jagr suffered minor injuries. The semi was driven by Ricardo Rodriguez,an undocumented immigrant who had been deported in June 2000, returned to theUnited States and, in May 2001, used false documents to obtain a commercial driver’slicense and employment with TXI Transportation Co.

RESULT: The jury found Rodriguez 50 percent negligent, Melendez 25 percent negligentand TXI 25 percent negligent. It found no negligence on Hughes’ part. It awarded theplaintiffs $16,088,216 in actual damages and, finding gross neglect by TXI, it assessed$7.5 million in exemplary damages.



C-24

■ Case 43 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEAlcohol Involvement—Motor Vehicle—Truck—Rear-ender

Verdict(P) $24,750,000

CaseRobert G. Nettles, individually and asadministrator of the estate of Helen W.Nettles, deceased, Steven E. Nettles,and Karen Menard v. Enterprise LeasingCompany of Houston, Jeffrey LamontTate, Progressive County MutualInsurance Co., and Toyota Motor Corp.,No. 2001-59368

CourtHarris County District Court, 157th, TX

Date08/11/2004

■ Case 44 ■

MOTOR VEHICLETractor-Trailer—Wrongful Death—Survival—Truck

Verdict(P) $23,588,216

CaseMultiple plaintiffs v. TXI TransportationCo.; Ricardo Rodriguez and AurelioMelendez v. Willie Watkins, as PersonalRepresentative for the Estate ofKimberly Watkins Hughes,No. 03-03-379

CourtWise County District Court, 271st, TX

Date05/13/2004

43

44

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 25

Truck didn’t maintain safe braking distance, hit sedan

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In December 2000, plaintiff Edwin Mejia, a 32-year-old maintenance worker for a Fort Lauderdale condominium,was driving his Toyota Corolla on I-95. His wife, plaintiff’s decedent

Dilcia, 30, and their 3-year-old daughter, plaintiff Nelly, were passengers. In front ofthem was an Oldsmobile Cutlass driven by Carloe Levy-Johnson. While passingthrough the Golden Glades interchange, Levy-Johnson, for unexplained reasons,slowed to a near stop, prompting Edwin Mejia to slow to 6 mph or less whereupon aU.S. Navy-owned refrigerator truck slammed into the back of Mejia’s car at 55 mph.Dilcia died shortly after the accident. Mr. Mejia was left severely brain damaged, andnow requires round-the-clock care. Nelly, who was sitting in the back seat, survivedwithout any significant injuries. The refrigerator truck was driven by Daniel Webb for Nashville-based Manheim Auctions Government Services.

RESULT: The jury found Webb 90 percent at fault for the accident. It deemed Levy-Johnson, who was a nonparty defendant (brought in for liability apportionment only),10 percent at fault. The jury found $23.5 million in total damages.

Nurse failed to inform physician of irregular fetal heart rate

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1998, plaintiff Brandon Jones was being delivered in Provena St. Therese Medical Center in Waukegan, Ill. Fetalmonitors showed variable decelerations consistent with umbilical cord

compression. Brandon’s family claimed that nurse Tammy Varghese failed to informattending physician Sherri Schreiber of the irregularity. Minutes later Schreiber learnedof the decelerations in Brandon’s heart rate and ordered an emergency cesarean deliv-ery. The family claimed that nurse Lynn Blacinzic failed to have the operating roompromptly prepared, resulting in further delay. Brandon was born with brain damageand cerebral palsy. Brandon and his parents sued the hospital for medical malpractice,claiming that the delayed C-section was the cause of his injuries.

RESULT: The jury found Provena negligent, without specifying which of its staff wasnegligent. The jury awarded $23.3 million.



C-25

■ Case 45 ■

MOTOR VEHICLERear-ender—Agency/ApparentAgency—Vicarious Liability—Motor Vehicle

Verdict(P) $23,500,000

CaseOsbaldo Mejia, as legal guardian ofEdwin Mejia and Nelly Mejia v.Manheim Auctions GovernmentServices, Daytona Auto DealersExchange and Daniel Wayne Webb,No. 01-18808-CA-21

CourtMiami-Dade County Circuit Court, FL

Date04/05/2004

■ Case 46 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEChildbirth—Medical Malpractice—Failure to Communicate—Negligence

Verdict(P) $23,300,000

CaseBrandon Jones v. Provena St. ThereseMedical Center, No. 00 L 718

CourtLake County Circuit Court, IL

Date03/25/2004

45

46

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 26

City used building code to thwart opening of Alzheimer’s facilities

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1990, plaintiff Shirley McClure attempted toconvert six homes in Long Beach, Calif., into residential care facilitiesfor Alzheimer’s patients. Neighbors complained, asserting that

Alzheimer’s patients were a threat to their children and property values. The city saidthe projects were legal and the only recourse was strict enforcement of building codes.The city halted development, claiming multiple building code violations, and filedcriminal charges against McClure for said violations. McClure left Long Beach and lost the homes to foreclosure; the city dropped the criminal charges.

In 1992, McClure and her son, Jason, sued the city, two of its then-city council members, and its then-city planning and building director, alleging violations of theirright to equal protection and the federal Fair Housing Act. The McClures contendedthat the defendants used local codes as a pretext for an action of discrimination, thatthe defendants treated them differently from others similarly situated and that their treatment was motivated by an irrational prejudice. The McClures argued that the citytook no action against the subsequent building owners, who did not use them asAlzheimer’s residences. The defendants contended their actions were a lawful application of the building code, not a pretext to discriminate.

RESULT: The jury found the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ rights to equal protec-tion under the U.S. Constitution and the Fair Housing Act and awarded $22.5 million.

Mesothelioma resulted from exposure on ships and in shipyards

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Between 1943 and 1945, plaintiff Bernard Mayerworked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, where his tasks included cutting andinstalling gaskets and packing materials, much of which contained

asbestos. Plaintiff’s decedent Noah Pride served in the U.S. Navy and Merchant Marinefrom 1945 until the 1970s. During his service, Pride performed similar tasks involvingasbestos-containing materials. The men’s asbestos exposure eventually led tomesothelioma.

In 2003, Mayer and Pride sued numerous companies that were or are involved in themanufacturing and sale of asbestos-related products. The plaintiffs reached pretrialsettlements with many defendants. Other defendants were released without settle-ment agreements. By the trial date, the lone remaining defendant was John Crane Inc.,which has manufactured and sold asbestos-containing gaskets and packing since the1930s. The company’s gaskets were used in many industrial applications.

RESULT: The jury found that Mayer and Pride were exposed to asbestos in productsmanufactured by John Crane and several other companies. It also found that JohnCrane did not prove negligence on the part of the settling companies, and thereforewas 100 percent at fault for its negligent failure to warn of the dangers of asbestos inits products, which negligence was a substantial causal factor in plaintiffs’ mesothe-lioma. It awarded Mayer $14 million and awarded Pride’s estate $8 million, for a totalaward of $22 million.



C-26

■ Case 47 ■

DISCRIMINATIONFair Housing Act—Civil Rights—EqualProtection—Government—Municipalities

Verdict(P) $22,500,000

CaseShirley McClure and Jason McClure v.City of Long Beach, Ray Grabinski,Jeff Kellogg and Eugene Zeller,No. CV-02776-E

CourtUnited States District Court, CentralDistrict, Los Angeles, CA

Date08/05/2004

■ Case 48 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYAsbestos—Products Liability—Failureto Warn—Toxic Torts

Verdict(P) $22,000,000

CaseBernard Mayer v. A.O. Smith WaterProducts Co., et al. / Margaret Marshall,as Administratrix of the Estate of Noah Pride v. A.C. & S. Inc., et al.,No. 106231/03; 119369/02


Date08/03/2004

47

48

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 27

Infant given adult diabetes pills instead of anti-seizure medication

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Feb. 9, 1999, plaintiff Alexandra Gerhke, whowas 7-months-old, was given what her mother, Tracey Gerhke, thoughtwas phenobarbital, an anti-seizure medication, by William Zaeske, a

pharmacist at Walgreen’s in Elgin, Ill. The next day, Ms. Gerhke found her daughtercold to the touch and exhibiting strange eye movements. She took the child to anemergency room, where she was determined to be hypoglycemic with possibleseizures, stabilized and sent home. The following day, Alex experienced a seizure andwas transported by ambulance to the hospital. The admitting diagnosis was seizuresand hypoglycemia. Physicians started her on antibiotics, and administered phenobar-bital. Four days later, Alex was discharged.

Two days later, Alex was again transported to the emergency room. Her blood glucose level was 17, and she was experiencing seizures of more than 30 minutesduration. Testing determined that she was growth-hormone deficient, and she wasstarted on growth-hormone injections. Alex experienced three more hospital admis-sions. The pharmacist examined the tablets and, with the aid of a magnifying glass,found a code number which he ran through the hospital’s computer and determinedthat the tablets were not phenobarbital at all, but an adult diabetes medication. Ms.Gerhke and her husband, David, sued Walgreens and Zaeske for negligence, claimingthe adult medication caused Alex to be rendered a spastic quadriplegic.

RESULT: The jury found against the defendants and awarded the plaintiffs $21,059,000.

One duct too many cut during gallbladder removal

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On March 8, 1999, plaintiff Delores Santiago, a 39-year-old deputy sheriff, underwent a laparoscopy at ThomasJefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia to remove her gallbladder.

General surgeon Paul Curcillo intended to remove the gallbladder after cutting the cystic duct and cystic artery. However, the plaintiff alleged that he also cut the com-mon bile duct and removed so much of it that it could not be re-attached. As a result,Santiago required surgery to reroute the bowel.

Santiago sued Curcillo for medical malpractice, claiming negligence. The defenseargued that the injury is a commonly known complication of laparoscopic surgery andthat it was recognized and repaired promptly. The defense also contended that inflam-mation adhesions caused by the patient’s underlying disease made the laparoscopicsurgery difficult to perform and that Santiago’s cystic and common bile ducts werefused together causing Curcillo to inadvertently cut the common bile duct while cutting the cystic duct.

RESULT: The jury awarded $20.5 million in damages.



C-27

■ Case 49 ■

NEGLIGENCEPharmacy

Verdict(P) $21,059,000

CaseTracey Gerhke, individually, and asmother and next friend of AlexandraGerhke, and David Gerhke vs. WalgreenCompany d/b/a Walgreens and WilliamZaeske, No. 99 L 10106


Date08/10/2004

■ Case 50 ■

MEDICAL MALPRACTICEGeneral Surgeon—MedicalMalpractice—Negligent Treatment

Verdict(P) $20,500,000

CaseDelores and Jorge Santiago v. Paul G.Curcillo, No. March Term 2001, #103

CourtPhiladelphia Court of Common Pleas,PA

Date01/30/2004

49

50

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 28

Popcorn’s butter flavoring led to plant worker’s lung condition

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1997, plaintiff Eric Peoples began working inthe mixing room of the Gilster Mary Lee popcorn manufacturing plantin Jasper, Mo. He developed a cough in 1998, and had to quit the plant.

Peoples’ lungs now function at 20 percent capacity. Peoples is among 30 employees atthe plant who developed the lung disease bronchiolitis obliterans. Also known as popcorn packers’ lung, it is caused by vapors from butter flavorings in the plant’s popcorn mixing room. There is no cure for the disease. Some workers are so short ofbreath they’re confined to their homes. Others are on lung-transplant lists. The flavor-ing contains the chemical diacetyl, a ketone with butter-flavor characteristics that theCenters for Disease Control suspects is behind the illnesses. In addition, an article inthe New England Journal of Medicine concluded that the “excess rates of lung diseaseand lung-function abnormalities” among popcorn factory workers indicated they probably had “occupational bronchiolitis obliterans caused by the inhalation of volatilebutter-flavoring ingredients.”

Peoples and his wife sued the New York-based manufacturer of the butter flavoring,Bush Boake Allen Inc., and its parent, International Flavors and Fragrances Inc. (IFF),alleging strict products liability and negligence. The popcorn factory was not a defendant.

RESULT: The jury found the defendants jointly and severally liable and awarded $20 million.

Motorist hit by train at dangerous crossing

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Sept. 12, 1998, plaintiffs’ decedent JaredSturdevant, 20, was driving on Lone Pine Drive near Cleveland, Mo.,when he encountered a railway crossing. He slowed to approximately

15 mph. As he crossed the tracks, his vehicle was struck by a Kansas City SouthernRailway Co. freight train that was traveling approximately 45 mph. Sturdevant’s carrolled over several times, and he was killed instantly. Sturdevant’s parents, Gary andLinda, acting on behalf of their son’s estate, sued Kansas City Southern Railway. Theyalleged negligent maintenance of the railroad crossing.

The plaintiffs contended that the crossing’s lights occasionally did not activate until the train was already in the crossing. They also claimed that the lights were notproperly aligned, and that they did not face the road. They alleged that excess vegeta-tion growth blocked their son’s view of the oncoming train, and that the train’s operator failed to sound the train’s horn in a timely manner during his approach tothe crossing. The defense argued that Sturdevant was at fault because he failed to seethe oncoming train.

RESULT: The jury awarded the estate $20 million.



C-28

■ Case 51 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYFood—Workplace—Strict Liability—Negligence

Verdict(P) $20,000,000

CaseEric Peoples and Cassandra Peoples v.International Flavors and Fragrances,Inc., and Bush Boake Allen, Inc., No. 01CV 683025

CourtJasper County Circuit Court, MO

Date03/15/2004

■ Case 52 ■

RAILROADRailroad Crossing—Premises Liability—Negligent Repair—Wrongful Death

Verdict(P) $20,000,000

CaseGary Sturdevant and Linda Sturdevant,as parents of Jared Sturdevant v.Kansas City Southern Railway Company,No. 02-CV-232842

CourtJackson County Circuit Court, MO

Date07/22/2004

51

52

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 29

Bar failed to remove knife-wielding patron

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Dec. 9, 2001, plaintiff’s decedent Jacob Fry,18, went with friends, also minors, to the High Note Lounge inBirmingham, Ala., where the legal drinking age is 21. They were sitting

and drinking beer when Zeke Sawyer, a heavily intoxicated patron, made a commentabout one of them. Fry and the friend who was the butt of Sawyer’s remarks, confront-ed Sawyer. Sawyer pulled out a knife, waved it around and said, “I’m going to stab himtonight,” referring to Fry. Employees of the bar told Sawyer to put the knife away.

Thirty minutes later, Sawyer confronted Fry near the bathroom and stabbed him inthe chest, causing a non-fatal wound. Fry complained to an employee. No one calledthe police. Instead, employees tried to find Sawyer a ride home. Later, one of Sawyer’sacquaintances escorted him out the back door to the parking deck. Shortly thereafter,Fry left through the front door and walked to the parking deck. Sawyer stabbed himthree more times. Fry was taken to the hospital and pronounced dead. Sawyer wasconvicted of murder and is serving a life sentence.

RESULT: The jury found against High Note and Sawyer. They assessed $17 million indamages against High Note ($14 million for violations of the Civil Damages Act and $3 million for wrongful death under the Dram Shop Act) and $3 million against Sawyerfor wrongful death.

Ranch employee shot and killed immigrant he mistook for a hog

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On June 1, 2003, plaintiffs’ decedent Jesus BarreraVazquez, 24, and three other Mexican nationals entered Webb Countyfrom Mexico without documentation. By evening, they were in the mid-

dle of the Hurd-Villegas Ranch, a 17,000-acre property. Ranch employee Juan GarzaMendoza and four friends of his testified they were hunting wild hogs on the ranchwhen Mendoza saw a shadow and, thinking that it was a hog, shot at it. However, itwas Vazquez he had shot. By the time help arrived, Vazquez was dead.

Maria Azucena Arredondo Olmos—individually and on behalf of Vazquez’s estateand their two children, Fernando and Laura—and Vazquez’s parents, Pablo VazquezRamirez and Maria Dolores Barrera de Vazquez, sued Mendoza for negligence andgross negligence, and his employer, Hurd Ranch Company Ltd. and its general partners, John R. Hurd and Hurdco, Inc., for vicarious liability, as well as for negligenttraining, retention and supervision.

RESULT: The jury awarded $20 million, finding Mendoza 25 percent negligent, and theemployer 75 percent negligent.



C-29

■ Case 53 ■

HOTEL/RESTAURANTDram Shop—Wrongful Death

Verdict(P) $20,000,000

CaseJudy S. Fry, as Personal Representativeof the Estate of Jacob Clinton Fry, andJudy and Terry Fry Individually and asParents of Jacob Clinton Fry, plaintiffsv. High Note Lounge, Inc. d/b/a Rock ‘N’Horse on Southside and Zeke Sawyer,No. CV 02-6865

CourtJefferson County Circuit Court, AL

Date05/20/2004

■ Case 54 ■

WRONGFUL DEATHSurvival—Negligence—Firearms

Verdict(P) $20,000,000

CaseMaria Azucena Arredondo Olmos,Individually and as Representative ofthe Estate of Jesus Barrera Vazquez,and as Next Friend of Fernando JoseVazquez Arredondo and Laura YoanaVazquez Arredondo, Minors; PabloVazquez Ramirez and Maria DoloresBarrera de Vazquez v. Juan GarzaMendoza, Hurd Ranch Company, Ltd.,John R. Hurd and Hurdco, Inc.,No. 2003-CVQ-00995-D3

CourtWebb County District Court, 341st, TX

Date08/23/2004

53

54

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 30

Motorcyclist hurt in collision with city truck

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Nov. 26, 1996, plaintiff Ramiro Companioni, Jr.,32, a chef, ice sculptor and naval reservist, was riding his motorcycle inTampa when an employee of the city’s water department in the course

and scope of employment cut across two lanes of traffic to get into the left-turn lane.Companioni’s witnesses claimed that the city employee’s pickup truck cut in front ofhim, causing him to hit its tailgate. Companioni was severely injured. He sued the cityof Tampa for the negligence of its employee, testifying he had no time to avoid hittingthe truck. His expert said that he was traveling 20 to 30 mph. The city’s expert putCompanioni’s speed at 55 mph.

RESULT: The jury set damages at $19,932,000 in a lump sum verdict.

Truck sent car careening into oncoming semi

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Oct. 11, 1999, plaintiff’s decedent WilliamTengler, a 28-year-old tool-and-die maker, was a passenger in aChevrolet Beretta that was waiting to make a left turn off of Route 20

in Marengo, Ill., when it was rear-ended by a tractor-trailer driven by David Villarrea for Preferred Unlimited Inc., a now-defunct trucking firm. The Beretta was pushed into oncoming traffic, where it was struck by a semi driven by Zarko Trisic forKazanova Cartage Inc., Chicago. Tengler sustained fatal injuries. Tengler’s estate suedVillarreal and Preferred Unlimited for wrongful death caused by Villarreal’s negligence.Post-accident drug testing revealed high levels of both marijuana and cocaine inVillarreal’s system. The estate also sued Trisic and Kazanova Cartage for Trisic’s negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout.

Villarreal and Preferred Unlimited admitted liability. Trisic and Kazanova arguedthat Trisic did not have time to avoid the accident. Plaintiff attorney Tom Leahy saidthat Villarreal’s drug use before the accident would not have been admissible hadTrisic not been named in the lawsuit, because Villarreal had already admitted liability.Preferred Unlimited’s attorneys objected to this admission of drug use by Villarreal.The driver of the vehicle in which Tengler was a passenger settled his claims againstthe defendants before trial in a separate action for $2 million.

RESULT: The jury assigned 100 percent of the liability to Villarreal and PreferredUnlimited. Trisic and Kazanova Cartage were found not liable. The jury awarded $19.2 million.



C-30

56

■ Case 55 ■

MOTOR VEHICLERear-ender—Motor Vehicle—Motorcycle

Verdict(P) $19,932,000

CaseRamiro G. Companioni, Jr., v. City ofTampa, No. 97-06881

CourtHillsborough County Circuit Court,13th, FL

Date03/26/2004

■ Case 56 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEMultiple Impact—Motor Vehicle—Tractor-Trailer—Drug Use—WrongfulDeath

Verdict (P) $19,200,000

CaseBillie Jo Tengler, as administrator of theestate of William Tengler v. PreferredUnlimited, Inc., David Villarreal,Kazanova Cartage, Inc. & Zarko Trisic,No. 99 L 11861


Date02/18/2004

55

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 31

Train door closed on rider, who was dragged then run over

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: At approximately 2 a.m. on Dec. 29, 2000, plain-tiff Aris Gil, a 20-year-old male stock clerk, sustained injuries in an accident at the 23rd Street/Ely Avenue subway station. Gil had no

recollection of the occurrence. He and two friends, also 20, had been at a friend’shouse drinking and were walking along the subway platform waiting for the train.Soon after Gil and his friends entered the train, three men demanded their jackets,wallets and jewelry, Gil’s friends said. When the train came to the 23rd Street/ElyAvenue stop, Gil and one of his friends ran out of the car, but the other friend was still in the grasp of the unnamed perpetrators. Gil reached back into the car, where-upon the door closed on his wrist or his jacket. He was dragged about 400 feet to theend of the station, hit the wall, fell to the tracks and was run over.

Gil sued the Transit Authority. Although it was not mentioned at trial, the perpetra-tors pled guilty to criminal charges stemming from the assault. Gil claimed the trainconductor had an obligation to look as the subway doors were closing and before thetrain started to ensure that no one was caught in the doors. Plaintiff counsel claimedGil was caught in a door on the fifth car, the very car in which the conductor waslocated. The Transit Authority denied that the door that closed on Gil was located onthat car.

RESULT: The jury found that the Transit Authority was 50 percent liable for the accident, and that Gil’s unnamed attackers were 50 percent liable. It awarded Gil $19,142,000.

Driver struck construction flagger, brain injury resulted

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On May 30, 2001, plaintiff Teresa McManamon, a44-year-old construction flagger, was assisting a truck backing out of aconstruction site on Airport Beltway in Hazleton, Pa., when a van driven

by Edward Washko struck her, causing severe injuries. Washko, a courier for HazletonGeneral Hospital, was on his way to pick up radiology film from a nearby medical labo-ratory. McManamon sued Washko and the hospital owner, Greater Hazleton HealthAlliance, for negligence and vicarious liability. McManamon asserted that Washko hada duty to yield to her while he was driving through the construction zone. She claimedthat there was signage identifying the stretch of road as a work zone and that she wasproperly dressed with a helmet, reflective vest and red flag. She argued she was actingwithin the scope of her employment.

Washko claimed that that there were no signs to indicate construction was underway and that he didn’t see McManamon until she was right in front of him.The defense contended that the accident was McManamon’s fault because it occurred on the roadway and her job was to move cones on the berm beside the road.

RESULT: The jury found the defendants jointly liable and awarded McManamon $19,098,341 in damages.



C-31

■ Case 57 ■

TRANSPORTATIONSubway

Verdict(P) $19,142,000

CaseAris Gil v. New York City Transit Auth[sic], No. 8079/01

CourtQueens Supreme, NY

Date04/14/2004

■ Case 58 ■

MOTOR VEHICLEPedestrian—Construction Accidents—Workplace

Verdict(P) $19,098,341

CaseTeresa A. McManamon, an incapacitat-ed person, by her Co-Guardians, JamesV. Greenhough and Denise Kurzmann,individually v. Edward L. Washko andGreater Hazleton Health Alliance d/b/aHazleton General Hospital,No. 7479-C-2001

CourtLuzerne County Court of CommonPleas, PA

Date01/21/2004

57

58

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 32

Drug to prevent lactation caused seizure, family claimed

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Sept. 28, 1993, plaintiff’s decedent, MaryMargaret Gunderson 32, gave birth to her second child, Wesley.Gunderson did not intend to breast feed. Her attending physician, Dr.

Lyman Armstrong, prescribed Parlodel, which Gunderson had taken after her firstpregnancy, to prevent lactation. Sandoz Phamaceuticals Corp., an East Hanover, N.J.company, received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to marketParlodel for the prevention of physiolgical lactation in new mothers starting in 1980.The FDA received reports of seizures among women who had used Parlodel and in1989 an FDA advisory commission requested that Sandoz voluntarily take Parlodel off the market. Sandoz refused.

On the evening of Oct. 4, 1993, Gunderson complained of headaches and other painto her husband, Ronald Gunderson. She died in her sleep the next day. Gunderson’sfamily sued Sandoz, now operating as Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, andArmstrong under a products liability theory. The plaintiffs claimed that Sandoz misled the FDA and the medical community on the safety and efficiency of the drug,sanitized reports of adverse reactions, told physicians the drug could not causeseizures and rewrote medical research to suggest the drug was not responsible for the adverse actions.

RESULT: The jury awarded $19,098,263 in damages, including $11.25 million in punitives.

Woman fired for panic-disorder absences

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: Plaintiff Charlene Roby, 54, a 25-year employee ofMcKesson HBOC, was working as a customer-service liaison when shebegan experiencing uncontrollable panic attacks, which would occur

without warning. Roby’s condition was diagnosed by a physician in 1997. When thecondition asserted itself, Roby took off from work, using vacation and sick time. Inearly 1999, Karen Schoener became Roby’s supervisor. Roby claimed that Schoenerharassed her because of her condition and the resulting absences.

In October 1999, Roby received a “final written warning” regarding her absences.She missed two more days in early 2000, and, on April 14, 2000, she was terminated.Roby sued McKesson HBOC and Schoener, alleging wrongful termination and disabilitydiscrimination. Roby contended that she was harassed and discriminated against onthe basis of her medical condition and was wrongfully terminated for her allegedlyunexcused absences. She argued that McKesson’s “no fault” attendance policy wasdesigned to allow each manager to interpret and apply the confusing policy as he orshe saw fit. Roby’s counsel argued that rigid use of “no fault” attendance policies violates state and federal laws.

RESULT: On April 30, 2004, the jury found for Roby and awarded her $19,014,000.



C-32

■ Case 59 ■

PRODUCTS LIABILITYPharmaceutical—Wrongful Death

Verdict(P) $19,098,263

CaseRonald Gunderson, as administrator ofthe estate of Mary MargaretGunderson, et al. v. SandozPharmaceuticals Corporation, nowNovartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation,and the estate of Dr. Lyman Armstrong,No. 94-CI-04680 (Sec. 1)

CourtJefferson County Circuit Court, KY

Date03/01/2004

■ Case 60 ■

EMPLOYMENTDisability Discrimination—Employment—Wrongful Termination—California’s Fair Employment & Housing Act

Verdict (P) $19,014,000

CaseCharlene J. Roby v. McKesson HBOC andKaren Schoener, No. CV 01-573

CourtSuperior Court of Yolo County,Woodland, CA

Date04/30/2004

59

60

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 33

Box fan’s switch housing assembly caused deadly fire

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Nov. 27, 2002, plaintiffs’ decedent MichaelLabar, 41, a night crew leader at a fast-food restaurant, was living in athree-room structure behind his family’s main residence in Rio Grande

City, Texas. A fire erupted. Firefighters found Labar’s body, fully clothed, in the shower.There were burn marks on his feet and black soot in his nose. Claiming that the sourceof the fire was a defective box fan, the plaintiffs, Labar’s father and the administratorof his estate, sued the manufacturer, Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co., forproducts liability, claiming design, manufacturing and marketing defects. Specifically,they alleged problems with the switch and the switch-housing assembly. The plaintiffsclaimed that Lakewood represented the fan as safe when it was unsafe, defective andunreasonably dangerous. Lakewood also was grossly negligent, the plaintiffs alleged.The defendant denied the allegations and disputed whether the fan was even on atthe time. The plaintiffs expert testified the fan could have started the fire even if it was not on.

RESULT: The jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded $18,503,300 in damages.

High vegetation at crossing obscured oncoming train

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On April 19, 2001, plaintiffs’ decedent GaryWayne Slater was driving a dump truck across Union Pacific railroadtracks near Danbury when he was struck by a train. Slater’s survivors

sued The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Co., which owned the train; theengineer, Jerry Ellison; and the conductor, Richard Turner, alleging negligence and grossnegligence for failing to warn Slater of the approaching train by sounding whistles andhorns. They also sued Union Pacific Railroad Co., which controlled the right-of-way atthe crossing, alleging gross negligence for creating an ultrahazardous location by failing to eliminate a sight restriction and failing to provide automatic signals or a flagman at the crossing.

Also named was Asplundh Tree Expert Co. and DeAngelo Brothers Inc., for grossnegligence for failing to cut vegetation 50 feet from the tracks as required by their contracts. Burlington Northern, Ellison and Turner settled for a total of $50,000.

RESULT: During trial, after its corporate representative testified, DeAngelo Brothers settled with the plaintiffs for $10,000. The jury attributed 75 percent negligence toUnion Pacific and 25 percent negligence to Slater. The jury awarded actual damages of $954,244, and $17,250,000 in punitive damages.

■ Case 61 ■

STRICT LIABILITYWrongful Death—Survival—ProductsLiability—Design Defect—MarketingDefect

Verdict(P) $18,503,300

CaseFrederick Labar, and Anne Marie Labar,as Dependent Administratrix of theEstate of Michael J. Labar, deceased v.Lakewood Engineering &Manufacturing Co., No. DC-03-25

CourtStarr County District Court, 381st, TX

Date01/21/2004

■ Case 62 ■

PREMISES LIABILITYDangerous Condition—Motor Vehicle—Railroad Crossing—Wrongful Death—Contributory Negligence—Ultrahazardous Activity

Verdict(P) $18,204,244

CaseChristopher Slater, Kathleen BatesSlater, Individually and asRepresentative of the Estate of GaryWayne Slater, Deceased; DebbieHenrichsen and Kellie Maxwell v. TheBurlington Northern and Santa FeRailway Company, Union PacificRailroad Company, Jerry Lee Ellison &Richard A. Turner, Asplundh Tree ExpertCompany and DeAngelo Brothers, Inc.,No. 19896JG02

CourtBrazoria County District Court, 239th,TX

Date06/24/2004



C-33

61

62

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:57 AM Page 34

Dust cloud caused by highway builder resulted in pileup

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: On Nov. 27, 2000, plaintiffs’ decedent RogerBerno, 48, and his wife, Cindy, 48, Baptist missionaries, were traveling in a Geo Metro near Cotulla, with their 13-year-old twins, Sean and

Shaundra. There was road construction in the median, the outside lane and shoulder.A pickup truck braked suddenly and Berno rear-ended it. A van then rear-ended theBernos’ Geo, and a pickup driven by plaintiffs’ decedent Armando Garcia rear-endedthe van. An 18-wheeler then collided with Garcia’s pickup, the van and the Geo. Mr.Berno and Mr. Garcia died. Ms. Berno was injured, as were the twins. Hector Garcia,who was a passenger in the pickup, was also injured.

The decedents’ families and estates, as well as the injured parties, sued the companyperforming the road construction, Price Construction Inc.; some of its employeees (laternonsuited); the owner of the 18-wheeler, Reinaldo Jimenez, operating as Williams Truck;the driver of the 18-wheeler, Jose Rosas; Rosas’ employer, C.C. Southern Inc.; and C.C.Southern’s parent company, Central Transport International Inc. The plaintiffs allegedthat Price was operating a sweeper that created a cloud of dust and debris, impairing visibility and causing the driver of the first pickup to brake suddenly.

RESULT: The jury awarded the Bernos’ $12.9 million and the Garcias’ $4.99 million.

Stray current caused cows to become sick

FACTS & ALLEGATIONS: In 1993, plaintiffs Michael and Susan Vierstra,operating as Vierstra Dairy, completed the construction of a new dairynear Twin Falls, Idaho. Idaho Power Co., Boise, Idaho, tapped a distribu-

tion line built in 1928, to supply the dairy with electricity. The Vierstras claimed that 80percent of the power from the primary return neutral was entering the ground of thedairy. They further claimed that, as they added more steel structure to the dairy overthe years, their cows became sick from the current that was escaping Idaho Power’stransmission lines. The cows, many of whom died, exhibited symptoms which canresult from exposure to stray voltage.

In September 2000, Idaho Power, at the Veirstras’ request, replaced three connec-tions near the dairy, although the utility denied that there was any problem withthem. The Vierstras then installed a neutral isolation transformer and rewired thedairy barn. They claimed that after the isolation transformer was installed, the healthof their herd improved. The Vierstras sued Idaho Power for negligence per se and nui-sance. They claimed that Idaho Power was aware of the health risks to the cows andhad an obligation to warn the Vierstras about it.

RESULT: The jury awarded $17.49 million, including $7.49 million in compensatorydamages and $10 million in punitives.



C-34

■ Case 63 ■

WRONGFUL DEATHSurvival—Bystander—MultipleVehicle—Truck—Premises Liability—Dangerous Condition

Verdict (P) $17,890,000

CaseMultiple plaintiff’s v. United RentalsGulf, Inc., United Rentals, Inc., andUnited Rentals Highway, No. 2001-CVE-000095D3

CourtWebb County District Court, 341st, TX

Date02/20/2004

■ Case 64 ■

PUBLIC UTILITIESGas and Electric—NegligentMaintenance

Verdict(P) $17,490,000

CaseMichael and Susan Vierstra d/b/aVierstra Dairy v. Idaho Power Company,No. cv-00-3408

Court5th Judicial District of Idaho,County of Twin Falls, ID

Date02/10/2004

63

64

d_App_C_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 35


Appendix D:

“Industry LossReport”

XL Insurance Company, Ltd.


The following pages represent excerpts from XL's LossLink

database for losses occurring on or after January 1, 1997.

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 2

Methodology

The documented losses in LossLink have not been trended or developed, and do not reflect the value

of the settlement, judgment or verdict in today’s dollars. Whilst some of the loss amounts listed

reflect an actual payment, others may have been appealed or settled for amounts different than stat-

ed. Further, it should also be noted that a high percentage of claims that make it to verdict are often appealed,

which may affect the accuracy of the reported figures.

Due to the fact that confidentiality issues prevent XL from collecting the details of a majority of settlements,

XL does not intend to represent that the information contained in LossLink is comprehensive. It should also

be noted that, in the case of France, Germany and the UK, potential losses are also included. The potential

loss amounts provided are for illustrative purposes only and are based on information publicly available as

to the likely total estimated loss arising from an incident.

XL collected the information for LossLink primarily from jury verdict services and publications, attorneys, and

computer research resources. The summaries provided are not exhaustive. The incidents or claims sampled

are intended to be advisory in nature and are described solely to provide information about the types of

potential exposure faced by insurers in certain industries. The figures reported do not include the cost of

defending the claims described, which costs often eclipse the cost of resolving the cases.

The date shown, where available, is the date on which the incident occurred or on which the lawsuit was

filed. In the case of an incident or claim spanning a period of time, the beginning and end dates are includ-

ed. Where the date of the incident or claim is not known, the date on which it was reported or the date on

which the suit was filed is used.

LossLink is not intended for general circulation, and no portion of it may be reproduced without XL Insurance’s

permission. For further information, or if you would like to receive a copy of LossLink, please contact:

Research & Information Services

Oluremi Bademosi

Manager Research & Information Services

441-294-7151

[email protected]

Knowledge Management & Services

Vernée Simmons

Project Coordinator/Research Analyst

441-294-7208

[email protected]

Copyright 2005. All rights reserved.

I n d u s t r y L o s s R e p o r t

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 3


LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This LossLink (“LossLink”) has been compiled entirely from various third-party sources and prepared for gen-

eral informational purposes only. The content of LossLink is intended to illustrate events that resulted in sig-

nificant financial loss.

The content in LossLink is not intended to and does not constitute an offer by XL Insurance (Bermuda) Ltd,

its parent, subsidiaries, affiliates or any of their respective employees (“XL Insurance”) to sell, or a solicitation

of any offer to buy, any product or service. Recipients of this LossLink should not act upon such information

for underwriting, brokering or any other purpose without first obtaining legal or other professional advice.

Furthermore, recipients should not infer that any loss reported herein would be covered by a policy issued by

an XL Insurance company.

XL Insurance makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy, reliability, content or completeness of

the information provided in this LossLink. XL Insurance has not undertaken to verify the information here-

in and XL Insurance is under no duty or obligation to update the information set forth herein.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, XL Insurance may, without notice, change, update, either in whole or in part,

the information contained in this LossLink. XL Insurance expressly disclaims all responsibility and liability

for any loss, damage, inconvenience or actions taken or not taken on the basis of any of the content of

LossLink, or for any damages resulting from the use or misuse thereof, express or implied or otherwise,

including without limitation, all warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose.

The source references are available upon written request.

Copyright 2005. All rights reserved.

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 4


Description of Loss

An Illinois judge approved a $110m settlement in a class action suit filed by farm-ers against two drug companies. The farmers alleged that their profits fell whentraces of genetically engineered corn were found in human food. The corn con-tained a pest control chemical which was approved by the EPA for use only in ani-mal feed. The discovery of the chemical in human food led to the recall of morethan 300 varieties of taco shells, chips and other products in the United States.

A multi-national agribusiness company based in Illinois agreed to a settlement withthe Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") under which it will pay $340m to set-tle alleged Clean Air Act violations. According to the EPA, the manufacturingprocess at the defendant's plants results in the emission of various air pollutants.Under the terms of the settlement, the defendant will install new air quality con-trols at some of its plants, and will shut down some of its oldest units. The EPA esti-mates the defendant will spend $340m over a 10-year period to implement theagreement. In addition, the defendant will pay a civil penalty of $4.6m and willspend 6.3m on supplemental environmental projects.

Description of Loss

A manufacturer of boxes agreed to pay up to $20m to settle a class action law suitsover faulty siding it produced for manufactured and mobile homes, that premature-ly failed.

Milwaukee. The families of 3 ironworkers who were killed in a collapse during con-struction of a stadium have been granted $99.25m by a jury. Defendants, includingthe construction company have settled for $19.3m.The balance, which is on appeal,is due by the insurers for their alleged bad faith in denying coverage.

A New York jury awarded $50m to a 2-year-old child who ate lead paint as it chippedoff the walls of his apartment. The child was ultimately diagnosed with lead poi-soning and was rendered severely retarded. The child's guardian sued the buildingmaintenance contractors, charging that the contractors failed to conduct the need-ed repairs. According to the plaintiff, the contractors simply covered the old paintwith new paint. The jury assigned 30% of the liability to the city (which owned thebuilding) and 50% to the contractors.

The plaintiff died in a car crash when her car was broadsided by a local police offi-cer who was traveling between twenty and thirty miles in excess of the speed limit.The configuration of temporary traffic lanes and barricades had been newlyarranged on the day of the accident, blocking off the two left lanes of the street, andcreating a slower extended route for traffic turning left. However, the timing of thetraffic signals at the intersection had not been changed to account for the increasedturning time. In addition, the placement of the barricades and construction equip-ment created blind spots that made it impossible for one driver to see the otheruntil it was too late. The accident resulted in the death of a six-year-old child, andtwo other children were paralyzed and will require life-long medical care. Theplaintiffs sued the company in charge of the road construction, and the city whichhired the construction company. The construction company agreed to a $57m set-tlement prior to trial. The city opted to go try the case. The Florida jury awardedthe plaintiffs a $256,101,301 verdict against the city.

Country Loss Date

United States 2/5/2003


Country Loss Date





Damages

$110,000,000

$330,000,000

Damages

$20,000,000

$19,000,000

$50,000,000

$256,000,000

General LiabilityA G R I C U LT U R E , F O R E S T RY, A N D F I S H I N G

C O N S T R U C T I O N

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 5



A Texas jury awarded $44.7m to the family of an 18-month child who became aquadriplegic with severe brain damage as a result of an accident involving faultyhighway barricading. The plaintiff argued that the barricade, which was construct-ed by the defendant, created a blind intersection by placing concrete traffic barrierstoo close to the an intersecting road. Because of the construction, another drivercould not see the plaintiffs' car approaching and pulled out in front of the plaintiffscausing the collision.

A New York jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $23m in a case against a roof-ing contractor. The plaintiff, a 35-year-old roofer, fell through a skylight and landedon the floor of a cement factory 45 feet below. The plaintiff originally filed suitagainst the owner of the premises, and the owner claimed contractual indemnifica-tion from the roofing contractor. The jury found the roofing contractor to be 100%liable. The judge later reduced the verdict to $18.6m. The question of who will paythe damages, the owner or the contractor, is being litigated in the appellate court.

A Michigan company settled a group of class action lawsuits for $200m. The plain-tiffs claimed the wood coating products manufactured by the defendant causedexcessive mildew on wood surfaces to which the products were applied.

A California jury awarded the plaintiffs, two construction workers and their depend-ents, $13,927,677 for injuries the workers sustained when they fell off the roof of anapartment complex construction project. One of the plaintiffs fell onto a six-footsteel pole and was impaled. The other injured worker sustained a sprained ankleand facial injuries. The defendants included the owner of the complex and the con-struction company hired to build the complex. The plaintiffs alleged that the defen-dants were negligent for not providing safety equipment or taking other safety pre-cautions. The plaintiff also contended that the construction company did not havea valid contractor's license or a valid worker's compensation policy at the time ofthe accident.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was working on a project when he fell througha hole in the roof deck of one of the buildings. The plaintiff sued the builder and thesteel developer, and contended that the placement of a steel bridge clamp was thecause of the accident. The California jury awarded the plaintiff approximately$20,796,916. The defendants indicated they plan to file motions for a new trial, aswell as other post-judgment motions.

A school district, contracted with a general contractor to build a high school.Approximately two years after the school was completed, mold was discoveredgrowing in the building. Air quality tests found deficiencies in the school's con-struction. The school district sued the contractor and its subcontractors for breachof contract, and blamed the mold on poor ventilation and faulty construction. Priorto trial, the plaintiff and the general contractor agreed to a $16m settlement. Alongwith the settlements from the other defendants, the plaintiff's total recovery was$20.37m.

A large manufacturer of engineered products announced in October 21, 2004 that itagreed to settle all pending and future asbestos related claims asserted against it.The company agreed in principle with attorneys representing a majority of currentasbestos claimants and an independent representative for future claimants, toresolve the company’s asbestos-related liabilities. The company agreed to pay$280m in cash to fund a trust for the asbestos claims pending against it.Disbursements from the fund began in February 2005.








$45,000,000

$23,000,000

$200,000,000

$14,000,000

$21,000,000

$16,000,000

$280,000,000

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 6


Description of Loss

The plaintiff filed suit in Florida following an auto accident in which his vehicle col-lided with the defendant's. The defendant's vehicle was being driven by an employ-ee of the defendant who was intoxicated at the time of the accident. The plaintiffsustained trauma induced arthritis, a knee replacement, rupture of her siliconebreast implants, multiple rib fractures and multiple injuries to her back as a resultof the accident. The plaintiff testified that she cannot stand, walk or sit withoutpain. The jury awarded the plaintiff $26.3m, including $15m in punitive damages.Post-trial motions are pending.

A Florida jury awarded the plaintiffs $100m in a suit involving the near-drowning ofa four-year-old girl in the defendant's apartment complex swimming pool. Theplaintiffs alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain the pool gate,thereby permitting the child to enter the pool. The child was left with severe braininjury as a result of the accident. The defendant argued the child was missing formore than five minutes, and that the accident resulted from the parents' failure toproperly supervise their daughter. The jury found the parents to be one percentcomparatively negligent.

Description of Loss

Chicago, IL. A manufacturer of boxes agreed that it will pay up to $20m to settleclass action law suits over faulty siding it produced for manufactured and mobilehomes, that prematurely failed.

Dallas,TX. $92m was awarded to the family of an elderly nursing home patient whodied at the home owing to alleged lack of care was reduced to $11m on appeal.

Houston TX. An energy company was sued for $400m by minority workers allegingworkplace discrimination. (NO FURTHER INFORMATION ON FINAL OUTCOME TBA).

More than 1,000 claims have been filed in a multidistrict litigation alleging that adrug for nighttime heartburn caused personal injuries and damages. $100m com-pensatory damages was awarded to 10 plaintiffs by a Mississippi jury.

Orange, TX. An energy company that owns convenience stores was ordered to pay$11.3m to the families of 2 men killed by a drunken driver who bought beer at oneof the company's stores.

Philadelphia. A biotechnology firm agreed to settle all claims filed by people whotook the fen-phen diet drug combination with a payment of $70m. The certificationof the firm's $100m limited fund mandatory settlement was denied on 9/28/1999.

A Chicago law firm representing hundred's of asbestos victims settled 178 personalinjury cases with asbestos manufacturers for $60m. The settlement came about asa result of a case management order consolidating all pre-1994 asbestos cases pend-ing in Cook County. The details of the settlement were not disclosed.

Charlotte, NC. A request for a new trial made by the holding company of a mufflerfranchisee was rejected. The award paid to the muffler franchisees of $601m willstand, but will be appealed to the 4th Circuit. The award alleged unfair, oppressiveand deceptive trade practices.

Texas. The family of a boy born with cerebral palsy after his mother was given adrug that accelerates labor and caused her uterus to rupture during delivery, wasawarded $16m. (AWARD CONFIRMED BY APPEALS COURT).

A major healthcare company agreed to pay a $100m settlement to former patientswho alleged they were illegally imprisoned in psychiatric hospitals by the companywho sought to obtain their insurance benefits.

Country Loss Date



Country Loss Date











Damages

$26,000,000

$100,000,000

Damages

$20,000,000

$11,000,000

$400,000,000

$100,000,000

$11,000,000

$70,000,000

$60,000,000

$601,000,000

$16,000,000

$100,000,000

M A N U FA C T U R I N G

F I N A N C E , I N S U R A N C E , A N D R E A L E S TAT E

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 7

A major manufacturer of drugs has settled its law suits for the year 1997 resultingfrom the injuries associated with the diet drug combination fen-phen, agreeing topay $7.1bn. This brings the company's total payment to date to $11.2bn out of anestimated total cost of $12.25bn.

Austin,TX. A major long distance service carrier was awarded $1.2m in actual dam-ages and another $350m for punitive damages in a case where another telecommu-nications company was charged with repeatedly severing a fiber-optic cable lineowned by the major long distance service carrier.

Dallas,TX. The family of a woman who died after she had contracted gangrene andhad her foot amputated was awarded $10.7m. The nursing home was charged withbeing grossly negligent in its care.

Texas. An operator of nursing homes was ordered to pay $13m in actual damagesand $70m in punitive damages to the family of an 84-year-old resident, but was thenlowered to $54.6m because of limits on jury awards in the state. The company wascharged with negligence, gross negligence and intentional fraud in the death of theresident.

New Haven, CT. A doctor successfully sued a university hospital, over contractingthe AIDS virus as an intern. This occurred as a result of a needle stick accident. Thedoctor was awarded $12.2m in compensatory damages.

A healthcare company who took action against a couple's wish not to save theirinfant's life, who was born premature with severe handicaps, was ordered to pay theparents of the infant $29.4m to cover the cost of her care and $13.5m in punitivedamages and $22.4m accrued pre-trial interest.

California. A church was ordered to pay $30m to 2 brothers who were sexuallyabused by a parish priest.

Washington, D.C. A laptop computer maker based in Tokyo agreed to pay $23m tothe U.S. government to settle part of a $2.1bn settlement of a class action suit.Alleging that the company intentionally sold machines with faulty floppy disk con-trollers. If the computer company had lost the case it would have faced a verdict of$9.5bn which would have driven it to bankruptcy.

California. A nursing home company was ordered to pay $95.1m in a lawsuit involv-ing injuries to a 69-year-old resident. The court found that the company had com-mitted fraud in the form of false staffing schedules as well as negligence and abuse.On 6/10/1998 the award was reduced to $3.1m by a state court judge who ruled thatthe original damages were miscalculated and excessive.

New York, NY. A woman, who suffered brain damage as a result of a ThanksgivingDay parade accident, filed a lawsuit against the department store who hosted theparade and the City in the amount of $395m. (FINAL OUTCOME NOT KNOWN).

Houston, TX. An elevator and escalator manufacturer was ordered to pay a mini-mum of $16.9m to a 4-year old boy who lost 3 toes in an escalator accident. It wasfound that the company was negligent in designing the escalator with a small gapbetween the escalator steps and the side railing which trapped the boy's toes. (THECOMPANY COULD FACE HAVING TO PAY EVEN MORE IN PUNITIVE DAMAGES).

A Mississippi jury awarded 12 plaintiffs a total of $48.5m for asbestos-relatedinjuries. The plaintiffs were exposed to the asbestos in the workplace during the1950s and 1960s and suffered various diseases including asbestosis and lung can-cer. The jury declined to award the plaintiffs punitive damages.

The plaintiff lost control of his automobile, and the car rolled over three times caus-ing the plaintiff's death. The plaintiff's family filed suit on his behalf against theautomobile manufacturer and alleged that the car was defective and unreasonablydangerous for the following reasons: (1) its track width was too narrow, (2) it hadhigh suspension, (3) its twin-beam suspension produced a jacking effect causing theinner side of the vehicle to go down and the other side to go up when making a turn.The plaintiff further contended the defendant knew of the car's inherently danger-ous design which made it prone to rollover accidents. The Mississippi jury award-ed a $144.88m verdict.














$11,000,000,000

$351,000,000

$11,000,000

$55,000,000

$12,000,000

$65,000,000

$30,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$3,000,000

$395,000,000

$17,000,000

$49,000,000

$145,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 8


An automaker was ordered to pay $153.2m to the parents of a 3 year old boy whowas killed when a truck with a defective parking brake rolled over the child.

A California jury awarded a verdict of approximately $785m in a class action by 650former employees who worked at the defendant's military aircraft factory. In man-ufacturing military aircraft, the plaintiffs were exposed to a variety of chemicals.The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to warn them of the health hazardsconnected with using these chemicals. The plaintiffs had injuries ranging from can-cer, brain damage and respiratory and liver damage.

Charleston, WV. In a class action chemical exposure suit, which comprised of 350members, a chemical plant was ordered to pay $38.8m. But this verdict was laterreversed as the court found that there were misrepresentations regarding the wit-nesses. (A NEW TRIAL WAS ORDERED).

A New York jury awarded the plaintiff $66m in a property damage case against acompany after it found that the company sold the plaintiff defective asbestos insu-lation products and continued to sell them to the property owner even after theowner requested to switch to non-asbestos products.

Minneapolis, MN. A university will pay a $32m settlement to compensate for theillegal sale of an experimental drug for 23 years, which it improperly tested onpatients.

A large manufacturer of asbestos settled 90% of the claims pending against it relat-ed to illnesses brought about by exposure to asbestos. The company agreed to pay$1.2b to settle with plaintiffs being represented by 54 plaintiffs' forms. The settle-ment establishes procedures and fixed payments for resolving future asbestos-related claims without litigation. The settlement is set up to compensate claimantsfor their injuries based on defined medical criteria and through negotiations withthe individuals' attorneys.

Los Angeles, CA. A company that makes hardware products and a former subsidiaryof this company may have to pay more than $1bn in a lawsuit. The suit alleges thatthe company sold substandard hardware to the city's Water and Power Department,which may pose a public health hazard. (OUTCOME OF FINAL SETTLEMENTUNKNOWN).

$1.2bn was awarded for the death of a 32 year old woman in a fiery crash of a go-cart at a Florida amusement park.

An oil refiner agreed to pay $21m to the families of 3 contract workers that burnedto death last February in a refinery fire. Four workers died and one was permanent-ly injured when fuel erupted from a leaking pipe and ignited.

A petrochemical company was ordered to pay about $117m to the family of a work-er killed in an explosion at the company's plant. The contract worker assigned tohydro-test a pipe, died in the explosion which killed another man and injured fourothers. The jury rendered the company to pay $7.8m in actual damages and $110min punitive damages. (WHICH MAY BE REDUCED TO $11M BECAUSE OF A STATE-MANDATED CAP PLACED ON PUNITIVE, OR PUNISHMENT DAMAGES).

Contamination of corn with genetically modified corn not approved for human con-sumption may cost up to $1bn. (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AS TO FINAL OUT-COME).

Miami, FL. A jury awarded $15.4m to the family of a 10 year old girl who sufferedparalyzing injuries when a rental van rolled over after a tire blew out.

Texas. A 15 year old died in hospital as a result of the drug she was treated with.Her family was awarded $268m including $137m punitive. (LATER THE HOSPITALSETTLED AFTER THE TRIAL FOR AN UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT).

California. An insurance giant must pay $116m in punitive damages to the widowof a former deputy district attorney due to the mis-management of the demand forexperimental treatment. An additional $4.5m compensatory damages was awarded.















$153,000,000

$785,000,000

$0

$66,000,000

$32,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$21,000,000

$117,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$15,000,000

$0

$121,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 9

A federal district court in Alabama approved a $32m class action settlement againstthe manufacturer of silicone gel breast implants. The class members included allpeople who had a breast implant manufactured by the defendant prior to June 1,1993.

An automaker has agreed to settle potential lawsuits brought by relatives of the sixpeople killed and 14 injured in a February explosion for $30m.

This matter involved a class action by approximately 75,000 Pennsylvania residentswho owned automobiles manufactured by the defendant between 1988 and 1991which were equipped with driver side airbags. The plaintiffs alleged the airbagswere defectively designed because they discharged hot gases after deployment in alocation where the driver's hands were most likely to be found. The plaintiffs fur-ther alleged that the defendant failed to recall the vehicles in question despiteknowledge that the airbags caused significant burn injuries. The Pennsylvania juryawarded the plaintiffs $58.5m.

A Chicago plaintiffs' firm settled hundreds of asbestos personal injury claims withvarious defendants for $200m. The suits involved exposure at industrial construc-tion sites but covered a range of asbestos-related diseases including mesothelioma,asbestosis, lung cancer, other cancers and nonmalignancy cases.

New Haven, CT. A couple whose son was left blind and brain-damaged following acar accident and improper and unnecessary surgery by a resident physician, wasawarded $27m.

A California jury awarded a man and his wife $5.9m after the man developedmesothelioma from being exposed to asbestos containing products from as early asthe 1940s. The man was granted $913,120 in economic damages and $3.21m innoneconomic damages. The wife was awarded $1.78m for her loss of consortiumclaim. The judgment was against two of the man's former employers whom thejury found should have protected the man from the asbestos exposure.

A Louisiana jury awarded $35.3m to the parents of a plaintiff, who died of AIDS aftercontracting the HIV virus from a blood transfusion, which the plaintiff was takingto treat his hemophilia. The man was diagnosed with HIV in 1985. In 1993, he fileda lawsuit against several Factor VIII manufacturers, alleging their negligence causedhim to contract the virus and that subsequent Factor VIII transfusions aggravatedthe condition. After the man's death in 1995, the complaint was amended toinclude a count for wrongful death. The plaintiffs argued their son's injury wascaused by a series of events, or transfusions of tainted blood, that aggravated hisinfection. An appellate court decided the claims fell outside of Louisiana's statuteof limitations and vacated the judgment.

A California jury awarded the plaintiffs a $295m verdict, including $290m in puni-tive damages, in a suit against an automobile manufacturer involving a rolloveraccident that killed three people. Following the verdict, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled that punitive damages should be about four times the amount of damages ajury awarded to compensate victims for their actual losses. Subsequently, aCalifornia appeals court reduced the verdict to $23.7m to conform with the U.S.Supreme Court precedent.

A California jury awarded the plaintiffs $1,197,632,321 in a case involving an auto-mobile manufactured by the defendant which burst into flames when struck frombehind. The plaintiffs alleged the design of the car, with the fuel tank locatedbehind the rear axle, was defective.

A large pharmaceuticals company paid more than $3m to settle a lawsuit a 70 yearold woman filed against the company in a Dallas County, Texas court. The womanhad taken diet drugs for a little over one year, from April 1996 until July 1997. InApril 1998, doctors diagnosed the woman with primary pulmonary hypertension("PHH"), which forces the heart to work harder to pump blood to the lungs. Thewoman alleged the PHH was caused by a diet drug combination. The companydenied the allegations, arguing it advised doctors and government regulators of therisks associated with the drugs. The woman is receiving medication intravenouslythrough a chest catheter in an assisted living center.











$32,000,000

$30,000,000

$59,000,000

$200,000,000

$27,000,000

$6,000,000

$35,000,000

$295,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$3,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 10


A jury awarded a female plaintiff, in her mid-30s, $23.36m, including $20m in puni-tive damages. The woman brought a products liability action against the drug man-ufacturer and its subsidiary alleging she suffered permanent heart valve damage asa result of taking a popular diet drug manufactured and marketed by the defen-dants. The plaintiff contended at the time her doctor prescribed the drug for herobesity, the defendants knew or should have known that a major component of thedrug was linked to numerous cases of lung and heart damage. She took the drugintermittently from approximately October 1995 to January 1997. The plaintiff wasdiagnosed with moderate valvular regurgitation of the aortic valve and moderatevalvular regurgitation of the mitral valve as a result of having taken the drug. Theplaintiff sought compensatory damages for the permanent injuries to her heartvalves. The plaintiff also sought punitive damages, based upon evidence allegedlyestablishing willful or reckless disregard for the public safety. The defendantsclaimed the drug is not defective or unsafe and did not cause the damages allegedby the plaintiff. The defendants contended that they properly tested and monitoredthe safety of the drug and noted that the drug received FDA approval prior to beingplaced on the market. The case settled for an undisclosed amount during post-trialmotions.

A family will get to settle a lawsuit stemming from a 1994 crash that killed 6 chil-dren. A tail light assembly that fell off a tractor-tailor and was run over by a mini-van caused the van to burst into flames. The automaker will pay about $10m.

A large pharmaceuticals company reportedly settled a class action lawsuit filed by36,000 women who claimed they were inadequately warned about the hazards of acontraceptive, consisting of hormone implants injected into the patient's arm andsupposedly preventing pregnancy for up to 5 years. Many women claimed, as aresult of manufacturing a defective device, they suffered excessive menstrual bleed-ing, severe headaches, nausea, depression, and other symptoms.

Lockhart, TX. The family of a 78-year-old woman, who suffered from pressure sores,malnourishment, and dehydration while residing in a nursing home, was awarded$25m.

The plaintiff was injured when a forklift truck, manufactured by the defendant,struck him and ran over his left foot. His leg was ultimately amputated. The plain-tiff claimed the forklift was a defective product because it was not equipped with apedestrian alarm system, which would include a warning alarm when the truck wasabout to move, a strobe light, and convex mirrors on both sides. The jury awarded$9m; with prejudgment interest, the gross verdict was $18m.

A drug manufacturer agreed to pay $3.75b to settle a products liability class actionin the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that a diet drug combinationcaused heart valve problems. The class action plaintiffs alleged the company knewdoctors were prescribing the drug in combination, knew it was dangerous, yet didnothing. The settlement includes about $2.32b to pay for injuries, $1b to pay formedical monitoring and prescription refunds, and $429m in plaintiffs' attorneys'fees. The company also agreed to pay $25m for research into heart disease. Thecompany will pay up to $1.5 million per person, depending on how long an individ-ual took drugs and the severity of the health problems. The agreement covers notonly the bulk of the 6,500 lawsuits filed against the company, but also individualswho took the drug combination but did not sue. The settlement is valued at $3.75b,but could grow to $4.8b over the life of the agreement with adjustments for inflationand interest.

A building owner sued an asbestos manufacturer under theories of strict productliability, negligence, and nuisance from the installation of the manufacturer's fire-proofing product in a Manhattan office building. The New York jury determined thatdamages total $30.6m. It also determined that the building owner was 62% liableand the asbestos manufacturer was 38% liable for the resulting property damage. Assuch, the manufacturer was ordered to pay the building owner $11.6m. With pre-judgment interest, the award was expected to reach $24m.








$23,000,000

$10,000,000

$50,000,000

$25,000,000

$18,000,000

$5,000,000,000

$12,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 11


A law firm in Ohio settled the asbestos-related claims of 15,000 plaintiffs who hadsued 19 asbestos defendants for $120m. The payments were to be made in biannu-al installments between December 1999 and December 2004. In subsequent litiga-tion after some of the companies failed to make the scheduled settlement pay-ments, the Ohio Court found that all of the companies were joint and severally liablefor the full settlement amount. The companies are appealing the settlement to theOhio Supreme Court.

The plaintiff was killed after she was run over by her own car while loading a chairinto the bed of the truck. The truck's transmission slipped from a position betweenpark and reverse into reverse, sending the stopped truck backwards into the dece-dent. A lawsuit was filed in Arizona on behalf of the decedent against the manu-facturer of the truck. The jury allocated 40% of the contributory negligence to thedecedent. Nevertheless, the jury returned a verdict of $17m, including $10m inpunitive damages.

Palm Beach, FL. A health insurer must pay $79.8m in damages for cutting off somecoverage to an 8-year-old girl with cerebral palsy. $1.29m is to be paid in compensa-tory damages and $78.5m in punitive damages for refusing to pay for speech andother therapy for the girl. Later overturned on appeal.The case was settled for $2.2m

A manufacturer of hip replacement units and other products have received over2,500 claims from 31,000 implant recipients and faces possible bankruptcy. It is esti-mated that the total costs will be about $780m with only $225m believed to be cov-ered by insurance, provided tentative settlement survives. 3 elderly Texas plaintiffswere awarded $15.5m in the first hip implant trial (AN APPEAL IS PLANNED).

$296m was awarded to the father of a 17 year old killed when a neighborhoodbutane pipeline exploded.

A Texas jury awarded a man and his wife $11.1m in a lawsuit in which is was allegedthat the man's mesothelioma was caused from asbestos exposure in the workplace. The man alleged that the companies negligently exposed him to asbestos,failed to warn him that asbestos was in products with which he worked and failedto warn him that the asbestos was harmful. The jury awarded the man $1.5m incompensatory damages, his wife $3.6m for loss of consortium, and $6m in punitivedamages.

A San Francisco jury awarded $6.5m to a plaintiff who alleged she was exposed toasbestos when she was a little girl in the 1940s. The plaintiff was a little girl whenboth of her parents worked at the company's shipyard in South San Francisco. Herfather was a welder and her mother worked on the ship as a carpenter's assistant.The plaintiffs parents allegedly carried deadly asbestos fibers home on their cloth-ing. In March 1999, the plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

After deliberating for five hours, a jury from the Philadelphia Common Pleas Courtcame back with an $8m verdict against the manufacturer of a diet drug and a doc-tor who prescribed it to a popular jazz musician who developed primary pulmonaryhypertension from taking the diet drug. The jury found the drug maker and the doc-tor 50% liable.

A Texas jury awarded the widow of a chemical operator $19.3m in compensatoryand punitive damages for the death of her husband who developed lung cancer asa result of exposure to asbestos in the work place. The jury awarded $4.3m in com-pensatory damages and $15m in punitive damages. It is unclear whether theasbestos manufacturers appealed the verdict.

The plaintiff was driving a car manufactured by the defendant when he swerved toavoid an obstruction, and the car began rolling over. The plaintiff was rendered aquadriplegic, and, as a result of subsequent complications became ventilatordependent. The California jury found that the plaintiff is 50% responsible for theaccident, but awarded a $25.88m verdict against the automaker.

A Texas jury awarded the decedent's estate $65m in a suit against an automobilecompany alleging that a defectively designed seatbelt caused the decedent's death.The decedent's car was equipped with a passenger restraint seat belt system whichcould not be released. The jury found the decedent 25% negligent.












$120,000,000

$17,000,000

$2,000,000

$780,000,000

$296,000,000

$11,000,000

$7,000,000

$8,000,000

$19,000,000

$26,000,000

$65,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 12


Gastonia, NC. One of the largest retailers in the nation was found liable for $23m tobe paid to a couple who claimed they were attacked by the store's security guards.(HOWEVER, STATE LAW CAPS PUNITIVE DAMAGES AT $250,000).

A New York jury entered a $53m verdict against 36 different companies for a singleplaintiff who suffered from mesothelioma as a result to asbestos exposure whileworking as a brake mechanic. After being diagnosed with mesothelioma in April2000, the plaintiff sued various friction product companies alleging that they werenegligent in exposing him to asbestos from brake linings he used during the shortamount of time he worked as a brake mechanic. The verdict was expected to beappealed.

The plaintiffs' son was electrocuted when he touched a halogen floor lamp that hadbeen improperly assembled at a Taiwanese factory. The lamp was imported by thedefendant. It had been manufactured incorrectly, as wires were spliced backwardsand one of the wires had its insulation cut by a bolt which was threaded too far. TheMissouri jury found in favor of the plaintiffs and awarded a $15m verdict.

A Texas jury awarded the plaintiff $20m for injuries sustained by her daughter in anautomobile accident. The plaintiff's daughter was severely injured as a result of thedeployment of an air bag when the plaintiff's car ran into the rear of another vehi-cle. The plaintiff alleged that deployment of the airbag at the speed she was driv-ing causes more injuries than it prevents. Following the accident, the plaintiff'sdaughter was left respirator-dependent and was a quadriplegic.

An Illinois jury returned a verdict of $34m in favor of a former union roofer whoclaimed that he was exposed to defendant's asbestos products periodically between1956 and 1966 while working for the defendant. The exposure led to his develop-ment of mesothelioma. The $34m award included $25m in punitive damages. Thejudge barred the defense from presenting expert testimony as a sanction for failingto produce more than 100 boxes of documents to the plaintiff during discovery. Thedefendant challenged the verdict and sanctions.

The plaintiff, an employee of the defendant/tire company, was assembling a tire rimwhen the tire he was inflating exploded. The 15-pound side ring of the tire struckhim with tremendous force. The plaintiff filed suit in Missouri and submittedclaims for strict liability, as well as negligent failure to warn. The plaintiff present-ed evidence that the defendant knew there were problems with the product fromthe early 1950s through the 1970s when it was taken off the market in 1973. Thejury awarded the plaintiff $105m, including $100m in punitive damages.

The plaintiffs sued the manufacturer of a United States Army Black Hawk helicop-ter in federal court in Connecticut. The case arose out of a helicopter crash in whichfour men were killed, and others sustained serious burn injuries. The plaintiffs, thefamilies of the deceased and two survivors, alleged the aircraft was defectivelydesigned and that the defendant negligently failed to warn that the aircraft couldbecome uncontrollable during flight. The jury awarded a total of $22.93m. Of thistotal, the surviving plaintiffs collectively received $12.75m.

The plaintiffs claimed their entire crop of cantaloupes and honey dew melons werewiped out due to a fungus called gummy stem blight. The plaintiffs has sprayedtheir crops with a fungicide manufactured by the defendant, which did not work asadvertised and had a ruinous effect on the crops. The plaintiffs also alleged that thefungicide failed to guard against gummy stem blight. A Texas jury awarded theplaintiffs $100.3m, including $60m in punitive damages and $30m under theDeceptive Trade Practices Act.









$23,000,000

$53,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$34,000,000

$105,000,000

$23,000,000

$100,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 13

After a two week trial, an Oregon state court jury awarded $29.247m to two plain-tiffs who suffered mild heart valve damage after taking diet drugs. One woman tookthe drugs for more than one year. Her son, the other plaintiff, took the same com-bination for four months. Both plaintiffs suffered from mild aortic valve damage.One also had pulmonary hypertension. Neither had surgery. The company arguedthe plaintiffs were not injured by the diet drugs, and that the company actedresponsibly in marketing and monitoring the safety of the drug. A jury disagreedand found the company 100% liable for negligence, failing to adequately warn ofrisks, and fraudulently misrepresenting information about Pondimin to physicians,and awarded $3.897m in compensatory damages and $25.35m in punitive damages.The woman received $2.142m in actual damages and $12.9m in punitive damages.The jury awarded her son $1.755m in actual damages and $12.45 in punitive dam-ages. The punitive damages were awarded based on fraud/misrepresentation andproducts liability.

The plaintiff's car tire blew out while he was driving, causing the vehicle to losecontrol and roll over 1 3/4 times. The plaintiff sued the tire manufacturer, and pre-sented evidence at trial that the tire contained manufacturing and design defects.The plaintiff also alleged the defendant breached its 55,000-mile warranty. TheCalifornia jury awarded the plaintiff $15m.

A jury from the District of Columbia awarded $10m to a woman who alleged her sil-icon gel implants caused scleroderma. The jury found that the plaintiffs implantscaused disease. The jury awarded the plaintiff $2m for past pain and suffering, $2mfor future pain and suffering, $2m for past medical expenses, $2m for future med-ical expenses, and $2m for loss of earnings. The jury did not award any punitivedamages. An appellate court reversed the judgment on the grounds that there wasno valid basis in the record for the jury's verdict.

The plaintiff was operating a hydraulic material shredder when he caught his rightthumb in the machine. In his efforts to free his thumb, he became entangled in theshredder and lost part of his left arm and leg. The plaintiff sued the manufacturersof the shredder, and the defendants alleged the plaintiff was contributory negligent.The parties settled for $11.25m.

A large pharmaceutical company settled a class action lawsuit filed in Mississippifor $200m. Two thousand (2,000) plaintiffs claimed they suffered heart or lung dam-age as a result of taking the company's diet drug. One Mississippi woman claimedshe had open heart surgery to replace a leaky heart valve she alleged was causedby taking the diet drug.

A property owner claimed the defendant's fireproofing product caused damage tohis property. The defendant argued that the property owner was contributory neg-ligent because he knew of the asbestos hazards at the time of installation, but optedto install the asbestos to complete the construction of the building. The New Yorkjury entered a $25.6m verdict in favor of the property owner.

A New York jury awarded the plaintiff $20m for injuries she sustained when her labcoat ignited. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the coat, and claimed the coatwas dangerously flammable. In addition, the plaintiff alleged the defendant wasnegligent for failing to place a warning label on the coat indicating that the coatshould not be exposed to flame or intense heat.

An Illinois appellate court affirmed and modified an $18m verdict awarded topatient, who suffered brain damage after an intravenous set tubing came apartwhile attached to the patient. A large pharmaceutical manufacturer made the "fric-tion fit" I.V. tube connector that was used to support a catheter inserted into theplaintiff's jugular vein before undergoing stomach ulcer surgery. After the surgery,the doctor noticed the catheter was disconnected from the I.V. tube. The discon-nection caused air to enter into the plaintiffs catheter and thus her brain. As aresult, the plaintiff suffered brain damage, and died four years later.









$29,000,000

$15,000,000

$10,000,000

$11,000,000

$200,000,000

$26,000,000

$20,000,000

$18,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 14


After a two week trial, a Houston, Texas jury awarded $43m to a woman whoclaimed her liver was destroyed by a diabetes drug. The FDA approved the drug in1997 to treat type II diabetes. The drug was recalled from the market three yearslater, in 2000. The company argued the woman's liver damage was caused by hep-atitis. Just hours after the verdict, the company settled as the jury was consideringwhether to award punitive damages. The settlement amount was not disclosed.

An Illinois jury awarded a man $250 million in a lawsuit against his former employ-er for asbestos poisoning. The man worked at the defendant's plant from 1950through 1981, during which he was exposed to asbestos. In 2001 the man was diag-nosed with mesothelioma and sued his former employer for failing to protect work-ers from the dangers of asbestos at the plant. After a two week trial, the jury award-ed the man $50m in compensatory damages and $200m in punitive damages. Theparties thereafter settled the case for an undisclosed amount.

Illinois. A US healthcare company announced $100m-$150m charge resulting fromrecall costs and liability associated with 51 deaths in the US and Europe allegedlyinvolving a contaminant in its filters used in kidney dialysis.

Wyoming jury awarded $6.4m to a man's remaining family members and against aBritish pharmaceutical company as compensation for a man's suicide, after hekilled his wife, daughter, and granddaughter while on Paxil, a selective serotoninreuptake inhibitor ("SSRI") manufactured by the company. Those prescribed SSRI'scan become violent towards themselves and others, which can end in suicide.

A California jury awarded a former U.S. Navy electrician and his wife $33.7m as aresult of the electrician's exposure to asbestos from 1960 through 1962, which even-tually caused his mesothelioma. The five week trial resulted in the following judg-ment against the corporate defendant: $700,000 in economic damages, $22m innon-economic damages and $11m to the electrician's wife for loss of consortium.The defendant planned to move to set aside the verdict. The result is unknown.

An Alabama jury awarded the plaintiffs/landowners a $52.155m verdict, including$52m in punitive damages, in a suit against a clothing company and a power com-pany in which the plaintiffs alleged that the discharge of the defendants' munici-pally treated wastewater contaminated the plaintiffs' property. Subsequently, theAlabama Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict, and held that the landowners didnot present any evidence of tests done on the property to show any contamination.Without such evidence, the court held, the plaintiffs had no cause of action againstthe defendants.

A California jury awarded the plaintiff $25.7m in a suit against an automobile man-ufacturer. However, the jury found the plaintiff to have been comparatively negli-gent, and, as a result, the verdict was reduced to $18.3m, including prejudgmentinterest. The plaintiff, an 18-year-old was driving a vehicle manufactured by thedefendant when he fell asleep at the wheel and the vehicle rolled over four times.The roof was crushed in the accident, and the plaintiff broke his neck, leaving himpartially paralyzed. The plaintiff conceded his driving was the sole cause of theaccident, but alleged that the vehicle was not crashworthy because of a weak roof.

Twenty-two refinery workers who were exposed to asbestos-related products sued25 separate companies, after developing asbestosis, for unreasonably dangerousproducts and for their failure to warn of the dangers associated with the products.Twenty three of the defendants settled with plaintiffs before trial. As to the tworemaining defendants, the Texas jury found in favor of plaintiffs and awarded $1.6mfor each plaintiff for a total verdict of $35.2m.

A Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs $80m in damages for injuries sustained as aresult of an explosion caused by a tire sealant. While attempting to patch a flat tirewith a tire sealant, the plaintiffs noticed an embedded screw in the tire which heremoved. The removal of the screw created a spark which set off an explosion. Oneof the plaintiffs sustained severe burns, and the other plaintiff lost her right eye andwas left with permanent epilepsy. The plaintiffs alleged that the sealant, whichused a 97% combination of propane and butane to push the sealant into the tire,was unreasonably dangerous.










$43,000,000

$250,000,000

$150,000,000

$6,000,000

$34,000,000

$52,000,000

$26,000,000

$35,000,000

$80,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 15

Fort Worth, TX. $312.7m was awarded to the estate of a former nursing home resi-dent in punitive and compensatory damages for negligent nursing home care.

An Illinois jury awarded $40m to a man who suffered from mesothelioma as a resultof exposure to asbestos. The man worked as a forklift driver for a glass bottle man-ufacturer from 1967 through the mid-1970's and was diagnosed with mesotheliomain March of 2001. Some of the defendants were missed or settled with plaintiffbefore trial. The jury awarded $7m in punitive damages, $8m for compensatorydamages and $1m to the man's wife for loss of consortium.

An Ohio federal court approved a settlement totaling $62.4m in a class actionagainst the manufacturer of a pacemaker. The plaintiffs alleged that the wire insidethe pacemaker broke and protruded its polyurethane insulation, causing damage tothe heart and blood vessels. About 40,500 of these devices were sold worldwidebetween 1987 and 1994. The settlement created a $58.2 million patient benefit fund,and a $4.2 million reserve fund for expenses, judgments and settlement of the litigation.

A Pennsylvania jury awarded the plaintiff $18m in a case involving a defective BBgun manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff and a friend were playing withthe BB gun, which appeared to be empty, when a BB came loose from its stuck posi-tion and was fired into the plaintiff's brain. The plaintiff alleged there was a defectin the gun which caused the BB's to become lodged inside the gun, and made thegun appear to be empty when it was not. The plaintiff also contended that the BBgun, although marketed to children, is as powerful as some handguns. The plain-tiff suffered permanent and severe brain damage.

The families of four skydivers who died in a plane crash filed suit in Missouriagainst the company that manufactured the airplane. The plaintiff contended thatthe engine's oil transfer lube failed to transfer oil to the connecting rods, resultingin oil starvation and causing the engine to ignite. The plaintiff also found 14 othercases of engine failure liked to poorly designed oil transfer lube involving enginesmanufactured by the defendant. The case settled for $27.5m.

An Alice,Texas jury awarded $22.55m in actual damages and $45m in punitive dam-ages to a 48 year old woman who suffered heart valve problems after taking a dietdrug. The plaintiff alleged shortness of breath, the feeling of choking when sleep-ing and moderate aortic regurgitation, a severe, irreversible defect in the aorticvalve. The plaintiff also accused the company of deliberately concealing reports ofadverse effects of the drug prior to its removal from the market. The companymaintained the plaintiff's heart valve problems were caused by a pre-existing med-ical condition. On July 10, 2001, the award was reduced to $8.2m. With $1m in pre-judgment interest, the total award was $9.18m.

A California jury awarded a former pipe fitter and his wife $20m as a result of theman being exposed to asbestos while working as a pipe fitter and developingmesothelioma. The man worked as a pipe fitter from 1959 until 2000, at which timehe was diagnosed with the disease. However, because one of the named defendantsto whom half of the verdict was apportioned against is now bankrupt, the plaintiffand his wife will recovery only $10m of the $20m verdict.

The plaintiffs were driving a car equipped with tires manufactured by the defen-dant when a tire separated from the vehicle, causing the vehicle to leave the roadand overturn. Four people died in the accident; three others were injured. Evidenceshowed the tire was contaminated with wax from the manufacturing process, andthat the defendant's quality control process consisted of an 18 second inspection tolook for over 90 potential defects. The Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs $11.5m.

A California jury found defects in the automobile tires manufactured by the defen-dant, and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $55m. The plaintiff was left aquadriplegic after her left rear tire separated, causing her to lose control of the car.The plaintiff sued the tire manufacturer and alleged defects in the design and man-ufacture of the tire.










$313,000,000

$16,000,000

$62,000,000

$18,000,000

$28,000,000

$68,000,000

$20,000,000

$12,000,000

$55,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 16


A Louisiana jury ordered an oil refining company to pay $1.06b, $1b of which wascomprised of punitive damages, for radioactive contamination of the properties ofmore than 2,000 area residents. For several decades, the defendant sent oil pipes tothe Louisiana site for cleaning and refurbishing. While pumping oil, the pipes hadbecome contaminated with radioactive material. The plaintiffs claimed the defen-dant knew about the contamination for decades and did nothing about it.

An employee of the defendant was driving the defendant's truck when he ran a redlight and broadsided the plaintiff's vehicle. The plaintiff suffered permanent braininjury and lay in a coma for approximately three months following the accident.The defendant admitted liability, but disputed the amount of the damages. TheCalifornia jury awarded the plaintiff $51,639,192.40.

A California jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $3b in a suit against a ciga-rette manufacturer. The plaintiff alleged that he developed lung cancer due to hislife-long cigarette habit, and that the defendant failed to provide proper warningsregarding the dangers associated with smoking despite the defendant's knowledgeof those dangers.

A Florida jury awarded the plaintiffs $480m, including $400m in punitive damages,in a suit against an airplane manufacturer. The pilot of an airplane manufacturedby the defendant was attempting to land when, according to the plaintiffs, his seatabruptly came unlatched and slid backward, causing him to jerk back hard on thecontrol yoke. The planed nosed up and stalled, then fell into a clearing beyond therunway and exploded into flames. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant hadknown for years that its seat-latch design was faulty, and that the defendant haddesigned an improved latch system, but until 1996 had only installed it on higher-end aircraft.

A state settled various property damage claims with five asbestos producing com-panies for asbestos contamination to many government buildings in that state. Thesettlement totals $63.3m, with one company paying $45m toward the settlement.The state expects to recover $33.1m after costs and legal fees.

A Texas jury awarded a man and his family $55.5m after the man's exposure to thedefendant's asbestos-containing products led to the man's development ofmesothelioma. Of the $55.5m awarded, $21m was for compensatory damages,$5.515 was for loss of consortium for the man's wife, and each of his four childrenwere awarded $3.5m for loss of parental consortium. The jury also awarded $15min punitive damages. However, under Texas law punitive damages are capped andtherefore plaintiff was entitled only to $2.75m in punitive damages.

A Texas state court jury awarded three women $15.5m in compensatory and puni-tive damages who had surgery to replace defective hip implants manufactured bythe company. The three women received $4.25m in compensatory damages, andtwo of the three were awarded 11m in punitive damages. The remaining judgmentconsisted of consortium awards to two spouses and prejudgment interest. The juryfound the company liable for a manufacturing defect. For two the plaintiffs whowere awarded punitive damages, the jury found the company acted with maliceand knowingly caused their injuries. The jury did not find the company liable forhigh managerial due diligence.

An Indiana jury awarded a man who developed mesothelioma after being exposedto asbestos in the work place $15 million. The man worked on an assembly line fora large corporation from 1969 to 1974 and was exposed to asbestos during theremoval and repair of asbestos pipe insulation by the defendant. The man wasdiagnosed with mesothelioma in September of 2001. The defense argued that theman had a smoking-related carcinoma. The jury found the man 5% liable and thedefendant 95% liable. As such, the jury awarded the man and his wife each $1.6mfor compensatory damages, and $12m in punitive damages. However, underIndiana law, punitive damages can only total three times compensatory damages,and are therefore expected to be reduced to $9.12m. The defendant plans to appealthe judgment.









$1,000,000,000

$52,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$480,000,000

$63,000,000

$56,000,000

$16,000,000

$15,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 17

A Texas jury awarded five former pipe workers $130m finding that the productsmanufactured by the three defendants caused the workers' asbestos-related dis-eases. The plaintiffs were exposed from the 1960s through the 1970s to the defen-dants asbestos-containing products at their place of work by working in close prox-imity to the metal casting foundry. The jury awarded $70m in compensatory and$60m in punitive damages against the defendants. The defendants were expectedto appeal the verdict.

The plaintiff's father was driving a car manufactured by the defendant when theright rear tire blew out, causing the driver to lose control of the car. The plaintiff,age ten (10), was ejected from the car through the driver side window. The plaintiffsuffered massive brain injury in the accident resulting in a permanent semi-coma-tose state. Both sides agreed that the tire failed due to gross under inflation. Theplaintiff argued the tire valve had been damaged during the assembly line installa-tion process. The defendant argued the tire was accidentally punctured by a nail onthe road. The Florida jury found in favor of the plaintiff, and awarded $30.7m.

A Pennsylvania jury awarded the plaintiffs $8.2m, including approximately $4m indelay damages, in a case involving rear end collision which caused a fire in theplaintiff's car and resulted in the death of three (3) people. The plaintiffs allegedthat the deaths were caused by a defectively designed gas tank on the automobilemanufactured by the defendant.

A Mississippi jury awarded a combination $150m to six plaintiffs who suffered fromasbestosis as a result of being exposed to the defendants' asbestos products. Eachplaintiff was awarded $25m for compensatory damages. The jury declined to assessany punitive damages. The defendants were expected to appeal the verdict.

The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed a $22m punitive damages award to a doctorwho claimed a drug company failed to warn him an asthma medication could causetheophylline toxicity. The doctor prescribed ciproflaxin to treat a man's skin rash,unaware that the man was taking theophylline. As a result, the man developed nau-sea, vomiting and diarrhea. The doctor did not disclose potential theophylline toxi-city because it had been promoted to him as safe, and the doctor did not believe apatient on a stable dose could develop a serious toxicity problem. The man laterexperienced seizures, was diagnosed with theophylline toxicity, and suffered perma-nent brain damage. The man's son sued the company and the doctor. The doctorthen filed a cross-claim against the company, claiming negligence and fraud for fail-ing to provide adequate information about the potential toxicity. A jury awarded theplaintiff $5m in compensatory damages and $35m in punitive damages. It awardedthe doctor $500,000 in compensatory damages and $22m in punitive damages.

The families of 10 patients who died because of contaminated dialyzers during kid-ney dialysis settled their claims with a large drug manufacturer. Reportedly, eachfamily received approximately $289,000. The company produced the dialyzers andannounced it would cease production and close the plant that manufactured thedialyzers.

A Maryland jury awarded 5 plaintiffs a total of $40m as a result of the plaintiffs con-tracting mesothelioma after exposure to asbestos through various means. Whilefour of the plaintiffs were exposed to asbestos as a result of their jobs, one plaintiffwas exposed to the asbestos as a result of washing her fathers work clothes. Thedefendants planned to appeal the verdicts.

Just before a Clay County, Missouri Circuit Court jury was about to award $26.2m tothe plaintiff, the parties settled for an undisclosed amount. The jury foreman saidthe jury decided to award $3.2m in compensatory damages and $23m in punitivedamages to the plaintiff when the judge advised them the parties had settled. Theplaintiff had some fatty liver and mild Type II diabetes but was otherwise in goodhealth when she began taking a diabetes drug, in 1998. In the fall of 1998, she beganto have symptoms of fatigue and nausea, but her liver tests were paradoxically thelowest they had ever been. In January 1999, she was diagnosed with liver failure andput on a transplant list. Apparently, the plaintiffs were able to show the company'sblatant disregard for the public safety. Certain of the company's internal docu-ments showed the company misled doctors and the FDA, and stated the companyneeded to do whatever they could to get the drug approved by the FDA.









$130,000,000

$31,000,000

$8,000,000

$150,000,000

$23,000,000

$3,000,000

$40,000,000

$26,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 18


A large drug maker settled a hepatitis C case for $2.72m. The plaintiff was injectedwith immune globulin in 1993 to treat his chronic sinus infections. In 1994, he test-ed positive for hepatitis C. He filed a suit against the company alleging it failed toscreen out blood donors with hepatitis. A jury from the District of Idaho found thecompany's negligence was willful and reckless, and awarded the plaintiff $225,000in economic damages and $2.5m in noneconomic damages. The jury did not awardany punitive damages. The company agreed to pay the full verdict amount in returnfor the plaintiff not opposing its motion to overturn the willful and reckless finding.

The defendant agreed to an $11.2m settlement in a case brought against it by theU.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. The government alleged that thedefendant mismanaged benzene-contaminated wastes. Benzene is listed as aknown human carcinogen under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA). Samples analyzed from the waste dumping site revealed levels of benzeneas much as twenty (20) times in excess of the lawful limit.

A large pharmaceutical company settled a lawsuit brought by four surviving chil-dren who asserted their 80 year old mother's death was caused by a diabetes drug.After an eleven (11) day trial, a Hidalgo County, Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs$23.46m compensatory damages. The case was settled before the jury could consid-er punitive damages.

The plaintiff, an electrician, was working on a construction project when a wire thathad been coiled in the door of a switchboard passed through a gap in the board andset off an electrical explosion. The plaintiff sustained third degree burns over halfof his body. The plaintiff sued the maker of the switchboard, and alleged that theswitchboard was defectively designed in that the design allowed the wire to contactthe energized portion of the switchboard. The New Jersey jury awarded the plaintiff$55m.

An Oregon jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $150m in a wrongful death suitagainst a cigarette manufacturer. The plaintiff died of lung cancer after smokinglow-tar cigarettes. The plaintiff had switched from regular filtered cigarettesbecause she believed the low-tar version would be better for her health. The plain-tiff contended the defendant marketed the low-tar cigarettes as having fewer healthrisks. The defendant denied that marketed low-tar cigarettes as being an healthieralternative, but rather contended that it advertised the cigarettes as having a milderflavor.

A Louisiana jury found an automobile manufacturer was found liable for 80% for a$12m verdict resulting from an auto accident due to alleged design defects in a carmade by the defendant. The plaintiff was driving in a car made by the defendantwhen she was rear-ended by the co-defendant. The plaintiff's car ignited uponimpact, burning over one-third of the plaintiff's body. The plaintiff argued that thecar was defectively designed. Specifically, the plaintiff contended the gas tankshould not have been located in the rear-end "crush zone," that the gas tank shouldhave been thicker, and that the defendant should have installed a firewall to pre-vent fires from reaching the passenger compartment. In addition, the plaintiffargued the defendant had prior notice of the design flaw.

A Tulsa County, Oklahoma District Court jury awarded $11.5m to the family of a dia-betes drug user, after finding the drug manufacturer of the diabetes drug liable inthe man's death. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $1.55m in compensatory damagesand $10m in punitive damages. In February 1999, a doctor first prescribed the drugto the 41 year old diabetic. About one month later, he died from a blood disorder.The mans family alleged the man developed a blood disorder from the drug anddied of liver failure. The defense argued the man's liver was good enough to be usedas a transplant, and theorized that an antibiotic administered intravenously at thehospital caused the death. The plaintiffs argued the drug was unsafe and that thecompany knew this but ignored it for profit reasons.








$3,000,000

$11,000,000

$23,000,000

$55,000,000

$150,000,000

$12,000,000

$12,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 19

The plaintiff filed suit in Alabama seeking recovery for injuries he suffered whileriding as a passenger in an automobile manufactured by the defendant. The plain-tiff alleged the car's flawed design allowed parts of its structure to intrude into thepassenger cabin where they could be struck by the plaintiff's head. The plaintiff suf-fered serious head injuries that left him with permanent brain damage. The juryawarded $22m in compensatory damages and $100m in punitive damages.However, the punitive award was reduced to $60m because, under Alabama law,punitive damages cannot exceed three times the compensatory award. A new trialhas since been ordered after the Alabama Supreme Court found that jury selectionirregularities may have contributed to the verdict.

The plaintiffs, a couple and three of their granddaughters, were traveling in a motorhome which was involved in a head-on collision with another car. Upon impact, themotor home ignited, causing the plaintiffs to burn to death. The plaintiffs sued themanufacturer of the motor home and alleged that the motor home was a defectiveproduct. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant negligently altered the size andplacement of the fuel tank without conducting research on fuel tank design. Thecase settled in mediation for $12m.

An Alabama jury awarded $10m in a suit against an automobile manufacturerclaiming that the automobile was not "crashworthy." The plaintiff's car was in afrontal collision with a smaller car. The plaintiff's occupant compartment collapsedallowing the plaintiff to strike is head on the "A" pillar. It was later discovered thatthe vehicle had been part of a cost reduction program which resulted in the vehi-cle's front crush zone being weakened.

An Ohio company recalled thousands of its hip and knee implants due to an over-whelming number of revision surgeries for patients in which the devices had beenimplanted. The U.S. district court judge presiding over the multi-district litigationapproved of the settlement, which totaled $1b.

A company has reached an agreement with asbestos claimants to settle their claimsfor $2.7b. Two-thirds of that settlement amount is to be funded by more than 30 dif-ferent insurers. The insurers' shares could be paid over 21 years. The agreementneeds approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District ofPennsylvania. It would become effective 30 days after the companies reorganiza-tion plan is approved. Under the terms of the settlement, a trust would be estab-lished for future claimants and the court would enter a permanent channelinginjunction in favor of the company.

A California jury awarded a woman and her husband in excess of $20m after thewoman contracted mesothelioma as a result of asbestos exposure from a floor inher childhood home. She was also exposed to asbestos fibers as a result of herfather's business. All asbestos exposure was able to be traced back to a single com-pany. The jury's verdict did not include punitive damages, which was to be decid-ed at a later date.

A Florida jury awarded the plaintiff $37.5m in a suit against various tobacco compa-nies. The plaintiff alleged that he smoked cigarettes manufactured by the defen-dants from 1942 until 1972, when he quit smoking. Approximately twenty yearsafter the plaintiff quit smoking he developed bladder and tongue cancer. The plain-tiff alleged that he was enticed by the defendants' advertising to smoke. The defen-dants argued that the bladder and tongue cancer were not caused by cigarettesmoking because each occurred approximately twenty years after the plaintiff quitsmoking. The defendant also argued that the plaintiff's subsequent pipe and cigarsmoking were more likely the cause of the tongue cancer.

A New Jersey jury awarded the plaintiff $16m in a suit against the manufacturer ofa compressed air tank. The plaintiff was filling the air tank with compressed airwhen the tank ruptured and struck the plaintiff in the face and head. The plaintifflost a portion of his skull in the accident, and was rendered severely brain damaged.The plaintiff's parents, who witnessed the occurrence, also submitted a claims foremotional distress and loss of companionship.









$122,000,000

$12,000,000

$122,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$3,000,000,000

$20,000,000

$38,000,000

$16,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 20


A San Francisco jury awarded $4.2m to a man suffering from cancer and his wife forexposure to asbestos laden plastics. The 61 year old man was an electrician at ashipyard from 1969 to 1980. He suffered from terminal mesothelioma. The mansued the company for negligence in manufacturing asbestos containing Bakeliteplastics in switching panels that the man handled on ships. The company deniedit acted negligently. The company argued there was no proof it produced theasbestos laden panels. The jury disagreed and awarded the man $1.6m in lostincome and medical expenses, $1.8m for pain and suffering. The jury awarded$800,000 to his wife for loss of her husband's care and comfort.

A large pharmaceutical company settled a lawsuit a 75 year old man filed in CookCounty, Illinois. The man was prescribed an anti-atrial arrhythmia drug to treat aheart rhythm disturbance. In 1997, the plaintiff noted a loss of vision in both eyes,which he attributed to the drug. The plaintiff alleged the company knew the drugcould cause loss of vision, but negligently and purposefully failed to change thelabel and warning materials until 1997. The plaintiff alleged the company over-pro-moted the drug during the 80s and the early 90s by, among other things, understat-ing the risks of the drug and overstating the benefits in their promotional activities,which resulted in a wide-spread use of the drug. The plaintiff also alleged that asearly as 1988, the company's subsidiary had been warning physicians of the risk ofvision loss and blindness associated with the drug. The company however, failed toadvise the cardiology-related physicians in the United States.

The plaintiff was driving his motorcycle up a jump ramp when loose fragmentsinside the carburetor stuck the throttle open. This caused the bike to continue toaccelerate on his way up the jump ramp. The plaintiff fell of the bike and landed onthe base of his spine. Following the accident, the plaintiff was rendered a para-plegic. In a product liability suit against the manufacturer of the motorcycle, anIllinois jury awarded the plaintiff $24m.

A New Jersey jury awarded the plaintiff $14.4m in a suit against an automobile man-ufacturer alleging unsafe design. The plaintiff was driving in a car manufactured bythe defendant when a car traveling in the opposite direction crossed the center lineand crashed into the plaintiff's car. The plaintiff alleged the car was defective dueto design elements that allowed substantial intrusion into the driver compartment.Following the accident, the plaintiff was permanently wheelchair bound, and hadthe mentality of a child. By contrast, the other driver involved in the head-on colli-sion suffered only minor injuries.

The plaintiff filed suit in Minnesota after he injured his hand while trying to removea stray piece of wire from a "bending roller." The plaintiff inadvertently pressed thereverse button instead of the forward button, causing the rollers to turn inward,pulling his hand between the rollers and crushing it. The defendant was the man-ufacturer of the control box for the machine. The plaintiff asserted claims includ-ing strict liability, negligence for defective design of the controls and negligence forfailure to warn of the machine's dangers. The parties settled for $123.5m.

The plaintiffs filed suit against an automobile manufacturer on behalf of a 19-year-old girl who died in an automobile accident after her car rolled over. The plaintiffalleged that the vehicle was defectively designed, dangerous and un-crashworthy.The plaintiff's expert engineer testified that the subject vehicle should have includ-ed more steel in the roof structure. The Florida jury found that the vehicle wasdefective and awarded the plaintiff $10m.







$4,000,000

$10,000,000

$24,000,000

$14,000,000

$124,000,000

$10,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 21

A Mississippi jury awarded $100m to ten plaintiffs, nine adults and a one week oldchild, who were prescribed an anti-acid reflux drug. The medication was neverapproved for use with children and had been linked to heart arrhythmia and heartattacks in adults. The child blacked out three times, suffered a heart attack, andalmost died as a result of ingestion. The child has since recovered with no perma-nent damage. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging the drug set off cardiac arrhyth-mia, which caused an interruption in the blood flow to the heart. The FDA hadapproved the drug to treat nighttime heartburn. However, the company took thedrug off the market in 2000, after numerous takers suffered major side effects. Theplaintiffs alleged the company knew the problems before putting it on the market,but failed to warn physicians or the public and "promoted off label use" such as giv-ing the drug to children. The defendants argued the drug was safe when properlyprescribed and that any cardiac events were connected to other health problems. InMarch 2002, the judge reduced the jury verdict to $48m. On May 13, 2004, theMississippi Supreme Court reversed the $48m verdict for improper joinder andremanded the matter for individual trials.

A Mississippi jury awarded $10m to ten plaintiffs, nine adults and a one week oldchild, who were prescribed an anti-acid reflux drug. The medication was neverapproved for use in children and had been linked to heart arrhythmia and heartattacks in adults. The child blacked out three times, suffered a heart attack, andalmost died as a result of ingestion. The child has since recovered with no perma-nent damage. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging the drug set off cardiac arrhyth-mia, which caused an interruption in the blood flow to the heart. The FDA hadapproved the drug to treat nighttime heartburn. However, the company took thedrug off the market in 2000, after numerous takers suffered major side effects. Theplaintiffs alleged the company knew the problems before putting it on the market,but failed to warn physicians or the public and "promoted off label use" such as giv-ing the drug to children. The defendants argued the drug was safe when properlyprescribed and that any cardiac events were connected to other health problems.After the verdict, the court indicated the jury's award will be reduced on post-trialmotions. In March 2002, the judge reduced the jury verdict to $48m.

A California jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $28b in a suit against a ciga-rette manufacturer. The plaintiff developed lung cancer and claimed that the defen-dant fraudulently concealed the degree of danger of its product. The plaintiff alsocontended that the defendant failed to warn consumers (prior to 1969) that "light"cigarettes were just as hazardous as full-strength cigarettes. The case is currentlyon appeal.

An electronics company's settlement terms were approved, which called for thecompany to pay $10m, with its subsidiary paying $45m, for its faulty heart pacemak-er wire leads, which were allegedly responsible for several deaths in the mid-1990's.But a U.S. court reversed the settlement and remanded the case to the district courtfor further hearings. Canadian claims were settled for $16m in 1997. (FINAL SETTLE-MENT IN U.S. COURT UNKNOWN).

Illinois. A US healthcare company announced $100m-$150m charge resulting fromrecall costs and liability associated with 51 deaths in the US and Europe allegedlyinvolving a contaminant in its filters used in kidney dialysis.

A Florida jury awarded the plaintiffs $25m in a case against a handgun manufactur-er alleging that the handgun was a defective product. The decedent was shot todeath by a 13-year-old middle school student using a handgun made by the defen-dant. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was negligent in selling the gunwithout certain safety standards. In this regard, the plaintiff proved it was feasibleto incorporate a lock into the gun that would have prevented unauthorized use. Theplaintiff further proved that the gun was a "crime gun" that is primarily used byjuveniles and criminals. The jury allocated 50% of the liability to the school, 45% tothe gun owner, and 5% to the gun manufacturer.

After a two week trial, a federal jury awarded plaintiffs $4.6m, agreeing with plain-tiffs that the drug manufacturing company sold an appetite suppressant in a defec-tive condition. The plaintiffs filed suit in 2001 after suffering serious health prob-lems. They blamed the company for their health problems. After deliberating forthree days, the jury found the company sold the product in a condition that wasunreasonably dangerous to consumers.








$48,000,000

$100,000,000

$28,000,000

$16,000,000,000

$150,000,000

$25,000,000

$5,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:58 AM Page 22


A large company that makes bubble wrap approved a $853 million settlement toresolve all asbestos claims against it. The claimants' attorneys have also agreed tothe settlement, which applies to both current and future claims for personal injuriesrelating to asbestos. The settlement also applies to fraudulent transfer claims madein connection with the companies partial acquisition of a bankrupt manufacturer ofasbestos.

A man contracted mesothelioma after being exposed to asbestos containing prod-ucts while working as a welder and shipfitter between the late 1960s and 1980s. Theman died in December 2002. The man's estate brought a lawsuit against variouspast employers and companies, which produced asbestos-containing products.Many of the defendant companies settled with the man's estate prior to trial.However, two companies settled after the trial began. The reported settlement forall defendants totaled $7.5m, although amounts paid by each individual defendantsremains confidential.

After a three week trial, a San Francisco jury awarded a 75 year old homemaker whowas exposed to asbestos from her former husband, a former pipe fitter at an indus-trial site from 1948 to 1963. In 2001, the woman was diagnosed with mesothelioma.The woman alleged she was exposed to asbestos in her home when she shook outand cleaned her husband's work clothing. The woman was awarded $550,000 in lostincome and medical expenses and, $11m for pain and suffering. The plaintiffs wereable to show the jury that the type of cancer can be caused by relatively low expo-sures, including dust brought home on worker's clothing.

A Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs $225m in a product liability suit against an auto-mobile manufacturer. The suit arose from an auto accident during which a pick-uptruck manufactured by the defendant rolled three times. During the accident, thedoors on the driver-side opened, causing the driver and the passenger seatedbehind the driver to be ejected from the vehicle. Both the driver and the passengerseated behind the driver sustained fatal injuries. The plaintiffs (the surviving fam-ily members) alleged that car was defectively designed in that the vertical supportstructure, or B pillar, had been removed. As a result, the vehicle provided minimaloccupant protection in a rollover accident. The Texas Trooper who investigated theaccident testified during trial that this was a survivable accident had the doorsstayed closed.

A Missouri jury awarded the plaintiff $80m in a case against an automobile manu-facturer regarding a defective cruise control mechanism. The plaintiff was backingher car out of her driveway when it suddenly accelerated 120 feet into the neigh-bor's yard and struck a tree. During the collision, the plaintiff suffered skull frac-tures and had her left arm amputated. Due to her injuries, the plaintiff was left ina persistent vegetative state. During the trial, the plaintiff introduced testimonyfrom an engineer formerly employed by the defendant indicating that the defen-dant was aware, approximately ten years prior to the plaintiff's accident, of an elec-trical defect that would cause the cruise control to suddenly accelerate. The defen-dant had also received more than 1500 consumer complaints of unwanted acceler-ation in this vehicle line.

After a two week trial, a Southern District of Florida jury awarded a woman $4.5m,finding the maker of the I.U.D. responsible. A woman used the I.U.D. as her contra-ceptive. While wearing the I.U.D., the woman became ill and nearly died. The I.U.D.was eventually removed and found to be defective and the cause of the woman'sinfection. The plaintiff was left with permanent injuries as a result of the infection.

A large drug maker has paid out more than $50m in settlements of antidepressantclaims. The widow of a police officer who shot himself after taking the drug suedthe drug maker and a generic competitor in the United States District Court for theWestern District of Washington. The widow claimed the company should have beenaware of the drug's propensity to cause suicide through more than a decade of sci-entific debate and successful lawsuits against the company. The widow alleged thecompany failed to test the drug for its rare tendency to induce suicide, and the com-pany failed to warn the public of the problem.








$853,000,000

$8,000,000

$12,000,000

$225,000,000

$80,000,000

$5,000,000

$50,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 23

A large pharmaceuticals company settled a drug dilution lawsuit involving a KansasCity pharmacist, who was sentenced to prison for diluting cancer drugs the compa-ny made. The plaintiffs alleged the company knew or should have known the phar-macist was diluting the drugs. The company maintained it did not have any evi-dence the pharmacist was diluting drugs. Nonetheless, the company settledbecause it feared it could have potentially been responsible for 100% of the damagesawarded by the jury, even if a jury determined it was only 1% at fault.

A large aluminum producer agreed to a settlement with the EnvironmentalProtection Agency ("EPA") regarding alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Underthe terms of the settlement, the defendant will spend an estimated $330m to installa new coal-fired power plant with pollution controls to eliminate a majority of thesulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions from the power plant at the defen-dant's aluminum production facility in Texas. The defendant will also pay a fine of$1.5m and spend $2.5m on two projects that will partially offset the impact of pastemissions from the plant. The company will also spend $750,000 to supply schoolbuses in Texas with pollution control devices.

A federal court in Pennsylvania approved a settlement valued at approximately$32m in a class action suit against an automobile manufacturer. The plaintiffs, theowners of vehicles produced by the defendant, alleged that they were never warnedthat the use of non-synthetic motor oils would cause premature engine wear.Under the terms of the settlement, 351,439 class members will each receive a vouch-er for $35 off a scheduled service appointment that includes an oil change. In addi-tion, the defendant agreed to modify its warranty to cover the costs of repairing anydamage caused by the use of conventional oil.

A New York jury ordered a large drug maker to pay $2m in compensatory damagesto a woman who was injured after taking a diabetes drug. The drug was recalledfrom the market in March 2000 after about one hundred people taking the drugeither died from active liver failure or had liver transplants.

A Texas jury awarded the plaintiff $18m in a suit against an automobile manufac-turer. The plaintiff was driving in a pick-up truck manufactured by the defendantwhen the vehicle hit a culvert and flipped onto its roof. The plaintiff suffered spinalcord injuries. The plaintiff alleged the truck's roof structure was defectivelydesigned because it failed to provide adequate protection.

A California jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $11m for injuries he sustainedafter being run over by a truck owned by the defendant, a baking company. Theplaintiff was working in a portioned off construction area along a local highwaywhen a truck driven by an employee of the defendant drove through the construc-tion zone and knocked him down. The plaintiff sustained herniated discs, and heclaimed to have suffered shoulder impingement and hip contusion. His x-raystaken at the emergency room immediately after the accident were normal. A post-trial motion is pending.

The plaintiff was diagnosed with malignant mesothelioma in September 1999. As aresult of his diagnosis, the plaintiff filed suit in Massachusetts against companieswho manufactured asbestos containing materials to which he was exposed duringhis employment as a steamfitter, pipe fitter, and plumber. The plaintiff died inOctober 2001, prior to the suit being resolved. The case settled for $2.5m on the eveof trial.

A California jury awarded the plaintiff, a 12-year-old child, $51,833,697 for injurieshe sustained as a result of a gun shot wound from a handgun that was alleged to bedefectively designed. The plaintiff obtained a .38 caliber semi-automatic pistolmanufactured by the defendant and owned by the plaintiff's parents. An adult whowas watching the plaintiff took the gun away from the child and attempted tounload the gun. Unloading the pistol required the safety to be taken off "safe" andput into the "fire" position before the slide could be cycled. While unloading thegun, the slide slipped from the adult's hand and he accidentally grasped the trigger.The bullet entered the child's chin and exited the back of his neck, injuring hisspinal cord. The child was rendered a permanent quadriplegic.









$49,000,000

$330,000,000

$32,000,000

$2,000,000

$18,000,000

$11,000,000

$3,000,000

$52,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 24


A large manufacturer of branded consumer products settled a lawsuit with awoman who filed a lawsuit in the District Court of Brazoria County, Texas. Theplaintiff alleged she suffered a hemorrhagic stroke after ingesting one of the com-pany's diet pills containing phenylpropanolamine. The company agreed to pay$3m, plus $500,000 for certain fees and expenses, and was fully released from anyfurther liability in the case.

The plaintiff sued a tobacco company in Missouri alleging the defendant failed towarn her that the cigarettes it produced were hazardous. The plaintiff also allegedthat a product defect caused her lung cancer. The jury found in favor of the defen-dant on the failure to warn claim. However, the jury found in favor of the plaintiffon the defective design claim. The jury verdict included $15m in punitive damages.The case is currently on appeal.

A German drug manufacturer settled lawsuits filed by 20 plaintiffs who claimedingestion of the company's drug caused them to suffer from rhabdomyolysis, a con-dition that occurs when damaged muscle releases pigments from the muscle andblood into the bloodstream. The plaintiffs hailed from West Virginia, New York,Illinois, Florida,Wisconsin, Colorado, Ohio, and Indiana. Most filed their cases in thePhiladelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld a $28m jury verdict in a class action suitbrought by property owners against the an oil refining company alleging oil wastecontamination on their property. The plaintiffs also claimed damaged to a localacquirer. On appeal, the defendant argued that the plaintiffs did not meet their evi-dentiary burden in establishing the defendant polluted their property.

The plaintiff was lifting weights using a machine manufactured by the defendant.The plaintiff was crushed under the weight of the machine and rendered a quadri-plegic. The plaintiff contended the machine was defectively designed due to themanufacturer's failure to install safety stops that would have prevented the barfrom coming down too far and injuring its user. The California jury awarded theplaintiff $16m.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has approved a company'sglobal settlement with asbestos creditors for $1.2b. The order included the creationof an asbestos personal injury trust, as well as insurers' rights and discharges,releases and injunctions. Although approved by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, the deci-sion was subject to a 30-day appeal period to Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.Some of the claimants and insurers planned on appealing the settlement based onthe grounds that it violated their due processes rights.

A 14-year-old boy swam down to the open drain at the bottom of the swimming pooland his arm became stuck in the inlet pipe. Seven adults jumped in the pool andtried to pull the boy from the drain, but the boy could not be budged. The force ofthe swimming pool pump was so strong that the boy was only finally released whenthe pool pump was shut off by a policy officer. The plaintiffs, the family of thedeceased child, sued the manufacturer of the pump, and alleged that the defendantwas aware of the problem with suction entrapment. The Florida jury awarded theplaintiffs $104.4m.

A Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs $18m in a suit against the manufacturer of amotor grader. The decedent was directing trucks and heavy equipment at a con-struction worksite when a motor grader operated by a co-worker backed over him.His estate sued the manufacturer of the motor grader and alleged the machine wasdefectively designed. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed the vehicle did not includeoutside rearview mirrors, which they claimed would have eliminated the driver'sblind spot.

The plaintiff was driving an 18-wheeler log truck with a load of logs in the cab whenthe vehicle turned over on its side. During the rollover accident, some of the logsbeing transported by the plaintiff shifted forward, impacting the cab guard. The cabguard failed, allowing the cargo to crush the cab and the plaintiff. The plaintiff diedon the scene as s result of internal injuries he sustained when the cargo shifted intothe cab guard. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the cab guard, and claimedthe guard was defectively designed. The Alabama jury awarded the plaintiff $12m.










$4,000,000

$19,000,000

$9,000,000

$28,000,000

$16,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$104,000,000

$18,000,000

$12,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 25

A California judge ordered a Taiwanese candy maker to pay $50m to a married cou-ple whose 3-year-old son choked to death on a piece of gel candy manufactured bythe defendant. The judge stated that the child's death was not the plaintiffs' fault,and that the verdict was a warning to companies that sell dangerous products. Thedefendant did not attend the trial, and is not expected to have the resources to paythe judgment. The defendant had two other wrongful-death rulings against it in thesame year, none of which have been paid.

A Nebraska jury awarded the plaintiff $19.562m in a suit against an automobilemanufacturer alleging that the automobile was not crashworthy. The plaintiff was apassenger in a car manufactured by the defendant, and was in an accident in whichthe car rolled over four times. The plaintiff broke her neck in the accident. The plain-tiff contended the defendant driver was responsible for the rollover accident, butargued that the automobile manufacturer was responsible for her spinal cord injuriesbecause the vehicle was not crashworthy due to a weak roof. The verdict was jointand several against both the automobile manufacturer and the driver.

A Wisconsin jury awarded the plaintiff $24m for injuries he sustained when a con-crete forming system manufactured by the defendant collapsed on top of him dur-ing a construction project. The collapse involved dozens of construction workersand hundreds of tons of concreting and steel forming. The plaintiff was the mostsignificantly injured worker, and it was later determined that his legs would need tobe amputated if the final rescue attempt had not succeeded. The plaintiff filed aproducts liability suit against the manufacturer and designer of the concrete form-ing system, and alleged that the support legs of the system were defectivelydesigned. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant was liable for failing towarn the contractor of the need for safety bracing.

A California jury awarded the plaintiff $45m in a suit against an automobile manu-facturer regarding an allegedly defective restrain system. The plaintiff, a 5 1/2 yearold child, was in the middle of the back seat of the vehicle with a lap belt only. Allother occupants in the car were belted in three-point belts. The vehicle in which theplaintiff was riding collided with a 29,000-pound coil of steel that had been dis-lodged from a tractor-trailer. The plaintiff's spinal cord was severed and he sus-tained massive internal injuries in the accident. The plaintiff alleged that the vehi-cle was defective because it provided a lap belt only in the center back seat, whilethe remainder of the vehicle was equipped with three-point belt restraints.

A Pennsylvania jury awarded $6.6m for the death of a man who developed mesothe-lioma as a result of being exposed to asbestos through his employment as a researchchemist. The verdict consisted of $4.2m to the estate for the decedent's pain andsuffering and $2.4m for loss of consortium. The majority of the defendants settledfor undisclosed amounts prior to trial. The two remaining defendants settled withthe plaintiff during trial and just after the verdict, respectively. Those settlementswere also for undisclosed amounts.

A Washington appellate panel affirmed a $16.2m verdict rendered against a compa-ny and a hospital. A woman was admitted to a hospital for abdominal pain andvaginal bleeding. The hospital tested her blood for human chorionic gonadotrpin("hCG") with the company's assay. hCG can detect pregnancy and a type of cancer.Tests came back positive and the woman underwent chemotherapy, and had a lungremoved. Later, it was determined the woman did not have cancer. The woman andher husband sued the company and the hospital for product liability and medicalmalpractice. The jury awarded the plaintiffs $16.2m in damages for failure to warnand malpractice, and divided the judgment equally between the company and thehospital.

A California court approved the second half of a settlement regarding a class actionsuit arising from the use of allegedly defective roofing shakes. The first part of thesettlement was approved in May 2000, and it included $65m to be paid to classmembers. The second portion of the settlement provides for an additional $75m tobe paid to class members.








$50,000,000

$20,000,000

$24,000,000

$45,000,000

$7,000,000

$16,000,000

$140,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 26


Large public company settles its asbestos and silicosis claims for $2.77b. The settle-ment was made with the company's asbestos and silica creditors and is conditionedon an agreement of 75% of the known present claimants. The company has alsoallegedly agreed to contribute 66 million shares of the company's stock to fund atrust fund for future claimants who have asbestos or silica claims against it. Theagreement is conditioned on two of the company's subsidiaries filing for Chapter 11bankruptcy.

An Ohio jury awarded a widow and her children $6.4m for the wrongful death of herhusband. The decedent died of mesothelioma in 2000, after being exposed toasbestos through his job as a pipefitter. The exposure occurred over a 6 year periodfrom 1965 through 1971. It is unknown whether the verdict was appealed.

A Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs $45m in a suit against the manufacturer of anallegedly defective fuel valve which was installed as a replacement part on theplaintiff's automobile. The plaintiffs were driving in a car with two fuel tanks.When the driver noticed the fuel in one of the tanks was low, she flipped a switchto convert to the second tank. A few minutes later, the car caught on fire. Two ofthe passengers in the car died on the scene; the driver and the other passenger sur-vived but were severely burned. An appeal is currently pending.

A German drug and chemicals maker agreed to settle 1,959 lawsuits involving itsanti-cholesterol drug, which was recalled from the market in August 2001. The com-pany's drug was linked with more than 100 deaths.

A California jury awarded a man in excess of $2.9m after he contracted malignantpleural mesothelioma as a result of being exposed to the defendant company'sasbestos containing products throughout his life. The plaintiff was first exposed tothe defendant's asbestos products as a teenager, while rebuilding a car. The expo-sure continued throughout the plaintiff's career as an electrician. The awardincludes $2.4m for the 74 year-old plaintiff's pain and suffering. Punitive damagesdid not make up any of the verdict.

City sued seven oil companies to recover for MTBE contamination of a well whichwas the source of water for the city. The oil companies agreed to make an initialpayment of $62.5m. The settlement, which is valued at $312m, is reported toinclude $100m in cash, plus costs associated with cleaning the wells. The Californiajudge presiding over the case approved of the settlement.

The plaintiff, a city in California, tested the water supply in its wells and detectedmethyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) in 5 of the city's 11 wells. The city was forced toshut down these wells. Subsequently, the city sued various manufacturers, suppli-ers, refiners and owners/operators of pipelines and other gasoline facilities. The cityasserted various causes of action, including: strict product liability, negligence, nui-sance and trespass. The city contended that the gasoline product manufacturedand distributed by the defendants was defective in design in the MTBE, unlike othercomponents of gasoline, dissolves and spreads into the ground water underneaththe spill site and resists biodegradation. The city agreed to a global settlement withall defendants except one (a manufacturer of MTBE). The court valued the settle-ment at $312.85m, which includes costs to build and maintain a new water treat-ment facility to remove MTBE contamination from the city's water supply. Thelargest amount assigned to a single defendant was $62.5m.

A Texas jury awarded the plaintiffs $18,503,300 in a wrongful death action involvinga defective box fan. The plaintiffs' decedent died from carbon monoxide poisoningfrom a fire in his house that was allegedly caused by a defective box fan which ignit-ed. The plaintiffs sued the manufacturer of the fan and alleged causes of action forstrict liability and gross negligence.









$3,000,000,000

$6,000,000

$45,000,000

$747,000,000

$3,000,000

$312,000,000

$313,000,000

$19,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 27

A large pharmaceutical company settled a class action lawsuit filed in the EasternDistrict of Louisiana by thousands of patients allegedly harmed by ingestion of thecompany's heartburn drug. In 1993, the FDA approved the drug as a treatment forindividuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Several years later, the drug wasremoved from the market because of allegations it caused irregular heartbeats andeven instances of sudden death. The lawsuit involved 4,000 individuals, including300 who allegedly died as a result of using the drug. 85% of the death claims and75% of the remaining plaintiffs agreed to the settlement terms. For the settlementto take effect, an additional 12,000 individuals who have filed claims, but have notsued, must agree to the settlement terms. The company agreed to pay a minimumof $69.5m and a maximum of $90m, depending on the number of plaintiffs who par-ticipate in the settlement.

A Georgia jury awarded $33m to the plaintiff, a child who was paralyzed from thechest down in an auto accident. The plaintiff sued the manufacturer of the car inwhich she was riding, and contended that a defective latch caused a fold-down seatto collapse onto the plaintiff during the auto accident. The plaintiff further allegedthat the defendant knew of the design problems with car, but opted not to recall themodel in question.

A Texas state court judge approved of a $149m settlement involving thirty classaction suits against a car tire manufacturer. The settlement was reached more thanthree years after the defendant recalled 14.4m of its tires amid safety concerns. Thesettlement calls for the defendant to pay an estimated $70m to replace the alleged-ly defective tires, $41m to manufacture car tires that will perform better at highspeeds, $15.5m on a consumer education and awareness campaign, and $19m forattorney fees. The defendant has also paid $3.5m to notify class members of the set-tlement plan. The settlement is expected to effect about 15m drivers, and will like-ly involve about 60m tires.

A large pharmaceuticals manufacturer paid $60m to settle an Illinois state classaction brought by diabetes drug consumers. The drug manufacturer agreed to set-tle the case after a Madison County Circuit Court judge certified a class. The classincluded individuals who bought a diabetes drug and sustained injuries. The settle-ment is subject to class notification, a hearing and court authorization.

On May 17, 2004, a Jefferson County, Texas jury found a drug manufacturer (the"company") liable for $1b, as well as $4.2m in pre-judgment interest and $188,737 inguardian ad litem fees. The lawsuit was brought by the family of the deceased, whodied in 2003 from primary pulmonary hypertension after taking a diet drug manu-factured by the company. She was 41 years old at the time of her death. She devel-oped the disease more than four years after she stopped using the drug. The jury’saward included $900m in punitive damages, exceeding the state’s cap, which is setat twice the actual damages. The judge allowed the jury to exceed the cap if theybelieved that certain adverse reports about the drug had been knowingly or inten-tionally destroyed, concealed, or altered. The company filed an appeal with theNinth Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas. The company expects the appealprocess to take at least one to two years.

A Texas jury awarded the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma $10 mil-lion, all of which were compensatory damages. The woman contracted the diseaseindirectly from her father. Her father carried asbestos dust home in his clothes fromhis job, which involved relining and demolishing blast furnaces. The woman wasexposed to the asbestos while washing her father's work clothes. The father nowsuffers from pleural plaques, a scarring of the lungs, which was also caused byasbestos exposure. The defendant company did not comment on the verdict and itis unknown whether it will appeal.

A San Diego County jury awarded a 49-year old woman and her husband $122.6min punitive damages, and ordered the defendant automaker to pay $256m in puni-tive damages to the plaintiff. The woman, now wheelchair bound, was driving herautomobile on an interstate highway near San Diego. She swerved to avoid a metalobject on the road. She lost control of the automobile and rolled over 4 1/2 times.The plaintiff's attorneys argued that because of cost concerns, the automaker didnot follow its engineers' advice to widen the vehicle's wheel track or lower its cen-ter of gravity, which would have stabilized the vehicle, or to reinforce the vehicle'sroof to protect passengers involved in rollover accidents.








$90,000,000

$33,000,000

$149,000,000

$60,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$10,000,000

$369,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 28


On June 3, 2004, a San Diego jury awarded $349m in compensatory and punitivedamages to a woman who was paralyzed when her vehicle rolled over after shetried to veer around an object on the road. The vehicle rolled over, crushing the roof.The woman sustained a broken back and was paralyzed. The jury in the CaliforniaSuperior Court, San Diego County, awarded her $123m in compensatory damagesand $246m in punitive damages against a large car manufacturer. The plaintiff fileda strict liability action claiming the vehicle was defective as to stability and thecrash-worthiness of its roof. The plaintiff also charged the manufacturer with fail-ing to warn consumers about the roof’s faulty structure.

The claims administrator of a bankrupt silicone breast implant manufactureragreed to pay out $40m to cover 6,000 claims involving defective breast implants.This matter is pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, Bankruptcy Division. Thesettlement facility office will mail participation forms to all the claimants that havenot waived their opt-out rights. The claimants will then have an opportunity to optout and pursue a claim.

A Houston,Texas jury awarded $2.4m in actual damages to a woman who sustainedbrain damage after suffering a stroke, which was allegedly caused by her ingestinga diet supplement. The jury also hit the company with $5m in punitive damages.The jury determined the diet drug marketer acted maliciously by falsely telling stateand federal regulators the diet supplement had no adverse effects, and that thecompany maintained a broad monitoring policy. As a result of the stroke, one sideof the 35 year old plaintiff's face is numb, she has difficulty using one of her hands,and drags one of her feet when she walks. The company's attorneys argued that theplaintiff's problems might have been caused by oral contraceptives. The jury foundthe company 30% liable for failing to tell the plaintiff's doctor that she was using thediet supplement when the plaintiff first complained of dizziness.

On June 15, 2000, a six-year-old minor plaintiff was riding in the rear center seat ofher mother’s car. The rear seats in the car were equipped with special latches whichpermitted seats to be folded down to provide extra cargo space in the trunk. The carwas involved in a frontal collision, and the infant’s rear seat collapsed down on topof her. As a result of the collapse, her seat back struck her in the back and pinnedher between her seat belt and the seat back. She was paralyzed from the neck down.The infant was nine years old at trial and required 24-hour care. The plaintiff,through her mother, sued the manufacturer, alleging that a defective product designin the rear seat latch did not latch properly. The jury returned its verdict in theamount of $33,868,000 in compensatory damages and $13,950,000 in punitive dam-ages against a large car manufacturer.

A jury awarded $10m to plaintiffs after the decedent died from mesotheliomaallegedly as a result of exposure to asbestos dust from her father’s clothing. Thedefendant denied there was any asbestos in its furnaces and claimed there was nocausal relationship to establish a link between the decedent’s mesothelioma andher father’s work at a company’s furnaces. The plaintiffs in this matter were thehusband and daughter of the decedent as well as her mother and stepfather. The54-year-old female decedent’s stepfather did restoration work on blast furnacesfrom 1953 to 1964. During that period of time, he worked on furnaces at a plant inDearborn, Michigan. The stepfather was allegedly exposed to asbestos from thedemolition and installation of furnaces at the facility. The decedent washed herfather’s laundry daily during that period. The plaintiffs alleged that the decedentwas exposed to asbestos fibers from her father’s clothing. The plaintiffs sued forwrongful death and negligence on behalf of the stepfather for his injuries. The step-father’s claim for damages arose from his diagnosed condition of pleural plaques.The plaintiffs sued the company and ten other defendants. The award was brokendown as: $4,500,000 to the estate for its survival claim, $1,500,000 to the decedent’sdaughter $2,750,000 to the decedent's husband, $750,000 to the decedent’s motionand $500,000 to the decedent’s stepfather.






$369,000

$40,000,000

$7,000,000

$48,000,000

$10,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 29

Twenty-seven plaintiffs (inclusive of consortium claims) agreed to settle a lawsuitagainst a manufacturer of a combustible resin for $25m and against the defendantfoundry for $10m. The plaintiffs, employees of the foundry, were injured when abuildup of resin powder combusted resulting in an explosion that killed three work-ers and severely burned nine others. The plaintiffs sued the manufacturer of thecombustible resin used in the foundry’s molding process. The plaintiffs argued thatthe defective resin caused the explosion and that the defendant foundry failed toissue adequate warnings of its product’s combustibility. The plaintiffs also sued thedefendant owner of the foundry, claiming the defendant foundry failed to removeresin dust at the foundry.

On October 15, 2004, a drug manufacturer agreed to a national class action settle-ment worth between $70m and $78m to cover liver injury, death and other claimsinvolving its now-withdrawn drug. According to a proposed class notice filed in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the company set up thefollowing four funds: Serious liver injury; General liver injury; Nonserious liverinjury; Nonspecific injury and “general benefits.” The proposed notice stated thatthe settlement could pay the following: from $300,000 to $3.5m for deaths; from$100,000 to $2.5m for serious liver injuries; from $5,000 to $200,000 for general liverinjuries; from $2,000 to $7,500 for nonserious liver injuries; and up to $100 for non-specific injuries and illnesses or for plaintiffs who have not developed signs of injuryor illness. The agreement included a payment matrix with levels of injuries and ageranges.

On October 15, 2004, jurors from the Los Angeles County Superior Court awarded ahusband and his wife $18,688,496 in compensatory damages for injuries arisingfrom the man’s asbestos exposure. Five days later, the jury returned an $18m puni-tive damages vercit. A 60-year-old Washington resident suffered from malignantpleural mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while working as anuclear-trained machinist on board a U.S. Navy ship during the 1960s and 1970s.The man alleged he was exposed to various asbestos-containing products, includ-ing gaskets used on steam lines and inside valves, pumps, and other equipment. Hefurther alleged that he was exposed to asbestos for two years during the mid-1970swhile mixing and sanding plaster quick set while renovating his home. The gasketmanufacturer was assessed 40 percent liability (roughly $7.5m in compensatorydamages). The jury allocated 14 percent to another defendant and the remaining 56percent of fault to non-parties, including 39 percent to the U.S. Navy. In the punitivedamages phase, the gasket manufacturer was ordered to pay $15m. Thus, the gas-ket manufacturer ultimately paid $22.5m.

On October 15, 2004, jurors from the Los Angeles County Superior Court awarded ahusband and his wife $18,688,496 in compensatory damages for injuries arisingfrom the man’s asbestos exposure. Five days later, the jury returned an $18m puni-tive damages verdict. A 60-year-old Washington resident suffered from malignantpleural mesothelioma as a result of his exposure to asbestos while working as anuclear-trained machinist on board a U.S. Navy ship during the 1960s and 1970s.The man alleged he was exposed to various asbestos-containing products, includ-ing gaskets used on steam lines and inside valves, pumps, and other equipment. Hefurther alleged that he was exposed to asbestos for two years during the mid-1970swhile mixing and sanding plaster quick set while renovating his home. The plastermanufacturer was assessed 14 percent liability (roughly $2.6m in compensatorydamages). The jury allocated 40 percent to another defendant and the remaining 56percent of fault to non-parties, including 39 percent to the U.S. Navy. In the punitivedamages phase, the plaster manufacturer was ordered to pay $3m. Thus, the plas-ter manufacturer ultimately paid $5.6m.

A chemical company filed a plan to settle asbestos-related claims by establishing atrust worth $1.6b. The company has been in bankruptcy since 2001. The companysubmitted the settlement plan after failing to reach an agreement with its creditors.The plan would become effective after a vote of eligible creditors and if approved bythe U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Under the proposed plan,claims are to be divided among those personal injury claims that meet specifiedexposure and medical criteria, personal-injury claims that do not met the criteria,and property damage claims. Claimants who did not meet the medical and expo-sure criteria would have the option to litigate their claims against the trust. Theclaims and trust administration costs were funded with $512m in cash and 9 mil-lion shares of common stock.






$35,000,000

$70,000,000

$23,000,000

$6,000,000

$2,000,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 30


On November 4, 2004, a drug manufacturer agreed to pay $10m to the State of WestVirginia for various state drug abuse programs shortly before a jury was to be cho-sen for trial. In the case, the State alleged that the company misrepresented theaddictive qualities of a certain pain drug, costing state agencies $30.5m. WestVirginia claimed that the drug manufacturer made misrepresentations or omissionsabout the appropriate use, risks, and safety of the drug to doctors, pharmacists, andpatients. The State argued that addiction to the drug led to a dramatic increase insocial problems, including drug abuse and criminal acts. Reportedly, the state hashad to pay excessive prescription costs and health and medical costs for people suf-fering the effects of the drug. The state sought to recover at least $30.5m in exces-sive and unnecessary prescription cost payments, health care services, disgorge-ment of profits and medical monitoring.

A New York jury awarded $3.75m to an 80-year old man and his wife. The plaintiffsalleged the man was exposed to asbestos during a 30 year career at an oil refineryin New York. The plaintiffs claimed the man worked with certain gaskets contain-ing asbestos and that the gasket manufacturer never warned of the dangers ofasbestos. The man allegedly suffered from mesothelioma. In a November 5, 2004verdict in the New York Supreme Court for Niagara County, a jury found againstdefendant gasket manufacturer during a 10-day trial. The jurors awarded the plain-tiffs (husband and wife) $2m for future pain and suffering, $500,000 for past painand suffering, $1 m for future loss of consortium and $250,000 for past loss of con-sortium. The company argued that its product was not dangerous and did notrelease asbestos fibers.

A 78-year-old man settled his claims against various manufacturers for $4m. Theman began working as a decorative painter. During his 44-year career, the man laterworked as a foreman and field superintendent. He retired in 1990. In October 2002,doctors determined the man was suffering from mesothelioma (a form of cancer)caused by asbestos exposure. The man sued various manufacturers and/or suppli-ers of products floor tiles, joint compound, plasterboard and roofing materials, all ofwhich he used during the course of his career. The man alleged the defendants’products contained asbestos that caused his mesothelioma. He also alleged that thedefendants supplied and/or permitted worker exposure to asbestos-containingproducts. The man claimed his asbestos exposure occurred during a period span-ning 1959 and 1962, at a construction job at a college campus. The defendantsargued that the campus’ construction did not begin until 1963. The defendants alsoargued that their products did not cause the man’s mesothelioma. They contendedthe man’s exposure time was insufficient to cause mesothelioma. The partiesagreed to a settlement, which occurred after the Fifth District Appellate Court grant-ed the defendants’ emergency motion to stop the trial.

In March 2005, a Cook County, Illinois jury awarded $27m to the family of a man whowas killed when a drunk driver, traveling about 60 miles per hour, plowed into theman’s car in February 2000. The plaintiffs sued the car manufacturers who madethe driver’s seat, claiming that without the defect, the man would only have sufferedminor injuries. Apparently, the design flaw in the car seat was exposed a decadeearlier by the TV show 60 Minutes. The deceased man’s car manufacturers werefound liable for constructing a faulty driver’s seat.

Description of Loss

A settlement, agreed to in principle, would give nearly 3,000 depot workers $59.12min hazardous duty back pay for unknowingly working with asbestos materials at thedefendants' facility. Negotiations took over a year before a settlement was reached.Plaintiffs pushed for $76m in back pay, and a federal arbitrator assessed damages at$49m before the parties agreed to settle for $59.12m. The settlement was subject tothe Secretary of the Army before becoming finalized.





Country Loss Date


$10,000,000

$40,000,000

$4,000,000

$27,000,000

Damages

$59,000,000


P U B L I C A D M I N I S T R AT I O N

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 31


The plaintiffs sued the defendant, the operator of a landfill, and alleged that ben-zene which escaped from the landfill near their home caused their daughter todevelop leukemia. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for nuisance and for possess-ing, controlling and operating the gas collection systems in a negligent manner.The defendant denied that benzene escaped from the landfill, and argued thatthere is no link between benzene exposure and leukemia. The Texas jury awardedthe plaintiffs $23.14m, including $10m in punitive damages.

The plaintiff was diving at a swimming pool owned and operated by the defendantwhen he collided with a synchronized swimmer who swam underneath the divingarea when the plaintiff was in mid-air. The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegicimmediately upon impact. At the time of the incident, the defendant had rented thepool to a diving club and a synchronized swimming club. The defendant providedno lifeguard services at the pool. The California jury awarded the plaintiff $27.75m.

Description of Loss

The Pennsylvania jury awarded the plaintiff $75.6m in a liquor service liability, orDram Shop Act, case. The plaintiff's car was struck by a car driven by another driv-er, who later pled guilty to drunk driving. The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic.The intoxicated driver was the manager of a bar, and had consumed alcoholic bev-erages at the bar prior to the accident. Both the bar and the driver were named asdefendants.

Description of Loss

A Florida jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $27m in a suit against a securitycompany. The plaintiff was working as a teller in a bank when a robber broke into thebank, shot the plaintiff, and took the surveillance equipment in order to conceal hisidentity. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was responsible for designing, proposingand installing the security system and surveillance system. The plaintiff furtherclaimed the defendant failed to install panic buttons at the teller stations, as well asother security measures, which rendered the system unreasonably dangerous.

The plaintiffs were nine commercial businesses that all stored documents in thedefendant's warehouse. The plaintiffs contended the defendant warehouse opera-tor failed to safely store the documents, resulting in a substantial fire loss. The com-pany that designed and installed the warehouse sprinkler system was also namedas a defendant. The Pennsylvania jury awarded a combined verdict of $41,305,506.(THE CASE IS CURRENTLY ON APPEAL)

This suit was brought on behalf of the decedent, a sanitation worker who worked ata parking garage owned by the defendant. While working in the garage, the dece-dent entered an elevator-type device known as a "man-lift." The decedent becamepinned in the man-lift's pit below the first floor. When the next step of the man-liftdescended, it came down on top of the decedent and he died on the scene. Theplaintiff sued the company that maintained the man-lift, and claimed that thedefendant was negligent in failing to discover defects in the man-lift's split-rail safe-ty switch. The maintenance company impeded the owner of the garage, and con-tended the owner was negligent for failing to comply with certain administrativecodes pertaining to man-lifts. The New York jury found the garage owner to be 55%negligent, and awarded a total verdict of $12.5m.



Country Loss Date


Country Loss Date




$23,000,000

$28,000,000

Damages

$76,000,000

Damages

$27,000,000

$41,000,000

$13,000,000


R E TA I L T R A D E

S E R V I C E I N D U S T R I E S

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 32

Description of Loss

A California jury awarded $21m to the plaintiff, whose arms were amputated afterhis aluminum avocado-picking pole touched a 12,000-volt power line owned by thedefendant, an electric company. The defendant argued that it should not be heldresponsible for someone who used an aluminum pole and a metal ladder near apower line. The plaintiff contended that the defendant failed to properly trim theavocado tree and left hidden power lines hanging above it. The jury found thedefendant eighty percent responsible for the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff was assigned to a vessel that was assisting a jack-up rig with a gravelpack job. The bow thruster and the anchor of the boat upon which the plaintiff wasworking failed, and the boat jerked a steel flexible hose, which smashed into theplaintiff's legs. Ultimately, both of the plaintiff's legs were amputated. TheLouisiana jury awarded the plaintiff $43.5m.

An Alabama jury awarded the plaintiff $43.8m, including $37m in punitive damages,in a suit against an oil company. The plaintiff sued the oil company after he dug anirrigation well on his small farm and struck gasoline. At trial, it was proven that thedefendant was responsible for 750,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of gasoline that leakedfrom the defendant's pipeline and migrated onto the plaintiff's property.

The families of two 10-year-old boys who were killed in a pipeline explosion agreedto a $75m settlement, in what is believed to be the largest wrongful death and per-sonal injury settlement in Washington state history. The two boys were killed when277,000 gallons of gasoline and oil leaked from a pipeline owned and operated by thedefendant and exploded. The fire occurred when the boys unsuspectingly struck afireplace lighter while playing along the banks of a creek. The plaintiffs assertedvarious causes of action including negligence and strict liability under the Oil andHazardous Substance Spill Prevention and Response statutes. The plaintiffs alsoalleged that the defendant knew of the defects in the pipeline, but did not repair thepipeline because of cost concerns.

A Kentucky jury ordered the defendant gas company to pay $270m for burn injuriessustained by the plaintiff. While taking a shower, the plaintiff flipped a switch toincrease the water pressure and ignited an explosion that badly burned his face.The plaintiff alleged that gas traveling through an underground water aquiferseeped into his water well after the gas company removed a steel casing. The defen-dant claimed the accident was caused by the accumulation of natural gas in theplaintiff's well, and not by the gas well in question. The case is currently on appeal.

A West Virginia jury awarded $4.5m to six plaintiffs, including four railroad workerswith various degrees of asbestosis. At trial, the plaintiffs alleged the defendant rail-road companies knew, or should have known about the hazardous asbestos, andknew, or should have known that the asbestos was being used where the plaintiffsworked. The jury found the defendants were negligent primarily because they knewthe exposure to asbestos could contribute to injury and illness, and yet they failedto provide reasonable warnings to the plaintiffs, and failed to provide respiratoryprotection to the plaintiffs.

A New York state jury awarded a man $47.1m for his development of mesotheliomaas a result of asbestos exposure while working as a boilermaker. The jury awardedthe man $15m for pain and suffering, $30m for future pain and suffering, $300,000for past medical expenses, $700,000 for future medical expenses and $1.13m forstipulated economic damages. The verdict is being appealed.

The plaintiffs/homeowners discovered that their water wells were contaminatedwith crude oil from a pipeline owned by the defendant. The defendant had sincesold the pipeline to another oil company. At the time of the sale, the defendant dis-closed that a 40 barrel spill had occurred near the subdivision where the plaintiffslived. However, the defendant indicated that the spill had been cleaned up. Theplaintiffs asserted causes of action for trespass, nuisance, intentional invasion ofprivacy and negligence. The homeowners claimed that they found crude oil in theirbathtubs, dishwater, sprinkler systems and elsewhere, as a result of contaminationof their water wells. The Texas jury assessed $6,118,172 in remediation damagesand $50m in punitive damages. Thus, the total verdict was $56,118,172.

Country Loss Date









Damages

$21,000,000

$44,000,000

$44,000,000

$75,000,000

$270,000,000

$5,000,000

$47,000,000

$56,000,000


T R A N S P O R TAT I O N , C O M M U N I C AT I O N , U T I L I T I E S

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 33


The plaintiffs sued a California-based airline company on behalf of three passengerswho died in an airplane crash involving one of the defendant's flights. Just beforethe California jury was about to begin the punitive phase of the trial, the partiesagreed to a settlement of $11.7m. The flight was carrying fifteen passengers fromLos Angeles, California to Aspen, Colorado when it crashed about 2400 feet short ofthe runway. Light snow was falling, and the pilot attempted to land at dusk in oneof the most difficult airports in the country due to its mountainous terrain. Twoplanes ahead of the defendant's flight had aborted their approach because visibili-ty was bad. The lawsuit alleged the defendant knowingly flew in the face of dangerby attempting to land under unsafe weather conditions.

An employee of the defendant parked a company truck in a bike lane of a localstreet. The plaintiff was riding his bike down the street when he ran into the parkedtruck. The plaintiff was rendered an incomplete quadriplegic with partial use of hishands and arms. The plaintiff contended the defendant illegally parked the truck inthe bicycle lane. The defense argued that the plaintiff could see the truck 200 feetahead of him, but negligently failed to stop. The California jury found the plaintiffto be 25% negligent, but awarded the plaintiff $27,579,230.

Caracas. Natural gas pipeline 60km west of Caracas exploded killing at least 10 peo-ple. Relatives of explosion victims filed $40m suit against various defendants. NOINFORMATION AVAILABLE AS TO WHETHER JURISDICTION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHEDIN THE U.S.




$12,000,000

$28,000,000

$23,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 34



Description of Loss

The claimant, a farmers union is attempting to sue the potential Belgian defendantcompany Bioland Liquid Sugars alleging that they are using the name Bioland to sellanimal feed containing hormones and pharmaceuticals and that in doing so theyare breaching the potential claimant's intellectual property rights and causing dam-age by confusing consumers. The potential claimant alleges that "Bioland" is a reg-istered trade mark and is protected throughout Europe, the use of it by the poten-tial defendant has damaged their reputation and affected profits for organic farm-ers. (THE CLAIM PENDING)

The claimant contracted an E.coli infection from a trip to the defendant's farm. Theclaimant who contracted the infection from a goat was left in a coma for 12 days,the infection led him to renal failure and damage to his central nervous system.The claimant was fed through a tube to his stomach, was unable to walk or talk andhad only very slight movement, he was unable to show emotion and occasionallysuffered spasms and seizures. His life expectancy was estimated to be between 25-30 years old. Defendant admitted liability in failing to keep an open farm safe forvisitors. Claim settled out of court.

The claimants, the family of a man suffered loss following his death after beingcrushed by a runaway trailer owned and operated by the defendant, an agriculturalcontractor.

The claimant, the wife of a husband suffered loss after he died when machinery fellon him whilst working for the defendant, a poultry supplier. The accident was heldto have been caused by the removal of a piece of safety equipment.

An Illinois judge approved a $110m settlement in a class action suit filed by farm-ers against two drug companies. The farmers alleged that their profits fell whentraces of genetically engineered corn were found in human food. The corn con-tained a pest control chemical which was approved by the EPA for use only in ani-mal feed. The discovery of the chemical in human food led to the recall of morethan 300 varieties of taco shells, chips and other products in the United States.

Description of Loss

The claimant, a company suffered loss after a building they paid the defendant toconstruct caught fire and burnt down. The claimant alleges the defendant, a con-struction company was negligent and its electrical wiring installers caused theresulting fire.

The claimant, a hospital suffered financial loss after the building had to be demol-ished due to serious building defects caused during construction by the negligenceof the defendant, a construction company. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

People fell from a collapsing footbridge as they were about to visit the Queen MaryII cruise liner.

The potential claimants are those injured, the families of those who died and sev-eral other parties who suffered economic loss when terminal 2 E of the main airportin Paris collapsed. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimants, a family suffered loss after the defendant, a roofing company wasallegedly negligent in works carried out on a nearby manufacturing factory. The fac-tory caught fire allegedly as a result of the defendant's negligence, the fire spreadand burnt down the claimant's home. Claim was dismissed at the 1st hearing butthe claimants have appealed and a decision is pending.

Country Loss Date

Fance 4/22/1997

Germany 1/1/2002

United Kingdom 6/27/1997



Country Loss Date

France 1/30/1998

France 1/7/2002

France 11/15/2003

France 5/23/2004

Germany 10/28/1997

Damages

$273,410

$10,000,000

$2,500,000

$818,000

$426,000

Damages

$194,000

$25,000,000

$0

$246,000,000

$165,000

General LiabilityA G R I C U LT U R E , F O R E S T RY, A N D F I S H I N G

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 35



The claimant, a public service organization suffered loss after paying compensationto victims following an accident in which a cable railway car derailed and fell in toa river causing the death of 4 people and injuries to 45 people. The derailment hap-pened after the cable car struck a steel brace which had been left on the track theprevious night and which should have been removed by the defendant constructioncompany. The claimant successfully claimed compensation from the defendantafter they were found to have acted negligently in failing to remove the steel brace.Actual amount of settlement unknown.

The claimant, the operator of a cold rolling mill suffered loss after a fire was alleged-ly caused by welding works which destroyed a large area of the claimant's premis-es. The defendant, a construction company was found liable for compensation forcost of refurbishment and loss of profits for the 6 month period the mill was closed.Actual award of damages unknown.

The claimants, 2 owners of a hotel suffered loss after the defendant, a constructioncompany was negligent in causing delays and cost over-runs during a refurbish-ment of the hotel.

The claimant, a 30 year old man sustained severe head injuries causing impairedvision, fatigue and an inability to drive whilst working for the defendant companyin February 1997. Claim settled out of court.

The claimant, a 36 year old male at time of incident suffered multiple injuries whilstworking for the defendant, an individual and the claimant's employer. The claimantwas rendered blind in his right eye and sustained multiple fractures to his facial bones.

The claimant aged 20 year old at the time of the accident sustained injuries to hisright arm which consequently had to be amputated after it was sucked in to thecoils of a high speed spinning milling machine.

The claimant a construction company suffered loss after the defendants (steel worksub-contractors and project engineers) were held negligent in the construction of anoffice building following the preparation of inaccurate drawings by the design con-sultants (third party) which caused the height of the ceiling to be 9 inches lowerthan requested.

The claimants, a widow and children suffered loss after the death of a man, follow-ing his fall through a roof whilst undertaking storm repair work for the defendant,a building company. The court held the defendant was liable in failing to provideadequate safety equipment for the job.

The claimant sustained malignant mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestosduring his job processing asbestos sheeting for customers between 1967 and 1975.The claimants illness was diagnosed as being terminal.

The claimant, a 51 year old man suffered loss following injuries to his hand afteran accident at work in November 1999. The claimant's pain following the accidentwas so severe that his middle finger was amputated.

The claimant, a 41 year old man suffered brain damage following an accident whilstin the employment of the defendant, a lighting contractor. The claim was settled outof court.

The claimant is suing for damages caused when a crane belonging to the defendantcollapsed as it was being extended in height. The damages are estimated to be inexcess of £8m.

The claimant is seeking reimbursement for claims paid out when the company theybought in 1963 received claims for asbestos exposure from employees. Theclaimant paid a total of £21m in settlement of claims.

The claimant, a 38 year old man suffered the loss of his right arm after beinginvolved in a traffic accident in July 1998 whilst being employed by the defendant.

Germany 5/25/2001

Germany 5/25/2001













$4,000,000

$43,000,000

$17,000,000

$1,000,000

$324,000

$638,000

$0

$741,000

$443,000

$346,000

$386,000

$12,000,000

$31,000,000

$2,000,000

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 36


Description of Loss

The claimant was successful in claiming damages from the defendant followingdamage to the claimant's reputation. The defendant was held liable for damagingthe claimant's reputation after announcing their stock was over valued.

The claimant, an investor read the prospectus of the defendant, an investmentcompany and suffered loss after investing DM 500,000.00, which was lost after thedefendant had failed to give an accurate risk indication as to the actual risk andinvestment. The court held the claimant had been misled over the risk of theinvestment and the potential losses. Court awarded compensation of theclaimant's original investment.

The claimant, a safety diver was injured whilst working for his employer an indi-vidual who was attempting a world record for the deepest dive without oxygenassistance. The claimant was accidentally injured during the dive and sought dam-ages from the defendant.

The claimants, a married couple suffered loss after the defendant a private Germanbank negligently advised them to invest the proceeds from the sale of a companyin high risk sales of options. The claimants lost their entire investment of Euro600,000.00 when the stock market collapsed following the September 2001 terroristattacks.

The claimants, several small shareholders in a German telecommunication compa-ny are claiming they suffered loss following negligence by the Stock ExchangeCommission in that it failed to notice the value given for the company's property inthe company's issuing prospectus before its third flotation in 2003. The value isalleged to be incorrect.

The claimants, the investors in the defendant investment fund company sufferedloss after most of their capital was invested in start up companies which performedpoorly and the claimants lost 90% of their investments. The claimants sued thedefendant for failing to inform them of the real risks of the investment fund. Thecourt held the defendant were negligent and ordered that compensation be paid tothe claimants for their losses.

The claimant, a football organization was successful in its legal action against thedefendant, an insurance carrier, following a judgment that the defendant illegallyterminated its insurance policy with the claimant following the 9th Septemberattacks in the US. The judge ordered the defendant compensate the claimant fortheir 20% quota of the insurance programme of $1.12 billion cover. The claimantwill be seeking compensation from a further 62 insurance companies.

The claimants, a group of 650 subscribers of a property fund claim damages for thefull amount of their investments following the fund going in to arrears, with debtsin excess of EURO 190,000,000.00.

The claimants, 2 companies, suffered loss following an interview between a televi-sion production company and the second defendant, a speaker on the board of thefirst defendant company. The second defendant discredited the claimant compa-nies' commercial viability, the result caused the companies reputational damageand they became insolvent. Quantum yet to be set by the court but estimated at100,000,000. Defendants are appealing the decision.

Two claimants, a 31 year old female and 37 year old male received an out of courtsettlement of £772k after they sustained severe burns whilst at work in October1997. The female claimant received £257k and the male claimant received £515k.

The claimant, a food supplier suffered financial loss after having to recall over 400different products from supermarkets after it was shown some products were con-taminated with the cancer causing drug Sudan 1. The claimant is looking to claimon its product recall policies insured by the two defendants to cover costs of prod-uct recall, disposing of contaminated goods, the costs involved in crisis manage-ment, public relations and the financial loss associated with the destruction of thegoods.

Country Loss Date

France 1/10/2002

Germany 1/6/1997

Germany 8/14/1999

Germany 1/1/2000

Germany 1/1/2000

Germany 1/1/2000

Germany 1/1/2001

Germany 1/1/2002

Germany 1/2/2002



Damages

$38,500,000

$212,000

$1,000,000

$401,000

$0

$4,000,000

$1,000,000,000

$0

$107,000,000

$1,000,000

$191,000,000

F I N A N C E , I N S U R A N C E , R E A L E S TAT E

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 37

Description of Loss

A natural gas plant explosion may cost up to $650m mainly in business interruptionclaims. The courts found the operator responsible.

Owners of properties which contained polybutylene plumbing and heating systemsfiled class action lawsuits against a company in Ontario, British Columbia, andQuebec. The plaintiffs alleged that their plumbing and heating systems were defec-tive. The company agreed to pay $30m to settle the lawsuits. Objectors to the set-tlement appealed to the higher Canadian courts, but all such courts approved thesettlement, finding it fair and reasonable.

The pharmaceutical company agreed to settle two class actions brought by individ-uals who claimed they became addicted to the company's migraine nasal spray. Theactions were brought in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the QuebecSuperior Court. The settlement calls for the company to pay $11.6m to pay claimantsand for attorneys' fees. The remaining amount is pegged for class counsel.

Clean up cost to exceed $184m following the sinking of a tanker off the coast ofBrittany and tourism industry claims of $205m are expected. (NO FURTHER INFOR-MATION AVAILABLE AS TO FINAL OUTCOME).

The claimants are the families of 29 people who died, those who have sufferedinjury and those who suffered property damage following an explosion at a unitowned by the defendant, an oil company. Compensation for loss of life have beenestimated at between 1.5m and 2.3m. The defendant's insurance company hasestimated the total amount of compensation including injury and property damagewill exceed 500m.

The claimants, 56 wine producing co-operatives from the Beaujolais region inFrance suffered loss after the defendant, a magazine publicly slandered the qualityof the claimant's wine. The High Court ordered the defendant to pay $500k in com-pensation for damage to reputation. The defendant has been reported to be appeal-ing the judgment.

The claimant, a fashion designer alleges that the defendant, a confectionary man-ufacturer infringed her intellectual property rights by trying to take control of awebsite which advertises her clothing. The claimant alleges she has suffered lossas a result of the defendant's actions.

The claimant, a furniture manufacturer suffered economic loss as a result of thedefendant, a competing furniture manufacturer abusing their position within themarket. The defendant is appealing the decision.

The claimant, a company suffered loss and was forced to shut its operation downafter the defendant, a chemicals company refused to make delivery of chlorine gasafter alleging that the fixed price of their contract was too low.

The claimant, an airline operator suffered financial loss after a passenger walkwaymalfunctioned and damaged an aircraft owned and operated by the claimant. Theclaimant sought damages from the defendant, an electronics manufacutrer.

The claimant, a car manufacturer suffered loss after it recalled 835,000 motor carsfollowing problems with defective side protection airbags and brakes.

The claimants, shareholders in the defendant company are claiming compensationafter the defendant expanded the free float in a company it took over but failed todifferentiate between shares with a right of compensation and those without.

The claimant, an industrial production company suffered loss after a major firebroke out in its main car body seal extrusion plant. Actual award of damagesunknown.The claimant, a hospital suffered loss after the defendant, a cleaning company usedincorrect cleaning methods and agents which caused damage to claimant's floor.

Country Loss Date

Australia 1/1/1998

Canada 9/1/2002

Canada 7/5/2004

France 1/1/1999

France 9/21/2001

France 7/1/2002

France 1/1/2003

France 8/7/2004

France 10/14/2004

France 11/1/2005

Germany 1/1/1997

Germany 1/1/1997

Germany 1/11/1998

Germany 7/20/1999

Damages

$650,000,000

$30,000,000

$12,000,000

$500,000,000

$455,000,000

$500,000

$130,000

$9,000,000

$52,000,000

$238,000

$36,000,000

$187,000,000

$10,000,000

$213,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 38


The claimant, a chemical and pharmaceutical company suffered loss after one pes-ticide tank at the claimant's premises was filled with the wrong substance causingan explosion when the tank was heated. 100 people were injured in the explosionwhich resulted in extensive damage to the premises. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a train operator suffered loss after the defendants, two train manu-facturers were negligent in the construction of new trains. The defects on the trainscaused delays and disruptions to the service resulting in loss of profit. Theclaimants suffered further loss after they received lower state funds due to the poorservice the trains were providing. Actual award of damages unknown.

The defendant, an engineering company faces claims from the families of the 155people killed in the Austrian ski train disaster. The claim is likely to allege that thedefendant was negligent in the manufacture of parts of the train.

A German law firm has filed a complaint against the current and former chief exec-utives of a manufacturer alleging they allowed cars to be sold with defectiveengines. The potential claimant alleges that up to 500,000 cars may have the defect.The manufacturer said they would fully reimburse the owners of the 5,000 carswhich have already had the problem identified.

A resin manufacturing company's boiler exploded on the premises causing a fireresulting in 11 injuries and damages to its factory. The insurance company paid asum estimated to be in excess of DM 100M for repairs.

The claimant, a ship building company suffered loss after a fire in their wharfdestroyed part of a cruise liner. The fire was started deliberately by an employeeand caused 1.5m of damage, the claimant's insurance company have agreed to paythe damages but are seeking to recover the loss from the employee.

The claimant, an engineering company suffered loss after a competitor attemptedto use the claimant's design. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The potential claimant, the German State has billed the potential defendants, the atoll road operating consortium for losses incurred following two delays in the open-ing of a road toll system. The potential defendants have refused to pay damages,the claim is proceeding to court. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

A manufacturer has announced that they will be asking for the return of 6,800Touran minivans so that they may replace a part in the cooling system. A fault inthe radiator causes the fan to short circuit in some cars, the cooling system of 2 carshave previously caught fire.

The potential claimant, a cruise liner operator suffered loss after one of their ships,a 72,000 ton cruise liner sank during construction work by the potential defendant,a ship building and repair company. Damages are being assessed on vessel worth 300m. Three people were also injured.

The potential claimant, a major car manufacturer has suffered substantial financialloss including costs involved in decreased production and closure of manufacturingfacilities following the use of defective diesel injection pumps manufactured andsupplied by the defendant company.

$300m claimed for a clean up by fishermen after a Russian tanker split in 2 in theseas off Japan. (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE AS TO FINAL OUTCOME).

Auto insurers have agreed to pay $30m to settle a lawsuit that was filed against aclothing company following a 1997 crash of a bus that was carrying workers to oneof its factories in Mexico. 14 people died and 12 were injured in the accident.

After a cyanide spill at a gold mine that polluted rivers in 3 Eastern European coun-tries and was blamed for killing fish and livestock, the Hungarian government suedfor $106m. The defendant argued that there was no evidence that the pollution wascaused by the mine. (NO INFORMATION AS TO FINAL OUTCOME).

Largest oil spill in Singapore history resulted from a collision between 2 oil tankers,and may cost up to $100m to clean up. (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AS TO FINALOUTCOME).

Germany 8/6/1999

Germany 1/1/2000

Germany 1/1/2000

Germany 1/8/2000

Germany 10/13/2000

Germany 9/10/2001

Germany 11/30/2002

Germany 1/1/2003

Germany 6/13/2003

Germany 1/14/2004

Germany 1/31/2005

Japan 1/2/1997

Mexico 1/1/1997

Romania 1/30/2000

Singapore 10/1/1997

$70,000,000

$223,000

$0

$0

$43,000,000

$1,000,000

$3,000,000

$2,000,000,000

$0

$0

$255,000,000

$300,000,000

$30,000,000

$106,000,000

$100,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 39

Madrid. After a massive toxic spill at a zinc mine that contaminated nearby water-ways, destroyed crops and killed fish and wildlife, the government vowed to pursuelegal action against the company that owns the mine. Costs for the clean up esti-mated at $105m or more.

Taipei. Gas pipeline explosion that killed 5 people and destroyed 40 buildings and 80vehicles will cost energy Company $18.8m. (FURTHER INFORMATION ON FINALCOST UNKNOWN).

The claimant, a 22 year old man sustained physical and psychiatric injuries result-ing in a personality change which cause him to be aggressive and have violent outbursts after the industrial vehicle he was driving overturned at his place of employ-ment in March 1997.

The claimant, a 36 year old man sustained breaks to the tibula and fibula bones inone leg resulting in restriction of his movement, psychological problems anddependence on the use of a wheelchair after being crushed by an industrial locomo-tive in the course of his employment at defendant's peat works.

The claimant, a 24 year old man suffered injuries to his right arm resulting in itbeing amputated above the elbow after being sucked in to a high speed spinningmilling machine. The claimant alleged the defendant, a power tool manufacturingcompany was negligent in failing to look after the employee's safety.

The claimants, an estimated 200 individuals have suffered physical damage aftertaking an anti-epilepsy drug manufactured by the defendant, a pharmaceuticalcompany. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, the husband of a woman who died following a heart valve implant in1998 is suing the defendant manufacturing company alleging the heart valve wasdefective and caused the death of his wife.

The claimant, a 14 year old boy at time of incident suffered a fractured skull afterfalling through the roof of a disused distillery, owned by the defendant in April 1998.The claimant alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to ensure that thepremises were not accessible to the public.

The defendant, a breast implant manufacturer settled a claim by a woman whowanted them removed.

A club said that it is to pay £18.2m to the Italian government to settle claims relat-ing to an oil tanker which exploded in Genoa harbor in 1991. This is part of an over-all settlement valued at $42.9m.

The claimant, the family of a woman suffered loss after the woman died as a resultof using the defendant's hair coloring product. The woman died from anaphylacticshock. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a 42 year old man suffered head injuries resulting in brain damagefollowing an accident at work whilst in the employment of the defendant. Theclaimant became prone to attacks of anger and his work suffered as a direct resultof his injuries.

Five pharmaceutical companies settled a lawsuit brought by a group of 59haemophiliacs. The hemophiliacs alleged the companies' blood products wereresponsible for infecting them with HIV. The settlement will pay £60k to each of the59 hemophiliacs. The £5.3m settlement comprises £4m in general and special dam-ages and £1.3m in legal costs.

The claimants, two former steel workers are claiming compensation for breach ofstatutory duty/ negligence by the defendant relating to an explosion at the defen-dant's Port Talbot steel works.

The claimant, a man suffered the loss of his arm after it was dragged into machin-ery whilst he was trying to clear a conveyor belt whilst working for the defendant,an animal feeds company. The claimant alleges that the defendant was negligentin providing adequate safety for workers.

Spain 4/1/1998

Taiwan 9/1/1997














$105,000,000

$19,000,000

$3,000,000

$1,000,000

$552,000

$368,000,000

$0

$399,000

$37,000,000

$43,000,000

$1,000,000

$936,000

$77,000,000

$560,000

$1,000,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 40

M I N I N G


The claimant, a British member of Parliament suffered loss after the defendant, anewspaper group alleged the claimant had links to Saddam Hussein. (THE CLAIMIS PENDING)

The claimant, a British MP suffered loss of reputation after the defendant, a news-paper printed false allegations about his activities. The court held that the defen-dant was negligent.

The claimants, a group of at least 70 individuals have suffered lung disease, alveoli-tis and occupational asthma disease whilst working for the defendant, a car manu-facturer. The claimants alleged that the defendant was negligent in failing to pro-tect the health of its employees. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a stock broking company is bringing a claim against the defendant, anewspaper alleging the defendant printed libel comments about a former employ-ee which led to a sharp fall in the claimant's share price. The claim is due to beheard in 2005.

Venezuelan government and fishermen plan to claim respectively $60m and $280mafter one of the country's worst oil spills occurred when a tanker struck a wreck.

Description of Loss

The claimant was the wife of a man who died from mesothelioma after exposure toasbestos whilst working for the defendant's colliery.

The claimant, a 32 year old man at time of trial sustained severe back injuries aged29 when in the course of his employment as a fire roofer on an North Sea oil rig. Hewas knocked over by a high pressure stream of air. The claimant alleged the defen-dant was negligent in allowing him to become exposed to the high pressure air.

The claimant, a former oil rig worker, suffered damage to his eye when it came in tocontact with hydraulic fluid whilst in the employment of the defendant, a pipelinemaintenance company.

The claimant, a man suffered a fractured collarbone and tissue damage after slip-ping on a walkway whilst in the employment of the defendant, an oil drilling com-pany. (THE CLAIM IS CURRENTLY PENDING)

The claimant, a stone cutter suffered loss after losing an arm following an accidentin a quarry workshop owned by the defendant. The arm was reattached but theclaimant has very limited movement and cannot grasp his hand.

The claimant, an oil worker suffered back pain and psychological problems result-ing in the breakdown of his marriage after being struck on the head and neck by alength of metal whilst working for the defendant, an oil platform operator





Venezuela 2/1/1997

Country Loss Date







$899,000

$289,000

$7,000,000

$447,000,000

$340,000,000

Damages

$835,000

$574,000

$191,000

$185,000

$629,000

$457,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 41


Description of Loss

The claimant, a business suffered loss after the defendant, a department of theState failed to take appropriate action to stop the destruction of fruit and vegetablesby a third party which was being stored by the claimant. The claimant successful-ly alleged that the defendant had been negligent in failing to act after beinginformed that a third party was likely to cause damage.

The claimant, an airline operator suffered loss after one of the airplanes it operatedstruck a group of seagulls who were picking on a hedgehog carcass on the runwayduring an attempted take off. The aircraft engine was destroyed after the birds weresucked in. The claimant alleged that the defendant, the French government, whooperated the airport was responsible for ensuring that runways were clear of suchobstacles and that its staff should have noticed such a large group of brids in thepath of the aircraft.

The claimants, five insurance companies suffered financial loss after the defendant,the French government and current operator of Marseille airport failed to keep run-ways clear of obstacles which caused extensive damage to an aircraft during takeoff when seagulls were caught in and destroyed the aircrafts right engine.

The claimants, 7 individuals suffered loss after being illegally imprisoned between6 months to 2 years on charges of paedophilia. The claimants were later acquittedof the crimes and sought damages for wrongful imprisonment.

The claimants, seven individuals suffered loss after being wrongly accused by thedefendant, a state prosecution authority of being paedophiles. Six claimants suf-fered further loss after the defendant ordered that they be detained for periodsranging from six months to two years prior to trial.

The claimants are the families of the civilians killed and injured in a bombing of aSerbian bridge, during the conflicts in 1999. The claimants alleged the defendantwas negligent in allowing its fighter pilots to bomb the bridge. The claimants aresuing for loss in relation to injuries, pain and suffering and loss of life. No courtdecision has been made so far.

The claimant, a male prisoner suffered the loss of an eye following an attack byanother prisoner. The claimant alleges that the defendant, a prison was negligentin failing to prevent the attack in 1997.

The claimant, a property development company suffered loss after the defendant,a local council issued an order for the construction of a shopping mall withoutappropriate planning permission. The claimant suffered economic loss relating tothe cost involved in planning the construction.

The defendant, a security services provider is being sued by a union on behalf of itsmembers who claim they suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and physicalinjuries during riots at a detention center.

The claimant, a 43 year old man suffered injuries resulting in the loss of feeling inhis left leg following an operation performed by the defendant's surgeon. Thedefendant's surgeon was held negligent for failing to rectify the claimant's injurieswhich led to permanent nerve damage.

The claimant, a woman suffered injuries after she tripped on a pavement which sheclaims was badly maintained by the defendant, a local authority. The claimantalleges her injuries caused her to put on excessive weight which increased herweight from 12-and-half stone to 19 stone, which affected her employmentchances.

The claimant, a woman was left severely disabled and suffered the death of herboyfriend following a gas leak which occurred after the defendant, a local councilbreached gas safety regulations. The defendant denies liability.

Country Loss Date

France 5/14/1997

France 3/22/1998

France 3/22/1998

France 2/7/2004

France 2/7/2004

Germany 5/30/1999







Damages

$266,000

$1,000,000

$4,000,000

$8,000,000

$8,000,000

$2,000,000

$374,000

$3,000,000

$0

$527,000

$366,000

$6,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 42


The claimants, six men allege they suffered loss after being wrongly accused ofkilling a drug dealer and were imprisoned. However they were released after twoyears when the trial collapsed. The claimants allege the defendant, a police forcewas negligent in failing to pass on critical evidence which would have seen the con-viction dropped.

The claimants, several hundred inmates are seeking compensation from the prisonservice which maintains the facilities they are kept in, alleging their human rightshave been breached by being forced to use buckets for their toilet facilities insteadof flushing toilets. The claim is pending.

The claimant, the wife of a policeman suffered loss after he died in a car crash ona flooded bypass road operated by the defendant, an environmental department.The drain on the road was blocked. The defendant did not admit liability for theclaim, the claim was settled for £417,780.00 in respect of damages + £269,236.00legal costs.

A group of potential claimants injured in military training sustained variousinjuries including a broken back, sued the defendant for failing to take adequatesafety steps.

The claimant, a man alleges he has suffered personal injury, misfeasance andbreach of his human rights after the defendant allegedly withheld housing benefitfrom him and pursued him for an alleged non-existent council bill.

The claimant, a female lawyer alleges she suffered injuries resulting in shingles,encephalitis, loss of leg control, impaired memory and depression after she hit herhead on a door whilst attending a High Court operated by the defendant. Theclaimant further alleges that her injuries ruined her career.

The claimant, a 16 year old boy suffered acute brain damage resulting in memoryloss after climbing on and subsequently falling through the roof of a youth clubowned and operated by the defendant, a local council. The claimant alleges that hewas not adequately supervised by staff at the youth club who could have stoppedthe accident from occurring.

The claimant, a property developer suffered loss after the defendant, a local author-ity prevented the claimant from establishing a factory shopping village.

The claimant, a steel union alleges the defendant, a government was negligent infailing to protect members of occupational pension schemes. The claimant allegesthat 65,000 individuals lost pension benefits after their employers became insol-vent. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimants, the family of an old age pensioner suffered loss after the man diedfollowing being dragged under a refuge truck owned by the defendant, a localauthority.

The claimant, a 53 year old man suffered severe injuries as a result of falling fromhis bicycle after hitting a hole in a road maintained by the defendant, a local coun-cil. The claimant who suffered broken teeth, a lacerated chin and a broken armalleges that the defendant was negligent in failing to maintain the road.

The claimants, an unknown number of Iraqi civilians are alleging that their humanrights were breach by the defendant, a national security organization following alle-gations of physical and sexual abuse by employees of the defendant during therecent Iraq conflict.

The claimants, local residents near a bypass alleged they suffered loss as a result ofthe bypass being built close to their homes. The claimants alleged that the defen-dant, a local council was responsible for granting planning permission and allow-ing the construction of the bypass to take place.

The claimants, several employees of the defendant firm (D1) are claiming compen-sation after they were not consulted about redundancy packages by the first defen-dant. The second defendant is liable for the compensation after D1 became insol-vent.















$2,000,000

$49,000,000

$672,000

$2,000,000

$11,000,000

$281,000

$2,000,000

$3,000,000

$4,000,000

$0

$282,000

$9,000,000

$170,000

$188,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 43

The claimants, several families suffered loss after the defendant, a national taxbody delayed in paying tax credits and made several errors when making paymentsto the claimants.

The claimant, a 13 year old Iraqi boy suffered loss after being accidentally shot by asoldier in 2003. The claimant who was treated for his injuries in the UK may neverbe able to work again. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a construction company alleges it suffered loss after the defendant,Civil Service awarded a construction contract to a competitor company whose ten-der was substantially higher than that of the claimant.

Description of Loss

The claimant, a sportswear manufacturer successfully alleged they suffered lossafter the defendant, a competing retailer and a manufacturer produced and soldclothing which infringed the claimants trade mark "stripe". The court held thedefendants had breached the claimant's intellectual property rights, and orderedthe defendant to pay damages.

The claimant, a national health authority is alleging that the five defendantsformed a cartel to fix the price of an anti-ulcer drug after its patent expired in 1997.(THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a 34 year old woman suffered a severe left knee injury following anaccident on a boat owned by the defendant.

The claimant who had a failed hip replacement after slipping on a mushroom inthe defendant's store, is confined to a wheelchair.

The claimant, a 51 year old man suffered back injury after slipping on tomatoeswhilst shopping at the defendant supermarket.

The claimant, a 34 year old woman suffered loss following the death of her husbandwho was killed by falling machinery at work whilst trying to repair it. The defen-dant, a bakery was held negligent for failing in its health and safety duties towardsits employees.

Description of Loss

The claimant, a film company is claiming compensation from two defendants, amobile phone company and an advertising agency after the claimant's film wasused in an advertisement without prior authorization.

The claimant, a widow suffered loss after her husband died following lung cancer.The claimant alleged the defendant, a hospital was negligent in failing to detect andprevent the disease.

The claimants, a film distributor and film director suffered loss after the defen-dants, a mobile phone operator and advertising group illegally used sequences froma film produced by the claimant.




Country Loss Date

Germany 1/1/2004






Country Loss Date

France 1/1/1997

France 8/2/2000

France 1/1/2003

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$8,000,000

Damages

$1,000,000

$218,000,000

$839,000

$886,000

$288,000

$393,000

Damages

$369,000

$180,000

$3,000,000



R E TA I L T R A D E


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 44


The claimants, a married couple aged 74 and 75 suffered both physical and finan-cial loss after being robbed whilst guests of the defendant, a hotel. The claimantsallege the robbery which was carried out using toxic gas has caused damage to theman's respiratory system and left the woman traumatized. They also claim itemsworth £70,000.00 were stolen during the robbery.

The defendants, a mobile phone operator and an advertising company were heldliable for unauthorized use of film scenes in mobile phone advertisements. Thescenes were taken from a film owned by the claimant, a film production company.

The claimant, a baby suffered brain damage as a result of oxygen starvation at birthafter the defendants negligently handled the birth. The claimant was left with seri-ous disabilities including partial blindness and deafness.

The claimant suffered loss following negligence by the defendants, a hospital andconsultant, who failed to carry out a hemispherectomy following an alleged faultyelectroencephalogram, a test used to detect abnormalities in the electrical activityof the brain. The court held the defendants were jointly negligent and ordered topay compensation to the claimant.

The claimant, a former German political figure alleges he suffered loss after thedefendant, a car hire company produced an advertising campaign shortly after theclaimant left politics which showed him being crossed out of a photograph of thefederal cabinet.

The claimant, an unnamed insurance company was successful in their claimsagainst an insolvency administrator of a firm which carried out welding worksresulting in a factory building destroyed by a fire.

The claimant, a recycling company suffered loss after the defendant a trade unionsaw an opportunity to renegotiate their existing labor agreements when the com-pany became privatized. The defendants staged a strike after the managementrefused to enter in to negotiations, causing the claimant to shut down its plant for2 weeks and sustain losses of 3m. The court held the strike was unjustifiable andordered the trade union to pay 3m as damages.

The claimant, a 34 year old individual suffered brain damage after being negligent-ly diagnosed by the defendant, a hospital. The claimant suffered from a heart attackwhich was not treated and caused brain damage resulting in spastic palsy.

The claimant, a 38 year old male suffered brain damage following a delay by thedefendant, a hospital, in the diagnosis of his brain inflammation.

The claimant, a 40 year old man at time of incident suffered the loss of his wife asa result of negligence by the defendant, a hospital who carried out an operation onhis wife. The claimant alleged he suffered economic loss because he had to give uphis job as a mechanic to look after his three daughters.

The claimant, a 6 year old boy brought a successful claim against the defendantthrough his mother after he sustained severe brain damage during his birth inJanuary 1997.

The claimant, a 6 year old girl brought a successful claim against the defendantthrough her mother after she sustained severe brain damage during his birth in 1997.

The claimant sustained severe brain damage following treatment by the defendantfor a throat infection in January 1997, consequently the claimant suffered physicaldisabilities which ensured he was unable to walk and became wheelchair bound.The claimant required 24 hour care.

The claimant, a 41 year old man suffered leg and head injuries following an accidenton the premises of the defendant, his employer.

The claimant, a 6 year old girl sustained brain damage and cerebral palsy after suf-fering acute oxygen starvation at her birth in April 1997, leaving her with walkingand communication impairment.

France 1/10/2003

France 3/30/2004

Germany 1/1/1998

Germany 1/1/1998

Germany 1/1/1999

Germany 1/1/1999

Germany 1/1/1999

Germany 3/29/1999








$3,000,000

$360,000

$582,000

$196,000

$185,000

$147,000

$3,000,000

$245,000

$1,000,000

$282,000

$5,000,000

$4,000,000

$2,000,000

$913,000

$3,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 45

The claimant, a 7 year old boy suffered severe brain damage during his birth in April1997 whilst being delivered by the defendant, a hospital. The claimant consequent-ly suffered learning difficulties, epilepsy and impaired mobility.

The claimant, a 6 year old girl suffered severe brain damage during her birth. Theclaimant was left with a mixed form of tetraplegic cerebral palsy, leaving her withimpaired motor and cognitive skills and was unable to assist herself when sitting,eating or drinking. The defendant admitted liability, the claim was settled out ofcourt.

The claimant, a 7 year old girl suffered brain damage whilst in the care of the defen-dant, a hospital.

The claimant, a 38 year old woman suffered loss after she sustained back injurieswhilst in the employment of the defendant, a hospital.

The claimant, a 7 year old boy suffered brain damage following negligence by thedefendant, a hospital during his birth in October 1997. The claimant sufferedimpaired mobility, loss of independence and impaired communication.

The claimant, a 58 year old woman suffered severe abdominal pains following neg-ligent gall bladder surgery carried out by the defendant, a hospital trust. Theclaimant's injuries were so severe she was unable to return to work.

The claimant, a girl suffered oxygen starvation during her birth following allegednegligence by the defendant, a hospital. The claimant subsequently suffered fromcerebral palsy and requires 24 hour care.

The claimant, a 5 year old boy brought a successful claim against the defendantthrough his father after sustaining cerebral palsy during his birth in February 1997resulting in the claimant having impaired movement.

The claimant, a 4 year old girl suffered partial hearing loss after the defendant, ahospital trust administered drugs during her birth which damaged her mother'suterus and resulted in damage to the claimant's ears. The defendant disputed lia-bility, the claim was settled out of court.

The claimant contracted an E.coli infection from a trip to an open farm organizedby the defendant. The claimant who contracted the infection from a goat was leftin a coma for 12 days, the infection led him to renal failure and damage to his cen-tral nervous system. The claimant was fed through a tube to his stomach, wasunable to walk or talk and had only very slight movement, he was unable to showemotion and occasionally suffered spasms and seizures. His life expectancy wasestimated to be between 25-30 years old. The defendant admitted liability to failingin inform the open farm of the potential risk of E.coli.

The claimant, a 49 year old wife suffered loss following the death of her husbandfrom liver disease in December 1998. The claimant successfully alleged the defen-dant, a hospital was negligent in treating her husband's condition.

The claimant, a 38 year old woman suffered permanent damage to her nerves andspinal cord resulting in severe and permanent disability. The claimant alleged thedefendant, a hospital was negligent in diagnosing her condition which led to theinjuries.

The claimant, a 36 year old male at time of incident suffered multiple injuries whilstworking for the defendant, a hospital trust. The claimant was rendered blind in hisright eye and sustained multiple fractures to his facial bones.

The claimant, a 36 year old man suffered severe back injuries whilst working for thedefendant, a security company. The claimant sustained injuries whilst trying to pulla pallet with twice the normal weight and successfully alleged the defendant hadfailed to maintain adequate safety standards.

The claimant, a 70 year old man suffered severe brain damage following the trial ofthe drug Lanoteplase whilst in the care of the defendant, a hospital trust. The drugcaused the claimant to suffer a cerebral haemorrhage resulting in a heart attack andstroke. Subsequently the claimant had mobility impairment and substantial neuro-logical damage.
















$5,000,000

$6,000,000

$4,000,000

$370,000

$7,000,000

$283,000

$6,000,000

$2,000,000

$254,000

$2,000,000

$274,000

$469,000

$324,000

$454,000

$918,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 46


The claimant, a 41 year old woman sustained multiple injuries resulting in short-term memory loss, lethargy, visual and concentration impairments as a directresult of laparoscopic surgery in 1997 in which her vein was punctured and she lost22 units of blood. The claimant returned to the hospital in late December 1997where she then remained as an inpatient until February 1998.

The claimant, a 6 year old boy suffered brain damage during his birth in 1998 fol-lowing alleged negligence by the defendant.

The claimant, a baby girl suffered oxygen starvation during her birth after thedefendant, a hospital was negligent in failing to deliver her, following signs of foetaldistress. The claimant is wheelchair bound and requires 24 hour care.

The claimant, a female nurse alleged she suffered memory loss caused by a brainhaemorrhage which went undiagnosed by the defendant, a hospital. The claimantnow requires 24 hour care.

The claimants, 625 individuals have brought a group action against the defendantfor its role as operator of a European based hotel after they suffered food poisoningand general illness.

The claimant, the wife of a 41 year old man suffered loss after her husband diedwhilst in the care of the defendant, a hospital group.

The claimant, a 6 year old boy suffered acute disability including severe brain dam-age after the defendant, a hospital was negligent during his birth in March 1998.The defendant settled the case and admitted liability on a 70% basis.

The claimant sustained partial paraplegia following a negligently administeredinjection in September 1998. The claimant sustained acute pain, Crohn's disease,inflammatory bowel condition and lost her independence.

The claimant, a 5 year old girl suffered severe communication difficulties followinginjuries received during her birth in October 1998.

The claimant, a 5 year old girl suffered severe communication difficulties followinginjuries received during her birth in October 1998.

The claimant, an 82 year old woman at time of settlement sustained brain damageafter suffering a stroke in December 1998, following negligence by the defendant, ahospital who discharged her too quickly. The claimant was left severely disabledand required 24 hour residential care for the remainder of her life.

The claimant sustained cerebral palsy during his birth on 1 March 1988. Theclaimant required constant supervision, was wheelchair bound and would beunable to obtain any form of employment in the future. The claimant's lifeexpectancy was reduced to approximately 50 years old.

The claimant, a football player suffered leg injuries after a player from the defen-dant's football club made a negligent tackle causing the claimant to fracture a lowerpart of his leg.

The claimant, a young girl has suffered cerebral palsy following oxygen starvationduring birth. The claimant alleges the defendant was negligent in the child's deliv-ery. The claimant is in a wheelchair and requires 24 hour care.

The claimant, a 42 year old male at time of incident suffered a fractured vertebraefollowing a paragliding accident in poor conditions. The claimant alleged thedefendant, a paragliding school was negligent in allowing him to fly in such badconditions.

The claimant, a 27 year old man sustained severe brain damage following treat-ment from the defendant resulting in amnesia, lack of concentration and motiva-tion. The claimant was unable to return to work.

















$1,000,000

$9,000,000

$8,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$273,000

$11,000,000

$3,000,000

$5,000,000

$5,000,000

$355,000

$5,000,000

$465,000

$8,000,000

$248,000

$1,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 47

The claimant, a 13 year old girl brought a successful claim against the defendantthrough her father after she sustained cerebral palsy during her birth in December1988.

The claimant sustained severe brain damage during an anesthetic procedure on 28December 1998. The claimant was rendered quadriplegic and required 24 hour careand attention.

The claimant, a 25 year old woman sustained severe head and orthopedic injurieswhilst under the care of the defendant, a psychiatric hospital in January 1999.

The claimant, a 32 year old woman and her family suffered loss after she underwentunnecessary extensive surgery following misdiagnosis of cancer by the defendant,a hospital. The claimant was left with a feeling of mutation and profoundly alteredbody image.

The claimant, a 38 year old man suffered loss after the death of his wife followingnegligence by the defendant, a hospital. The woman died following a rupturedmembrane and severe dehydration.

The claimant, a computer expert suffered brain injury after the go-cart he was rac-ing as part of an event organized and hosted by the three defendants crashed in toan unprotected lamppost.

The claimant, a 31 year old woman suffered brain damage following a delay in herdiagnosis by the defendant, a hospital in February 1999. The claimant was left withacute headaches and loss of her independence.

The claimant, a 41 year old man suffered loss after the defendant, a hospital negli-gently delayed diagnosis of the claimant's condition. The claimant was left withbrain damage, a personality change, memory loss and suffered severe headaches.

The claimant, a 42 year old man suffered back injuries whilst working for the defen-dant, a garage. The claim was settled out of court.

The claimant, a 72 year old woman at the time of injury suffered loss after thedefendant, a hospital was allegedly negligent in monitoring her condition. Theclaimant subsequently suffered a heart attack.

The claimant, a 45 year old woman suffered the loss of her husband following aheart attack in December 1999, whilst in the care of the defendant, a hospital.

The claimant, a 4 year old boy suffered the loss of his mother during his birth inDecember 1999 as a result of negligence by the defendant, a hospital.

The claimant suffered loss after being admitted to the defendant hospital who thenfailed to diagnose her condition. The claimant on recovery was left with extensiveamnesia requiring her to have constant care. The claimant alleged successfully thatthe defendant had breached the duty it had owed the claimant. ($1,999,830.00 +$217,124 .00 per annum for remainder of life)

The claimant, a 25 year old woman suffered multiple injuries after jumping off a fireescape whilst in the care of the defendant, a psychiatric hospital. The claimant wasleft with minor brain damage resulting in a lowered IQ and poor working memory.

The claimants, a woman and her son suffered loss after their husband and fatherdied from a heart attack whilst in the care of the defendant. The claimants allegedthat the defendant was negligent in failing to recognize the signs of an impendingheart failure and failed to take preventative measures.

The claimant, a 54 year old man suffered loss after the defendant removed a sus-pected cancerous tumor in the claimant's throat but subsequently discovered thatthere had been no cancer. The mistake was due to the mix up in pathology labresults. During the operation the claimant suffered complications requiring theremoval of his spleen. Following the operation he suffered pneumonia and contin-ues to have digestive problems.

















$1,000,000

$1,000,000

$461,000

$558,000

$466,000

$2,000,000

$8,000,000

$2,000,000

$403,000

$542,000

$276,000

$293,000

$2,000,000

$445,000

$268,000

$357,000



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 48


The claimant, a 55 year old radiographer alleges she has developed arthritis as aresult of carrying out hundreds of mammograms whilst working for the defendant,a hospital trust. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a ski centre worker suffered the loss of his leg after it was crushed ina tow machine whilst working for the defendant, a ski centre operator.The claimantis now confined to a wheelchair and requires the assistance of a house keeper tocope with shopping and cleaning.

The claimant, a widower suffered loss after her husband died from meningitis, thedefendant a doctor was held negligent for failing to recognize the symptoms.

The claimant, a woman has filed a claim against the defendant, a hospital allegingthat they failed to carry out an ultra sound scan with "due skill and care". Theclaimant was not made aware that her child had spina bifida until the child wasborn disabled. The claimant is seeking compensation for the costs of caring for herdisabled child.

The claimant, a factory brought a successful claim of contributory negligenceagainst the architects after it was discovered they negligently failed to use non-combustible panels in most of the factory in which they were asked to refurbish, thenon-combustible panels which would have stopped the building burning downcompletely. They are said to be seeking £17m and £8m in interest.

The claimant, a female acrobat suffered three fractures to her spine, two to herpelvis and several other breaks which left her with deformed toes and a brokenwrist after falling during a performance at the Millennium Dome, whilst working forthe defendant performance company. The claimant was unable to continue per-forming and was left with the possibility that her condition could deteriorate andthat she may not be able to walk in the future.

The claimant, a 62 year old man at time of injury suffered loss after knocking hishead against a metal strut whilst in the course of his employment for the defen-dant, a music college. The claimant suffered dizzy spells and nausea and wasunable to return to work. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a 53 year old woman suffered severe scarring and chronic pain fol-lowing surgical treatment for cancer undertaken by the defendant, a hospital in July2001 which the claimant alleges was negligent. The claimant subsequently wasunable to work from anywhere but home and is restricted in distance she can trav-el or activities she can participate in. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a 22 year old man suffered severe head injuries following a road traf-fic accident caused by the negligent driving of defendant (2), an individual employedby defendant (1) a security company. The claimant suffered head and brain injuriescausing impaired mobility, impaired speech, visual impairment, cognitive impair-ment and resulting in the loss of his independence.

The claimants, a man and wife successfully alleged they suffered loss after thedefendant, a PR consultant made false allegations that the claimants sexuallyassaulted another woman.

The claimant, a woman alleges she suffered loss after the stillbirth of her child inSeptember 2001 whilst she was in the care of the defendant, a hospital trust. Theclaimant alleges that the defendant was negligent in preventing the incidentthrough its acts and omissions.

The 8 defendant companies have received 1000 claims collectively after they actedas tour operator for a European hotel. All the claimants suffered food poisoning andillness.

The claimant, a female doctor suffered head injuries after a piece of equipment hither on the head whilst in the employment of the defendant, a hospital. Theclaimant suffered post traumatic stress disorder for several months afterwards andwas later dismissed by her employer on medical grounds.














$277,000

$2,000,000

$2,000,000

$0

$39,000,000

$849,000

$270,000

$273,000

$6,000,000

$188,000

$186,000

$0

$366,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 49

The claimant, a couple suffered loss after their son was severely brain damaged atbirth following negligence by the defendant, a hospital which caused the child tosuffer oxygen starvation. The child was left blind, suffering epilepsy and cerebralpalsy and was never able to walk or talk. He later died at the age of 2.

The claimant, a man suffered loss following the death of his wife due to a negligentcaesarean section by the defendant, a hospital in December 2000.

The claimant, a young girl suffered cerebral palsy after the defendant negligentlydelayed birth, the defendant admitted liability.

Description of Loss

The claimant, a film company is claiming compensation from two defendants, amobile phone company and an advertising agency after the claimant's film wasused in an advertisement without prior authorization.

The claimants, a consumers association claimed that the defendant unilaterallydowngraded its broadband service to its users in 1999. The court has found this tobe the case and the defendant may now have to compensate around 20,000 users($3,744.00 to consumer association, $629.00 to each user and $1,258.00 per day).

A telpher crashed and caused the death of 20 people. The investigation showedsome errors and omissions in the maintenance of the equipment and failure tomeet safety standards.

The claimants, the relatives of a 36 year old woman who was killed by a train thedefendant, a train company was held negligent for failing to provide adequate pro-tection for passengers.

The claimants, the family of a woman suffered loss after she was murdered whilsttravelling on a train owned and operated by the defendant, a railway company. Theclaimants alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to provide a secure form oftransport for its passengers.

The potential claimants, a group of French winegrowers are reported to have pre-pared a claim against the potential defendant, a weather communications servicealleging that the potential defendant failed to warn of an approaching hail storm.The potential claimants lost 2/3 of their crop during the hail storm.

The claimants, the familes of 113 victims suffered loss after the airplane they weretravelling on crashed shortly after take-off. The claimants allege the defendant, anairline operator was negligent in failing to protect the passengers from danger.

The claimant, a luxury goods manufacturer suffered loss after the defendant, aninternet search engine provided "hits" for companies other than the claimant whentheir trademarked names were used as search terms. The court held the defendanthad infringed the claimant's trademark and was guilty of unfair competition andproviding misleading advertising.

The claimants, the families of 12 passangers who died or were injured when travel-ling as passengers on an aircraft, owned and operated by the defendant, a travelcompany which crashed.

The defendant, a French telecommunications firm was found liable by the FrenchCompetition Counsel of unfair competition and ordered to pay damages to theclaimant, a competing telecommunications firm.

The claimant, an internet provider suffered loss after a competing company used itsbrand name to attack it in an advertising campaign. The court held that the defen-dant was liable to pay compensation equivalent to 20k each time it repeated theadvertising campaign.




Country Loss Date

France 1/1/1997

France 1/1/1999

France 1/7/1999

France 1/12/1999

France 12/14/1999

France 1/7/2000

France 7/25/2000

France 1/1/2003

France 6/3/2003

France 1/6/2004

France 1/10/2004

$190,000

$2,000,000

$6,000,000

Damages

$369,000

$13,000,000

$0

$275,000

$251,000

$0

$3,000,000,000

$257,000

$918,000

$18,000,000

$25,000




e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 50


The claimant, the Brittany Government suffered severe environmental damage following the dumping of oil off the coast of Brittany by the defendant, a shippingcompany.

The claimant, the owner of a fishing boat suffered loss of the vessel and the fivecrew members after a collision with a boat owned by the defendant.

An airplane of operated by an Egyptian company crashed, causing 148 people to die,including 133 French people. Families are likely to seek compensation if the airlinecompany is found to be negligent.

The claimants, 2000 shareholders allege they suffered financial loss after theybought shares in the defendant, a telecommunications company after the compa-ny had overvalued its property assets during the dotcom boom.

An Inter City Express (ICE) train struck a road bridge at 11 am on 3 June 1998 killing101 passengers and injuring several of the remaining estimated 280 passengers.The defendant voluntarily agreed to DM 30k for each individual who died in theaccident and overall compensation is estimated at DM 50m.

The claimant, an insolvent engineering group alleges the defendant, a travel groupoverestimated the valuation of three shareholdings it bought from the defendant.(THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimant, a software company suffered loss after the defendant, a telecommu-nications company failed to fulfill their contractual obligations and complete thepurchase of 100,000 internet stations. The claimant announced the intended pur-chase of the stations by the defendant causing the share price to increase asinvestors showed greater interest in the claimant company. The defendant compa-ny only purchased 14,000 of the intended 100,000 stations causing investors to selltheir shares and the claimant's share price dropped substantially and resulted intheir insolvency. The claimant sued for damages relating to damage of goodwill. Noformal settlement has been reported. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)

The claimants, the families of 20 of the 113 passengers who died in an air crashhave begun proceedings to recover compensation. The lawyer acting for the groupof individual claimants expects payments of around US$ 3m per victim.

The defendant, a railway company suffered loss when two passengers trainscrashed causing injury to 80 passengers and heavy damage to both trains estimat-ed at 1.5m. The accident happened after one of the drivers failed to pay attentionto the signals. No report on damages awarded yet.

The claimants are the families of 12 airline crew who died after the aircraft theywere flying in crashed in midair with a cargo plane over southern Germany. Thedefendant, the airspace operator was held liable for the accident.

The defendant, air traffic control caused loss after they were negligent and causeda collision between a passenger jet and a cargo airplane which resulted in the deathof 71 passengers. The German Authorities also made a payment of 8.6m in to thecompensation fund as the accident happened over their air space. Actual award ofdamages unknown.

The claimant, a pier side café suffered loss after a cargo ship crashed into the prem-ises following technical problems. Both the pier and the café suffered extensivedamage estimated at EUR 1,800,000.00.

A train containing chemicals derailed causing damage to the train and environmen-tal pollution. Total cost for the damaged train, evacuation and decontamination ofthe site estimated at 4m.

The claimant, a 5 year old boy suffered severe burns following a terrorist attack inTunisia in April 2002. The claimant alleges the defendant, a tour operator wasinformed of the dangerous political situation and was negligent in its duty to informthe claimant prior to departure.

France 1/10/2004

France 1/15/2004

France 3/1/2004

Germany 1/1/1998

Germany 3/6/1998

Germany 1/1/1999

Germany 1/1/2000

Germany 7/25/2000

Germany 9/21/2001

Germany 1/7/2002

Germany 2/7/2002

Germany 8/3/2002

Germany 8/29/2002

Germany 11/4/2002

$622,000

$0

$0

$133,000,000

$27,000,000

$121,000,000

$2,000,000

$60,000,000

$0

$4,000,000

$37,000,000

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$0


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 51

The German consortium running the toll system throughout Germany has offeredto pay for the replacement of faulty devices in their vehicles (estimated at 60m incompensation.) The defendant will pay 250 for the replacement of each devicethat has been installed already (there are about 200,000 devices).

The potential claimants are the families of 11 people who were killed and 37 otherindividuals who were injured when the bus they were traveling in collided with aconcrete road divider and burst into flames.

The potential claimants are the families of 3 passengers who died and 40 individu-als who were injured when the bus they were traveling in crashed in the GermanState of Thuringia. The crash happened after the bus collided with two parkedtrucks.

The claimant, a 66 year old man sustained severe head injuries during his employ-ment with the defendant company, resulting in brain damage, impaired work andloss of dependency.

The claimant, a 44 year old employee at the defendant company suffered severehead injuries after falling from a ladder onto a concrete floor at work in June 1997.The claimant developed a behavior illness which affected his ability to continue inhis employment and was left with a fractured skull and clavicle and damage to hisfemoral artery and thigh.

The claimant, a 57 year old male at date of injury suffered severe burns and subse-quent scarring after an industrial accident. The accident occurred when theclaimant was working in a manhole, clearing concrete covering electricity cables,when he caused an electrical explosion. The defendant admitted 2/3 liability.

The claimant, a 54 year old man suffered multiple injuries after being hit by a traincarriage owned by the defendant, a train operating company.

The claimant, a female former employee of the defendant, an airline company suf-fered substantial injuries after a metal box fell on her whilst working as a flightattendant for the defendant. The claimant contracted a rare condition following theincident which causes burning pain that leaves the claimant exhausted.

The claimant, a 44 year old woman suffered loss following the death of her husbandwho was hit by a train whilst he was on the rail tracks.

The claimant, a 51 year old man at the time of the accident was struck by a bus caus-ing damage to his frontal lobe resulting in poor memory, dependence on others andwas unable to continue his job as a skilled window fitter on high rise buildings.

The claimant, a 32 year old male engineer suffered the loss of part of his arm afterit was sucked into the engine of an aircraft. The claimant suffered post traumaticstress, depression and severe pain.

The potential claimants are a group of 13 villagers who claim to have suffered men-tal injuries resulting in psychiatric injury and post traumatic stress after an areo-plane crashed in their homes.

The claimant, a 42 year old man suffered whiplash injuries following a road trafficaccident with a vehicle owned by the defendant. The claimant was left with acutepains and stress disorder resulting in her being unable to return to work. Defendantadmitted liability on a 50:50 basis.

The claimant, the son of a 54 year old man suffered loss after his father died from alung condition caused by asbestos exposure in the course of the deceased's employ-ment at the defendants' companies. The deceased worked spraying metal carriageswith a coating known as blue asbestos which caused lung problems and he eventu-ally died from this condition in November 1987. Liability was apportioned 30% tothe first defendant and 70% to the second defendant.

The claimants a group of passengers suffered personal injuries (both physical and/or psychological) after the aircraft they were traveling on crash landed and split intothree parts at Gerona Airport in September 1999. Each of the 236 passengers areexpected to be awarded up to £85k in damages following the accident.

Germany 1/1/2003

Germany 12/20/2003

Germany 1/24/2004













$74,000,000

$0

$0

$730,000

$718,000

$272,000

$2,000,000

$655,000

$266,000

$2,000,000

$1,000,000

$0

$526,000

$340,000

$0



e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 52


The claimant chartered the vessel from the defendant. During the charter therewas an explosion and the vessel was abandoned. The owners claimed an indemni-ty on the basis that the two containers contained bleaching powder in breach of anexpress term of the charter party relating to dangerous cargo.

The claimant, the wife of a man who fell overboard during a ferry crossing is suingthe defendant ferry company alleging the defendant ran over her husband whenthe ferry turned round to rescue him. The claimant alleges the defendant failed totrain their staff properly in safety drills and failed to launch a life boat.

The claimant, a 42 year old man suffered head injuries resulting in brain damagewhilst in the employment of the defendant. The claimant was left with impair-ments affecting his work and was prone to bursts of anger. The claim was settledout of court.

The claimant, the wife of a man suffered loss when her husband went overboardand died whilst traveling as a passenger on a ferry operated by the defendant. Theclaimant alleges that the defendant was negligent in carrying out a rescue of herhusband.

The claimants, 164 holiday makers suffered severe illness after staying at a hotelrecommended and booked through the defendants, travel and tour operators.

The claimants, the wives of 4 men who died in a crash in October 2000 have issuedproceedings alleging the defendant, a railway operator was negligent in failing toensure tracks were properly maintained, which allegedly caused the accident. Theclaimants are reported to be seeking £5.1m in compensation for the loss of theirhusbands.

The claimant, the wife of a man who died in the Hatfield train disaster in October2000 suffered loss.

The claimant, a man suffered loss after being entangled in a machine he was work-ing on for more than an hour, consequently his leg was amputated. The claimanthas begun commercial proceedings against the defendant, a shipping company forcompensation for the injuries he has suffered.

The claimant, a widow suffered the loss of her husband who died from mesothe-lioma in 2001 after exposure to asbestos whilst an employee for the defendant, awater supply company.

The claimants are both the families of the passengers and the operators of a traincompany who are claiming compensation after a land rover was driven accidental-ly on to the tracks resulting in 10 deaths and 70 people being injured in the Selbyrail crash.

The claimants, two boys aged 11 and 10 years old suffered burns and post traumat-ic stress disorder following a gas explosion in the cellar of a property rented by theparents of the claimants. The claimants alleged the defendant was negligent in fail-ing to secure the old gas supply to the property which caused the explosion.

The claimants are the families of passengers killed in a train crash. Liability hasbeen admitted but damages remains in issue.

The claimant a 38 year old electrician suffered multiple injuries including a doublefractured skull, broken collar bone, dislocated vertebra, three broken ribs, a brokeneye socket and a broken ankle when the roof of a truck trailer weighing one tonnefell on his head. The accident occurred at the truck firm's premises where a cranecompany was moving a door which led to the claimant's injuries.

The claimant, a 38 year old man suffered paralysis after slipping on wet tiles fallinginto a swimming pool and hitting his head. The claimant is suing the defendant, aholiday operator for loss and damages suffered. (THE CLAIM IS PENDING)















$44,000,000

$765,000

$936,000

$486,000

$292,000

$8,000,000

$2,000,000

$996,000

$339,000

$73,000,000

$438,000

$0

$0

$7,000,000


e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 53

The claimants, 58 individuals suffered severe illness after drinking contaminatedwater supplied by the defendant, a water purifying company in 2002.

The claimants are businesses and private users of 130,000 phone lines which wentdown following a fire which burnt telephone lines and caused fax, e-mail and bankpayments systems to stop working. The defendant, a telecommunications firm hasconfirmed that compensation will be paid according to individual contracts withusers. ($10,662.60 per line and $44,427.50 (max) per 4 or more lines).

The claimants, an estimated 1,750 passengers suffered financial loss after paying fora cruise aboard a ship owned and operated by the defendant, a cruise operator. Theship, which was on its maiden voyage failed to leave port for eleven days and thenwas forced to return following mechanical problems.

The claimant, a ferry operator alleges it suffered substantial losses estimated at £2million per day following the closure of 3 of 4 large berths at the defendant's docksin France.

Description of Loss

Three firemen were injured by an explosion whilst trying to extinguish a fire in awarehouse. The explosion was caused by the mixing of chemicals.

The claimants, three daughters suffered the death of their father following a fatalaccident whilst working for the defendant, a fish factory. The man sustained headinjuries after falling from raised forks on a forklift truck which resulted in his death.(THE CLAIM IS PENDING)





Country Loss Date

France 10/2/2003


$244,000

$44,000

$37,000,000

$4,000,000

Damages

$0

$549,000



W H O L E S A L E T R A D E

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 54

ArgentinaAlejandro M. Guerrero

AustraliaAntony J. Butcher

AustriaBarbara Schaffer-Stockhammer

BelgiumAlain Petit-Lambotte

BrazilMauro M. Leite

CanadaMary V. Pablo

ChileGloria ClaroLorena Hirmas

ColombiaAna Patricia Giraldo

Czech RepublicDominik Stros

DenmarkKlaus Møller

EstoniaValdeko Allik

FinlandTapio Vahervaara

FranceMarie Puech-Roos

GermanyIrene Hauschild

GreeceNikos Papazarkadas

HungaryViktor Seremet

IrelandJohn Dunne

ItalyFabrizio Rondinelli

JapanIkuya ShimadaMichael B. Johnson

KoreaHank LeeJinil Lee

LatviaAnete Jeromanova

LithuaniaZita Rimkiene

MexicoLucia Munive

NetherlandsMonique J. A. Creutzburg

New ZealandSteven KuunDavid Watton

NorwayHugo Mowinckel-Nilsen

PeruGustavo Taboada

PolandDanuta Kowalik

PortugalGerald Gibbon

Puerto RicoMaritere MaldonadoFrancisco Tirado

RussiaAndrei Denissov

SlovakiaIvana Krajnakova

SloveniaMiha Horvat

South AfricaGavin George Michael Salant

SpainJoseMaria ElgueromerinoJoseMaria GalvanLamet

SwedenPeter Kalen

SwitzerlandMatthias Kaelin

TaiwanPaul B. M. Yang

TurkeyEbru Yuksekbilgili

United KingdomWalter J. AndrewsBen HuntRoss MacDonaldSandra Marie

United StatesAl ModugnoPeggy J. Sherertz

VenezuelaJose Villasmil


CONTRIBUTORS

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 11:23 AM Page 56

About Marsh & McLennan CompaniesMarsh & McLennan Companies (MMC) is a global professional services firm with annual revenuesexceeding $11 billion. It is the parent company of Marsh Inc., the world’s leading risk and insurance serv-ices firm; Putnam Investments, one of the largest investment management companies in the UnitedStates; and Mercer Inc., a major global provider of consulting services. More than 60,000 employees pro-vide analysis, advice, and transactional capabilities to clients in more than 100 countries. Its stock (tickersymbol: MMC) is listed on the New York, Chicago, Pacific, and London stock exchanges. MMC’s Web-siteaddress is http://www.mmc.com.

MarshMarsh meets the global needs of its clients through a wholly owned network of more than 400 offices inmore than 100 countries. In every country, Marsh combines a deep knowledge of local risk issues withthe ability to tap global insurance and capital markets for solutions tailored to client needs. Since itsfounding more than 130 years ago, Marsh has steadily built its business beyond insurance broking toencompass a full range of services to identify, value, control, transfer, and finance risk.

KrollKroll provides corporate advisory and restructuring, forensic accounting, valuation and litigation consult-ing, electronic evidence and data recovery, business intelligence and investigations, background screen-ing, and security services. It serves a global clientele of law firms, financial institutions, corporations,nonprofit institutions, government agencies, and individuals.

Guy CarpenterGuy Carpenter provides reinsurance broking, financial modeling services, and related advisory functionsworldwide for insurers and reinsurers.

MercerMercer provides clients with solutions linking the three most enduring dimensions of business success—business design, organizational design, and people strategy. It does this through a unique array of con-sulting expertise:■ Mercer Human Resource Consulting is the global leader in human-resource, employee-benefit, and

compensation consulting.■ Mercer Management Consulting helps clients achieve sustained shareholder value through innovative

business design.■ Mercer Oliver Wyman is a leader in financial-services strategy and risk management consulting.■ Mercer Delta Consulting works with CEOs and senior teams of major companies on the design and

leadership of large-scale transformation.■ NERA Economic Consulting, the leading firm of consulting economists, devises solutions to problems

involving competition, regulation, finance, public policy, and business strategy.■ Lippincott Mercer, the premier corporate-identity firm, helps clients create, develop, and manage

their brands throughout the world.

Putnam InvestmentsPutnam Investments plays a key role in the financial-planning decisions of millions of individuals andthousands of institutions. With more than 60 years of investment experience, Putnam provides invest-ment-management services to more than 2,700 institutional and 401(k) clients and manages more than14 million individual-shareholder accounts.

Collaborative SolutionsThe companies of MMC work together to offer multifaceted client solutions. In so doing, they bring tobear a unique range of perspectives on the toughest issues confronting clients, industry by industry. Riskmanagement is the focus for many of these collaborative services. Through the expertise of Marsh, Kroll,Guy Carpenter, Mercer, and Putnam, the companies of MMC are uniquely positioned to offer clients risksolutions and advice across the full range of their strategic, financial, operating, and hazard risks.

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 58

The information contained herein is based on sources we believe reli-able, but we do not guarantee its accuracy, and it should be under-stood to be general risk management and insurance information only.Marsh makes no representations or warranties, expressed or implied,concerning the financial condition, solvency, or application of policywordings of insurers or reinsurers. The information is not intended tobe taken as advice with respect to any individual situation and cannotbe relied upon as such. Insureds should consult their insurance advi-sors with respect to individual coverage issues.

This document or any portion of the information it contains may notbe copied or reproduced in any form without the permission of MarshInc., except that clients of any of the Marsh & McLennan Companies,including Marsh, Kroll, Guy Carpenter, Mercer, and PutnamInvestments, need not obtain such permission when using this report for their internal purposes.

e_App_D_8_26.qxd 9/14/05 10:59 AM Page 59

© 2005 Marsh Inc. All rights reserved.

Marsh. The world’s #1 risk specialist.SM

Item # 100179Compliance # MA5-10385

For further information, please contact your local Marsh office, or visit our Web site at:

www.marsh.com

LOL_05_Cover.qxd 7/18/05 12:13 PM Page 1

limits of liability 2005 - marshinsights.marsh.com/pdf/limits_of_liability_2005_en.pdfnick holmes...

Documents