Asbestos Issues and Trends

1 / 45
About This Presentation
Title:

Asbestos Issues and Trends

Description:

Asbestos Issues and Trends Casualty Loss Reserve Seminar September 8, 2003 Michael E. Angelina, ACAS, MAAA Tillinghast Towers Perrin What is Asbestos? – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:84
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 46
Provided by: casactOrg
Learn more at: http://www.casact.org

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Asbestos Issues and Trends


1
Asbestos Issues and Trends
Casualty Loss Reserve SeminarSeptember 8, 2003
  • Michael E. Angelina, ACAS, MAAA
  • Tillinghast Towers Perrin

2
What is Asbestos?
  • Naturally occurring fibrous mineral with a
    crystalline structure containing long chains of
    silicon and oxygen
  • Six types
  • Miracle Mineral
  • Protector of Human Life
  • ironically thought to be the protector of people
  • actinolite
  • amosite
  • anthophylite
  • crocidolite
  • tremolite
  • chrysotile
  • flexible
  • strong
  • durable
  • fire resistant
  • separable into filaments
  • abundant quantities

3
Asbestos Usage
  • Peaked in the early 1970s
  • Contained in 3,500 products (1989 EPA study)
  • Still legal in the U.S. today
  • Ban on asbestos promulgated by the EPA in 1989
    was remanded by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of
    Appeals in 1991
  • Only a few portions of the ban remained intact
    new product uses rollboard flooring felt and
    commercial, corrugated, and specialty paper
  • No effective warning label requirements
  • Not tracked effectively
  • Large manufacturers report annually to Toxic
    Release Inventory
  • No requirements for small manufacturers
  • Imports (especially building materials)

4
Exposure and Disease
  • Exposure
  • Early epidemiological studies estimated 27
    million workers experienced significant
    occupational exposure to asbestos
  • Recent forecasts of the Manville Trust suggest an
    exposed population in excess of 100 million
  • Ongoing exposure
  • asbestos containing products
  • asbestos in-place
  • Typical American breathes 1 million fibers per
    year via natural and man-made sources
  • Disease
  • Documented and recognized as cause of disease
    since 1920s
  • Pliny the Elder had noticed a significantly high
    number of lung related sicknesses in servants
    working with asbestos cloths and fibers
  • Pleural thickening, asbestosis, lung and other
    cancers, mesothelioma
  • Long latency

5
Why So Much Litigation?
  • Large percentage of populationexposed
  • Signature diseases
  • Potential for large jury awards
  • Economies of scale for plaintiffattorneys
  • Insurance recoverables

6
Surge in Claim Filings
7
Change in Disease Mix
8
Increasing Numbers of Claimants Are Unimpaired
1982
4 of claims showed no manifest asbestos-related
injury(RAND)
1993
Up to one-half of all asbestos claims have little
or no physical impairment (Harvard Journal of
Legislation)
1998
No evidence of disease in 57 of asbestos
claims(Manville Trust)
74 of pending claims are unimpaired(confidential
report prepared for a defendant) Two-thirds of
claims show no evidence of impairment(Babcock
Wilcox) Vast majority of claims provide no
evidence of impairment(W.R. Grace)
2001
Source RAND
9
Observations Average Settlements by State
10
Observations Disease Mix by State
11
Observations Average Settlements by Disease
U.S.
12
Bankruptcy of Defendants
  • Currently at least 67 bankruptcies of companies
    with asbestos-related problems according to
    testimony prepared by the American Academy of
    Actuaries (www.actuary.org)
  • Bankruptcy cited as legislative solution by
    Babcock Wilcox
  • New bankruptcies may
  • Increase costs for remaining defendants
  • Several defendants cited higher settlement
    demands as a cause of bankruptcy
  • Cause need for additional defendants
  • Approximately 300 asbestos defendants in early
    1980s
  • Estimates of 2,000 published a few years ago
  • RAND estimates over 8,400 today

13
Number of Asbestos Related Bankruptciesper Year
Note Excludes two bankruptcies for which no date
is available.
14
Expansion of Defendant List
  • Defendant list continues to expand since asbestos
    was used historically in a wide variety of
    products, including
  • yarn, thread, felt, rope packing, flame resistant
    cloth
  • steam gaskets and packings, plain and corrugated
    paper, rollboard, millboard, high temperature
    insulation, movie props
  • World War II Ship Building
  • molded brake linings, brake blocks, filler in
    plastics, flooring, pottery, insulated wire, pipe
    covering
  • brake shoes, clutch facings, cement, plaster,
    stucco, shingles, siding, tile, sewer pipes,
    blocks
  • corrugated roofing, roof sheathing, roofing
    cement
  • boiler insulation insulation of walls, floors,
    mattresses
  • paints, varnishes, filter fibers, filter pads
  • According to RAND Study
  • Firms in current list of defendants span 75 of 83
    possible 2-digit SIC codes/industries
  • Over 60 of expenditures are now from
    non-traditional defendants

15
Costs through 2000 were substantial, but tell
only part of the story
  • According to RAND, estimated total costs of
    resolving asbestos claims through 2000 54 B
  • U.S. insurers 22 B
  • Insurers outside U.S. 812 B
  • Defendants 2024 B
  • At least 5 major companies have each spent more
    than 1 B on asbestos litigation

Source RAND, January 2003
16
How to Quantify Asbestos Liabilities?
  • Actuaries typically like to use past experience
    to predict the future
  • However, for asbestos we cant use traditional
    actuarial methods (e.g., accident year loss
    development projections)
  • Long latency from exposure to disease
    manifestation
  • Potential involvement of multiple policy periods
    for individual claims

17
How to Quantify Asbestos Liabilities?
  • Many use benchmarks or rules of thumb
  • Market share techniques
  • For example, 5 of GL premium volume for affected
    years translates to 5 share of ultimate
    liabilities
  • Survival ratio techniques
  • equals ratio of total reserves divided by average
    annual payments
  • U.S. net asbestos survival ratio was 8.8
    (excluding Fibreboard) as of 12/31/2001
  • A.M. Best now using an undiscounted survival
    ratio of 18 - 20.
  • Aggregate development
  • multiples of paid losses, case reserves, or
    reported losses
  • Comparisons to peer companies (e.g., significant
    reserve additions)

18
How to Quantify Asbestos Liabilities?
  • Exposure-based modeling will improve
    understanding of ultimate AE liabilities
  • For an insurer or reinsurer, it considers
  • Mix of insureds
  • Types of coverage
  • Policy wording
  • Attachment points and limits
  • Years of coverage
  • Claims handling and settlement activities
  • Greater understanding equips the defendant,
    insurer, or reinsurer to deal strategically with
    its exposure

19
Tillinghast Towers Perrin Estimates of Ultimate
Personal Injury Claim Costs
  • Tillinghast estimates ultimate loss expense
    relating to U.S. exposure will be 200 billion
  • Two approaches

20
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense Top Down
  • Estimate total awards to plaintiffs 200 billion
  • Estimate number of personal injury filings by
    disease by calendar year
  • Estimate average indemnity by disease
  • Trend to future years
  • Multiply future filings by trended severities
  • Load for expense

21
Estimation of Ultimate Personal Injury Claim
Filings
22
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense
23
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense Bottom
Up
  • Estimate total cost to defendants 200 billion
  • Develop database of defendant experience
  • Number of filings against defendants
  • Average indemnity (defendants share)
  • Expense-to-indemnity ratios
  • Resulting distributions vary by tier

24
Estimation of Ultimate Loss and Expense Bottom
Up
  • Project future filings for each defendant
  • implies 60 defendants per plaintiff case
  • Project future severities by defendant
  • implies average ultimate severities of 1,873 to
    5,550 vary by tier.
  • Project future expenses (defense costs) by
    defendant
  • Implies average ultimate expense loads of 20 to
    116 vary by tier.
  • Reflects a reduction in expenses for Tier 3-Low
    defendants over a five year period.
  • Ground-up ultimate loss and expense for each
    defendant Filings x Trended Indemnity
    Severities x (1 expense)
  • Allocate ground-up ultimate indemnity and expense
    to year
  • Compare to average defendant coverage profiles

25
Allocate Ultimate Loss and ExpenseAmong Multiple
Payers
26
Portion of 200 billion Ultimate Loss and Expense
Retained, Net Insured U.S., Net Non-U.S.
60 billion mid-point of 55 65 billion range
of the Universe of net liabilities to the U.S.
P/C market. Additional details available in
Emphasis 2001/3, Sizing Up Asbestos Exposure, a
publication of Tillinghast Towers Perrin,
at www.towers.com.
27
And the costs extend beyond personal injury
claims costs paid by defendants and their
insurers...
  • The Impact of Asbestos Liabilities on Workers in
    Bankrupt Firms by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Jonathan
    M. Orszag, Detr R. Orszag December 2002
  • Bankruptcies across the nation
  • headquarters in 19 states
  • facilities in 47 states
  • Pre-bankruptcy, 200,000 workers employed by
    bankrupt firms
  • Loss of 52,000 60,000 jobs with each displaced
    worker losing an average of 25,000 50,000 in
    wages
  • Average 25 reduction to their 401(K) account
    (approx. 8,300 each)
  • Direct cost of bankruptcy 850M 1.7B
  • NERA 2 Billion Secondary Impacts on the Economy

28
Where Do We Go From Here?Recent Changes in
Claims Handling
  • Asbestos claims handled differently than other
    torts
  • volume/docket pressure
  • bundling
  • Center for Claims Resolution (CCR) changes its
    procedures
  • abandons practice of routinely settling cases on
    a group basis and requiring members to share
    settlement costs (February 2001)
  • stops settling new asbestos claims for remaining
    14 members effective August 1, 2001 in run-off
  • Equitas leads London insurers, requiring evidence
    of injury and product identification effective
    June 1, 2001

29
The Coalition for Asbestos Justice
  • Formed in 2000 as a nonprofit association to
    address and improve the asbestos litigation
    environment
  • Currently has eleven members Ace, Argonaut,
    Chubb, CNA, Everest Re, Firemans Fund, General
    Re, Great American, The Hartford, Liberty Mutual,
    and St. Paul
  • Mission To encourage fair and prompt
    compensation to deserving current and future
    asbestos litigants by seeking to reduce or
    eliminate the abuses and inequities that exist
    under the current civil justice system
  • Coalition is not involved with insurance coverage
    issues
  • Working to effect change through public education
    (including the judiciary), amicus briefs, and
    jurisdictional litigation efforts

30
Public Education
  • A primary mission of the Coalition is to foster a
    better understanding of the current asbestos
    litigation environment
  • Research and Studies (e.g., RAND Study update
    (www.rand.org))
  • Academic Scholarship
  • Victor E. Schwartz Leah Lorber, A Letter to
    the Nations Trial Judges How the Focus on
    Efficiency Is Hurting You and Innocent Victims in
    Asbestos Liability Cases 24 Am. J. Trial Advoc.
    247 (2000)
  • Mark D. Plevin Paul Kalish, Where Are They
    Now? A History of the Companies That Have Sought
    Bankruptcy Protection Due to Asbestos Claims
    Vol. 1, No. 1 Mealeys Asbestos Bankr. Rep., Aug.
    2001
  • This is NOT your fathers asbestos defendant

31
Jurisdictional Litigation Efforts
  • Identifying jurisdictions that pose the biggest
    challenges for asbestos defendants and truly sick
    claimants
  • Key states CA, IL, LA, MD, MA, MS, NJ, NY, PA,
    TX, WV
  • Meeting with counsel from these states to
    understand the current case management orders and
    identifying other due process issues
  • Advancing inactive dockets / pleural registries
  • Challenging consolidations and joinder rules

32
Changes in the Wind?
  • There are a few signs in the asbestos litigation
    environment that business may not be as usual
  • A split in the asbestos plaintiffs bar between
    those representing real cases versus those
    representing the non-impaired
  • House of Delegates of the American Bar
    Association (ABA) voted on February 11, 2003
  • to support legislation that would establish
    specific medical criteria that must be satisfied
    by those alleging non-malignant asbestos-related
    disease in order to file an asbestos lawsuit
  • proposal would also toll statute of limitations
    until such time as the medical criteria were met
  • Judge Weiners ruling in the Federal MDL
    dismissing all cases that were initiated through
    mass screenings
  • Hearing held by Judges Weinstein and Lifland in
    the Johns Manville bankruptcy proceeding

33
Changes in the Wind?
  • There are a few signs in the asbestos litigation
    environment that business may not be as usual
  • West Virginia passes SB 213 limiting the ability
    of non-resident plaintiffs to maintain causes of
    action
  • Mississippi passes HB 19 limiting punitive
    awards, reduces venue shopping, releases
    innocent seller (January 2003)
  • Pennsylvania Asbestos Legislation (SB 216)
    dealing with asbestos-related liabilities
    acquired via merger or consolidation
  • Many more articles in the business press and from
    investment analysts advocating the need for an
    asbestos solution

34
U.S. Supreme Court Actions
  • Amchem v. Windsor
  • Overturned Georgine/CCR Futures Deal (June 27,
    1997)
  • Ortiz v. Fibreboard
  • Overturned second global settlement attempt
    (1999)
  • Mobil Corp. v. Adkins
  • Refused to hear case regarding consolidation of
    case involving 8,000 plaintiffs from 35 states
    and 250 defendants in West Virginia
  • Exxon settled October 2002, leaving Union
    Carbide/Dow Chemical Company as the sole
    remaining defendant

35
U.S. Supreme Court Actions
  • Hopeman Brothers Inc. v. Clarence L. Acker Jr.,
    et. al.
  • Denied petition to review mass consolidation of
    cases in Virginia (December 9, 2002)
  • Norfolk Western Railway Co. v. Ayers, et.
    al.(March 10, 2003)
  • Fear of developing cancer justifies a claim under
    FELA
  • Joint several liability entire damages can be
    recovered from the railroad
  • Six workers with asbestosis obtained 5.8 million

36
Possible Federal Legislation
  • The Fairness in Compensation Act (H.R. 1283/S758)
    did not advance
  • would have established the Asbestos Resolution
    Corp.
  • opposed by President Clinton and the plaintiffs
    bar
  • Likely prospective proposals supported by the
    Asbestos Alliance (led by the American Insurance
    Association and the National Association of
    Manufacturers) will focus legislation on four
    areas
  • establishing objective medical criteria of
    asbestos-related impairment
  • liberalizing statues of limitations
  • eliminating consolidations
  • eliminating forum shopping

37
Possible Federal Legislation
  • S413 Senator Nickles
  • Cases remain in court system
  • Establish medical criteria
  • Toll applicable statutes of limitation until
    medical criteria are met
  • Senate Hearings
  • September 25, 2002 and March 5, 2003, June 2003
  • Discussion of medical criteria as well as an
    asbestos trust fund
  • Senator Hatch has called for a compromise
    solution
  • S1125
  • Asbestos Trust Fund

38
Senate Bill 1125
  • Preliminary negotiations involved insurers,
    defendants, and labor
  • Establishes privately funded trust totaling 108
    billion comprised of
  • Insurers - 45B
  • Defendant companies - 45B
  • Current bankruptcy - 4B
  • Voluntary contributions - 14B
  • Payments to claimants based on three criteria
  • Diagnostic - in person exam by physician
  • Medical - 8 categories with scheduled payments
  • Latency and Exposure - 10 years of exposure

39
Funding
  • Participation is mandatory for insurers,
    defendants
  • Defendants grouped into tiers based on historical
    payments
  • Further separated into subtiers based on revenues
  • Insurers will be subject to an insurer commission
    if allocation agreement is not reached
  • Current allocation discussions center on blended
    approach
  • 12 insurers likely to contribute over 75 of
    funding
  • 20 insurers likely to contribute over 90 of
    funding

40
Quantify the Economic Impact of S. 1125
  • Is proposed Trust Fund of 108B adequate?
  • Tillinghast Projections Released May 2001
  • 200B Ultimate Loss Expense
  • Less 70B paid as of 12/31/2002 (est. by RAND)
  • Equals 130B of future payments
  • Reduced for frictional costs
  • 28B defense costs (21.5)
  • 41B plaintiff attorney fees (40)
  • 61B expected to reach claimants
  • Conclusion is consistent with RAND transaction
    costs have consumed more than half of total
    spending

41
Quantify the Economic Impact of S. 1125
  • Indemnity Awards under S 1125 estimated claim
    filings x specific awards
  • Future claims to be be filed from 2003 - 2049
  • Pending claims to be re-filed
  • Eight Disease Levels consistent with the Manville
    2002 TDP
  • Lung Cancer One claims
  • Specific awards
  • 0 for Levels I-II to
  • 750,000 for Level VIII (meso)
  • Collateral Offset (0)
  • Medical Monitoring (0.4 billion)
  • Tested various scenarios - all at or below 108B

42
Insurer Contribution
  • Insurer definition not limited to US companies
  • Funding of 45 billion, discounts to 28 billion
  • 17 billion to US direct insurer - allocation
    based on three variables
  • 11 billion to London direct and all reinsurers
  • allocation based on reserves?
  • All funding is net of third party reinsurance
  • Gross of financial covers
  • US insurers currently hold 19.2 billion in net
    asbestos reserves versus 27.3 billion on nominal
    allocation
  • 17.0 billion discounted
  • Payment schedule has been suggested
  • LOC-type requirement may be needed

43
Other Issues
  • Agreement on insurer allocation
  • Non-US funding
  • Transition issues
  • Reinsurance pipeline
  • Significant discussion concerning the solvency of
    the fund
  • Is 108 billion enough?
  • Negotiations with labor

44
Michael E. Angelina
  • Mr. Angelina is a co-author of Tillinghasts
    study regarding the asbestos universe, first
    presented on May 30, 2001 to the RAA Education
    Conference and the Casualty Actuaries of the
    Mid-Atlantic Region (CAMAR). He is a consulting
    actuary with Tillinghast Towers Perrin in its
    Philadelphia office. He is a principal of the
    firm.
  • Mr. Angelina is a member of Tillinghasts
    asbestos and environmental practice area, and
    currently coordinates research and development
    activities relating to the contingent liabilities
    of corporate asbestos defendants assisting
    clients with asbestos-related operational
    strategies. He has quantified reserve needs for
    asbestos, pollution, and other health hazards
    (APH) for both domestic and international
    insurers and reinsurers. He has also written for
    Emphasis on asbestos issues, and has participated
    on various industry forums, trade press, and
    meetings regarding asbestos liabilities. Mr.
    Angelina is also active in the firms placement
    initiative for these types of exposures.
  • Prior to rejoining Tillinghast in January 2000,
    Mr. Angelina was Vice President and Actuary with
    Reliance Reinsurance Corp. (RRC). He also served
    as the Actuarial Officer of the Finite Risk unit.
    His responsibilities in the financial actuarial
    role included modeling outwards reinsurance
    transactions, providing actuarial support and
    guidance for areas which had problematic
    implications to RRCs financial results, and
    identifying new opportunities for growth. In the
    Finite Risk unit, Mr. Angelinas responsibilities
    included performing actuarial and underwriting
    analyses of loss portfolio transfers developing
    the financial structure of potential deals and
    performing due diligence reviews of target books
    of business.
  • Incorporating his 11 years at Tillinghast prior
    to rejoining the firm, Mr. Angelina has been
    involved in a number of client assignments
    including ratemaking for personal automobile
    business reserve reviews for insurers,
    reinsurers, excess and surplus carriers, and self
    insured entities valuations of insurance
    operations in support of mergers and
    acquisitions financial modeling quantification
    of asbestos and pollution liabilities and the
    development of pricing systems and size of loss
    distributions for multinational excess insurance
    coverages. He is a developer of RPIL,
    Tillinghasts excess of loss pricing system, and
    part of the Global Loss Distributions (GLD)
    initiative.
  • Mr. Angelina is a frequent speaker at the
    Casualty Actuarial Society seminars on pricing
    and reserving for US and international exposures
    and has written on risk financing costs for
    Captive Insurance Company Reports, as well as
    asbestos-related issues. Prior to joining
    Tillinghast in 1988, Mr. Angelina worked for
    CIGNA in the workers compensation and the
    actuarial research units.
  • Mr. Angelina is an associate of the Casualty
    Actuarial Society and a Member of the American
    Academy ofActuaries. Mr. Angelina is a graduate
    of Drexel University with a B.S. degree in
    Mathematics.
  • mike.angelina_at_tillinghast.com(215) 656-2345

45
Jennifer L. Biggs
  • Ms. Biggs is a co-author of Tillinghasts study
    regarding the asbestos universe, first
    presented on May 30, 2001 to the RAA Education
    Conference and the Casualty Actuaries of the
    Mid-Atlantic Region (CAMAR). She is a consulting
    actuary with Tillinghast Towers Perrin in its
    St. Louis office. She is a principal of the firm.
  • Ms. Biggs is a member of Tillinghasts asbestos
    and environmental practice area. She coordinates
    research and development activities relating to
    asbestos and has quantified reserve needs for
    asbestos, pollution, and breast implant
    liabilities for insurance and reinsurance
    companies. Ms. Biggs has also been active in the
    firms asbestos and environmental reinsurance
    placement initiative.
  • Ms. Biggs has spoken at Annual Meetings of the
    Casualty Actuaries in Reinsurance and the
    Casualty Actuarial Society regarding asbestos
    liabilities. Under her direction as Chairperson
    of the American Academy of Actuaries Mass Tort
    Work Group a Public Policy Monograph Overview of
    Asbestos Issues and Trends was released in
    December 2001.
  • Ms. Biggs also has significant experience in the
    professional liability area. Her work includes
    analyses of funding requirements, self-insured
    retention limits, and allocation systems for
    self-insured trust funds of several hospitals.
    She also performs reserve evaluations, opining on
    year-end statutory reserve levels for physician
    insurers. Additionally, she has assisted insurers
    by analyzing rate levels and preparing filing
    materials for entry into new states.
  • Prior to relocating to Tillinghasts St. Louis
    office in 1988, Ms. Biggs spent almost four years
    in Tillinghasts Bermuda office. There she gained
    considerable experience in financial reinsurance,
    performing pricing analyses for loss portfolio
    transfers. Most other assignments were related to
    loss reserving for reinsurance and captive
    insurance companies.
  • Ms. Biggs is a Fellow of the Casualty Actuarial
    Society and a Member of the American Academy of
    Actuaries. Ms. Biggs graduated with college
    honors from Washington University in St. Louis
    with a B.A. in mathematics and a business minor.
  • jenni.biggs_at_tillinghast.com(314) 719-5843
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)