Free Expert Report - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 411.4 kB
Pages: 49
Date: April 26, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 9,641 Words, 65,537 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/9376/27-1.pdf

Download Expert Report - District Court of Delaware ( 411.4 kB)


Preview Expert Report - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 1 of 49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re: Federal Mogul Global, Inc., et al Debtors.

(Bankruptcy #01-10578)(RTL)

THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS and ERIC D. GREEN, as the LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR FUTURE ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS, Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS PROPERTY DAMAGE COMMITTEE, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 05-59 JHR

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. ROBIN A. CANTOR

April 26, 2005

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 2 of 49

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. QUALIFICATIONS ....................................................................................................... 1 ASSIGNMENT............................................................................................................... 2

III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND OPINIONS............................................................. 2 IV. BACKGROUND AND REVIEW OF THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT................. 3
A. 1. 2. B. BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................................3 The Role of Asbestos Liability in the Reorganization Plan ...............................................................3 Assumed Scope of T&N Asbestos Liability........................................................................................4 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND THE RELIANCE ON DR. PETERSON'S PRIOR ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY ......6

V.
A. B.

BASES OF THE NCI ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY...................................................... 7
OVERVIEW ..............................................................................................................................................7 HISTORICAL CLAIM FILINGS ...................................................................................................................8 Data Received....................................................................................................................................8 Disease Distribution..........................................................................................................................9 Missing Information ........................................................................................................................10 CLOSED CLAIMS ...................................................................................................................................13 SBNP and SBND .............................................................................................................................13 Disease Transition Matrices............................................................................................................14 Average Settlement Amounts ...........................................................................................................16 PENDING CLAIMS ..................................................................................................................................19 FUTURE CLAIMS ...................................................................................................................................20 Potentially Exposed Populations.....................................................................................................20 Incidence of Asbestos Related Disease............................................................................................24 Summary of Annual Malignant Injuries by Death Year for Projected Future Claims ....................25 Non-Malignant Claims ....................................................................................................................26 CLAIM VALUE ANALYSIS......................................................................................................................28 Estimated Average Settlement Values .............................................................................................28 The Potential Influence of Punitive Damages .................................................................................31 Projected Dismissal Rates...............................................................................................................33 Propensity to be Compensated ........................................................................................................34

1. 2. 3. C. 1. 2. 3. D. E. 1. 2. 3. 4. F. 1. 2. 3. 4.

VI. SUMMARY OF THE NCI LIABILITY ESTIMATES ............................................... 37
A. 1. 2. 3. B. 1. 2. 3. 4. BASE CASE RESULTS ............................................................................................................................37 Discounted NPV ..............................................................................................................................37 Inflation and Discount Rates ...........................................................................................................37 Results .............................................................................................................................................38 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .........................................................................................................................40 Using File Year As The Proxy for Missing Death Year...................................................................40 No Growth in Average Settlement Values for Mesothelioma ..........................................................43 Liability Due to Fiber Brokerage ....................................................................................................45 Using KPMG Incidence Table for Mesothelioma Injuries ..............................................................47

Attachments A - D

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 3 of 49

I. Qualifications I am a Director in the Financial and Insurance Services practice of Navigant Consulting, Inc. ("NCI"). I lead the Liability Estimation practice, which helps companies and financial institutions better understand asbestos and other product liability exposures. I specialize in environmental and energy economics, statistics, risk management, and insurance claims analysis. Prior to joining NCI in September 2004, I was a Principal and Managing Director of the Environmental and Insurance Claims Practice of LECG, LLC. My responsibilities at LECG included conducting complex economic, statistical, and risk analysis for litigation support and expert testimony, as well as managing a staff of internal and external environmental professionals. I was Program Director for Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences, a research program of the National Science Foundation ("NSF") and a senior researcher at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. I am a past Coordinator and grants manager for the NSF Human Dimensions of Global Change, the NSF Methods and Models for Integrated Assessment, and the NSF/EPA Decision Making and Valuation for Environmental Policy. I have a faculty appointment in the Graduate Part-time Program in Engineering of the Johns Hopkins University. I have a B.S. in mathematics from Indiana University of Pennsylvania and a Ph.D. in economics from Duke University. My more than 20 years of economic, teaching, and consulting expertise includes several areas of liability claims analysis, environmental and energy economics, statistical modeling, risk management, public policy, and societal decision making. A partial list of the various studies I have conducted related to asbestos and product liability issues includes asbestos claims analysis in the Congoleum insurance coverage matter, several other liability estimations for solvent corporations, statistical analysis of asbestos settlements, statistical benchmarking of jury verdicts in various injury categories including asbestos injuries, analysis of premises and product claims, regression analysis of asbestos jury verdicts, and evaluation of risk management perspectives in the federal government. I was the 2002 President of the Society for Risk Analysis. In 2001, I was appointed as a member of the Research Strategies Advisory Committee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Science Advisory Board. I am a past President of the board of directors for MATRIX, The Business Center for Women and Minorities. I am a member of the Society for Risk Analysis, the American Economic Association, and the Women's Council on Energy and the Environment. I serve or have served on science review and advisory boards for the Johns Hopkins University Graduate Part-Time Program in Environmental Engineering and Science, the National Center for Environmental Decisionmaking Research, the Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Academy of Public Administration, and the Consortium for International Earth Science Information Network. I currently serve on the editorial board of the Journal of Risk Analysis and I am associate editor for the Journal of Risk Research. Page 1

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 4 of 49

I have submitted analysis, testimony and affidavits in federal arbitration, regulatory and Congressional proceedings, and federal court. My publications include refereed journal articles, book chapters, expert reports, reports for federal sponsors, and a co-authored book on economic exchange under alternative institutional and resource conditions. My curriculum vita is attached as Attachment A to this report, which also lists my testimony in the last four years. My current billing rate for this engagement is $400/hour for analysis and testimony. Other NCI staff members have also worked with me on this matter and they have been billed at their normal and customary rates ranging from $150 to $400. II. Assignment I have been retained by Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP ("Counsel") on behalf of the Official Committee of the Asbestos Property Damage Claimants ("Committee") to use my professional judgment and generally accepted estimation methods to investigate the aggregate indemnity liability for pending and future bodily injury claims related to asbestos containing products sold and produced by T&N, Limited ("T&N"). I have been instructed by Counsel that my analysis is to be bounded by the scope of the claims as employed by the Disclosure Statement to determine a payment ratio for the class of creditors to which the Committee belongs. As a result, I have also been asked to consider the reliability of the analytical foundations of the ratio calculations as reported in the Disclosure Statement. A list of materials considered for my analysis is attached hereto as Attachment B. I also have relied on my training and experience as an economist and claims analyst. I have also directed NCI staff to conduct certain analyses to support my findings and conclusions. My opinions are based on my understanding of the information available to me as of the date of this report. I reserve the right to supplement or change my opinion if new information should become available. III. Summary of Findings and Opinions My analysis indicates that the total discounted net present value of indemnity costs for pending claims and future claims filed through 2054 against T&N for asbestos-related cancers and nonmalignant injuries is approximately $2.5 billion in 2001 dollars. Based upon my analysis of the costs of the pending and future claims, I find that the indemnity cost reported in the Disclosure Statement for T&N liability is grossly overstated. I performed a number of sensitivity analyses to investigate the robustness of my calculations. I found that altering the assumption about future mesothelioma settlement values, expanding the scope of the exposed labor populations, or using an alternative basis for the mesothelioma incidence estimates for future claims did not substantially change my base case results. I also conducted a sensitivity analysis to investigate how the base case results are affected by my approach to reference compensated claims by the death year of the claimants rather Page 2

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 5 of 49

than estimate future claims by the historical pattern of filings. I note in this regard that it is undisputed that established annual references for the count of potential claimants with asbestos-related malignant diseases (the incidence data) used in my analysis and also by Dr. Peterson,1 are in terms of deaths per year. My base case approach uses the available evidence from historical T&N claims to reference compensated claims to their actual or imputed death year. Thus, my approach compares the count of deaths for potential claimants (the incidence data) to the count of actual T&N claimants observed or estimated to have died from a specific asbestos-related malignant disease in a particular year. Ignoring this comparison implies that deaths (incidence data) would be compared to living claimants for a substantial portion of the relevant T&N claims. In my sensitivity analysis I use, but do not endorse, the assumption to use file year as a proxy for missing death year. I find that even with this extreme change to my approach, my liability estimate is $2.8 billion or about 25% of the indemnity cost reported in the Disclosure Statement. Finally, my analysis revealed that there were substantial changes in the historical treatment of claim types and values, especially for mesothelioma and asbestosis claims, in 2001. For example, the number of annualized compensated mesothelioma claims fell 67% from 2000 to 2001, while settlement values increased by 25% over those in year 2000. In contrast, the count of annualized compensated asbestosis claims in 2001 was about 25% larger than the count in 2000, and the average settlement value in 2001 was about half of the value in 2000. Dismissal rates for claims filed in 2001 were very low, especially for non-malignant claims. Overall, dismissal rates for claims filed and resolved in 2001 were less than 1%. These changes might be due to the closing of the Center for Claims Resolution ("CCR") or due to the anticipated Federal-Mogul filing for bankruptcy. Regardless of the cause, the weight given to these observed changes is a key element in forming inferences about the future claim counts and values. IV. Background and Review of the Disclosure Statement A. Background 1. The Role of Asbestos Liability in the Reorganization Plan It is my understanding that Federal-Mogul and 156 related entities (collectively "the Debtors") filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware ("the Court") on October 1, 2001 ("bankruptcy date") for the purpose of resolving the asbestos liabilities of Federal-Mogul and certain of its subsidiaries.2 Among these subsidiaries and a significant source of the

1

2

Expert Report of Mark A. Peterson, November 29, 2004, "Turner & Newell, Inc. Projected Liabilities for Asbestos Personal Injury Claims." ("Peterson November 2004 Report") In re: Federal-Mogul Global Inc., T&N Limited, et al., Disclosure Statement Describing Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization (Nos. 01-10578) (Bankr. Del.) (2004) ("Disclosure Statement") at 1.

Page 3

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 6 of 49

Debtors' asbestos personal injury liabilities, is T&N, a wholly-owned U.K. subsidiary of Federal-Mogul that was acquired in March 1998.3 I understand that on June 4, 2004, the Debtors, the Unsecured Creditors Committee, the Asbestos Claimants Committee, the Future Claimants Representative, the JP Morgan Chase Bank as Agent for the holders of Bank Claims, and the Equity Committee, collectively referred to as the "Plan Proponents," filed a Disclosure Statement in connection with the solicitation of acceptances and rejections with regard to the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization ("the Plan").4 Under the Plan as I understand it, all claims and equity interests that existed on the petition date (other than Administration Claims, Administrative Claims, and Priority Tax Claims) are divided into a number of classes, each of which is accorded different treatment.5 It is my further understanding that Asbestos Property Damage Claims are not accorded a class of their own but are part of Class H, Unsecured Claims. Specifically, according to the Disclosure Statement, this class includes "Asbestos Property Damage Claims against any U.S. Debtors to the extent that the Allowed Amounts of such Claims are not otherwise satisfied by any applicable insurance coverage, and to the extent that such claims are not bonded claims."6 My understanding is that the amount received by Class H claimants under the Plan depends upon the particular Debtor against which they hold claims. Holders of Unsecured Claims against T&N, will, if their claims are allowed, receive the allowed amount multiplied by a T&N Distribution Ratio. Two possible T&N Distribution Ratios are set forth; both rely as an important part of their calculation on the asbestos personal injury claims and demands against T&N based on the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Distribution Procedures, as described below. 2. Assumed Scope of T&N Asbestos Liability I have been asked by Counsel to confine my analysis to T&N's asbestos personal injury liabilities because they are the liabilities that are central to the calculations affecting the Committee, and the ones that have been estimated by Dr. Peterson.7 Although Dr. Peterson's estimate includes U.K. claims, they appear to be very small in number relative to the U.S. claims. I note that Dr. Peterson has estimated that the U.K. liability is 229 million in discounted 2001 pounds,8 which is about 3% of the indemnity cost reported

3 4

Disclosure Statement at 31. Disclosure Statement at 1. 5 Disclosure Statement at 92-93. 6 Disclosure Statement at 106. 7 Memorandum from Mark Peterson to Elihu Inselbuch and Julie Davis dated February 19, 2004 ("Feb. 2004 Peterson Memorandum") 8 Peterson November 2004 Report at 53.

Page 4

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 7 of 49

in the Disclosure Statement.9 Because the U.K. claims reflect a different set of historical national and industrial conditions from those in the U.S., an analysis of the U.K. claims would involve a detailed cross-cultural comparison of risks with little independently researched or published information on U.K. disease incidence to use as a foundation.10 Given the apparently small value of the U.K. claims, developing a separate analysis for these claims was not warranted or practical. Therefore, my analysis extends only to U.S. claims against T&N. My analysis is based on my understanding of the asbestos products produced and sold by T&N and its subsidiaries, as described in the Disclosure Statement. It is my understanding that T&N's asbestos personal injury liability arises primarily from three historical areas of business: its manufacture and sale of Sprayed Limpet Asbestos ("Limpet"); its ownership from 1934-1962 of Keasbey & Mattison Co. ("Keasbey") and, to a lesser extent, its ownership in other years of two other Canadian subsidiaries; and its brokerage of raw asbestos fiber.11 Limpet was a mixture of asbestos and cement sprayed onto surfaces for fireproofing, insulation, and other purposes. T&N began to license the sale and application of Limpet internationally in 1934. Between 1934 and 1973 the head U.S. licensees were Keasbey (1934-1962), Armstrong Contracting and Supply Corp. (now known as AC&S) (19621967), and Atlas Asbestos Corp. (1967-1973). According to the Disclosure Statement, it was not a widely marketed or used product in the U.S., with sales extremely low until 1940, small in the 1940s to mid-1950s, and not exceeding $100,000 annually until 1959. From approximately 1959-1965, half of all Limpet sold in the U.S. went to three high-profile building projects.12 Keasbey was acquired by T&N in 1934 and was wholly-owned by 1938. Besides the sale of Limpet, it manufactured and sold a wide variety of asbestos-containing products, including textiles, insulation, and asbestos cement pipe throughout the U.S. between 1934 and 1962. Keasbey also owned the Bell chrysotile asbestos mine in Quebec until 1936, when T&N divested the Bell assets and placed them in a separate Canadian subsidiary, Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., which it owned until 1980. In 1962 T&N sold Keasbey's assets to unrelated companies and discontinued Keasbey's businesses.13 Beginning in 1926, T&N owned asbestos mines or mining interests in South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Swaziland, and, after its acquisition of Bell through Keasbey, Canada. A U.K. unit company of T&N eventually known as TAF International, Ltd.

9

The Disclosure Statement indicates that estimate of asbestos liabilities is $11 billion. (Disclosure Statement at 109.) Using the average daily 2001 exchange rate for dollars (1.44), I calculate that the U.K. liability is 330/11000 or 3% of the value in the Disclosure Statement. 10 See, for example "UK Asbestos The Definitive Guide," http://www.actuaries.org.uk/filed/pdf/proceedings/giro2004/Lowe.pdf 11 Disclosure Statement at 31. 12 Disclosure Statement at 32-33. 13 Disclosure Statement at 33.

Page 5

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 8 of 49

("TAF") brokered raw fiber from the African mines to various U.S. manufacturing companies between 1932 and 1976, with most sold before 1965; however, the majority of fiber brokered by TAF went to T&N's other U.K. unit companies. According to the Disclosure Statement, the amount of African fiber brokered to U.S. companies (principally Keasbey, but also to other companies) was "miniscule" compared to the total usage of raw fiber in the U.S. during the years in question: 450,000 tons in total over 45 years (averaging 10,000 tons per year) compared to the total usage of nearly 1 million tons a year from the 1950s to the early 1970s.14 B. Disclosure Statement and the Reliance on Dr. Peterson's Prior Analysis of Liability As noted earlier, the Plan places the claims of the Committee against the Debtors in the class of Unsecured Claims. The Plan states that holders of allowed Unsecured Claims against T&N will receive a percentage of their allowed amount based on one of two "T&N Distribution Ratios," both of whose denominators rely wholly or in part on the asbestos personal injury claims and demands against T&N based on the Asbestos Personal Injury Trust Distribution Procedures.15 This amount is stated to have been estimated by Dr. Peterson at approximately $11.0 billion.16 I note in this regard that Dr. Peterson prepared an analysis of T&N liabilities for pending and future U.K. and U.S. claims in February 2004 which estimated the U.S. liability in millions of 2002 dollars at $10,497.17 I note that this estimate differs considerably from an estimate apparently provided by National Economic Research Associates ("NERA") in early 200118 and reported in FederalMogul's Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2000 (the last 10-K before the bankruptcy filing).19 NERA estimated the liabilities of T&N, Gasket Holdings Inc.

14 15

Disclosure Statement at 34. "T&N Distribution Ratio Number 1" has as a numerator the estimated value of 79 percent of the Reorganized Federal-Mogul Class B Common Stock to be allocated to the 524(g) trust, i.e., $790 million. This represents the relative size of the historical asbestos liabilities of the Debtors (T&N, Gasket Holdings, and Ferodo America) whose asbestos liabilities are not likely to be fully insured. The denominator is the $11.0 billion value of asbestos personal injury liabilities predicted by Dr. Peterson. This yields a percentage recovery of 7.2%. "T&N Distribution Ratio Number 2" has as a numerator an estimate of T&N's value if certain Consensual Marketing Procedures outlined in the Plan are performed, and is stated to be in the range of approximately $500 to $800 million. The denominator equals the $11.0 billion estimated by Dr. Peterson, plus certain other claims, for a total of approximately $13.3 billion. This yields a percentage recovery of 3.8% to 6.0%. Disclosure Statement at 109. 16 Presumably this was taken from the memorandum from Mark Peterson to Elihu Inselbuch and Julie Davis dated March 2, 2004, which provides an estimate for T&N's U.S. liability of $10,504 in millions of 2002 dollars. 17 Feb. 2004 Peterson Memorandum at 19. 18 Disclosure Statement at 110. 19 Federal-Mogul Corporation, Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Form 10-K) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 ("the 2000 10-K").

Page 6

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 9 of 49

(Flexitallic) and Ferodo America, Inc. to be $1.6 billion, and those of all the Federal-Mogul entities to be $1.8 billion.20 To explain this substantial disparity, the Disclosure Statement cites "critical differences" between the data and assumptions relied upon by Dr. Peterson and those relied upon by NERA. Some of these factors would reasonably lead to a higher liability estimate, in particular the fact that NERA was only estimating claims likely to be asserted and paid through 2012, while Dr. Peterson's forecast covers all expected future claims. In addition, Dr. Peterson had more complete data on settlement values: NERA relied on 1999 actual values and 2000 budgeted values, while Dr. Peterson had actual settlement data for 2000 and 2001. However, Dr. Peterson's higher estimate is also based in large part on several assumptions that were not made by NERA and that may or may not prove to be true. These assumptions include a dramatic increase in settlement values after T&N was no longer a member of the CCR, a higher increase in settlement values for T&N than for other CCR members, that plaintiffs would have looked to a solvent T&N for an increasingly higher share of settlements as other defendants left the tort system, and an increase in the rate of claims filed against T&N in the future. I also note in this regard that the scheduled values proposed for T&N U.S. claims in the Plan are substantially higher than the historic values calculated by Dr. Peterson in his February 2004 memorandum, particularly for malignant diseases.21 This may also be a source of substantial difference among Dr. Peterson's 2002 estimate,22 NERA's estimate, and Dr. Peterson's 2004 estimate. V. Bases of the NCI Analysis of Liability A. Overview My analysis values pending claims and estimates the number and total value of future claims filed through 2054 for asbestos-related cancers and nonmalignant injuries in those who could have been exposed from 1935 to 2000 to asbestos contained in T&N products. In general, closed claim information was analyzed to determine disease distributions over time and the historical acceptance rates. Closed claims are further used to estimate the average settlement value for claims of each disease over various periods. Closed and pending claims are used to estimate compensability rates:
[compensated closed claims + compensable pending claims] / incidence = compensability rate

20 21

Disclosure Statement at 110; see also the 2000 10-K at 21. Feb. 2004 Peterson Memorandum at 15; Disclosure Statement at 159. 22 Memorandum from Elihu Inselbuch, Nathan D. Finch, and Rita C. Tobin dated October 25, 2002. ("Oct. 2002 Inselbuch Memorandum").

Page 7

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 10 of 49

Compensability rates are used to estimate future claims in each asbestos-related malignant disease. Closed claims are also used to estimate the relationship between non-malignant and malignant claims. To project the incidence of future mesothelioma claims, my analysis builds on the approach and data published in 1982 by William J. Nicholson, George Perkel and Irving Selikoff (hereafter referred to as "Nicholson"),23 with modifications made as appropriate to reflect more recent research. The population of those potentially exposed to asbestos-containing products manufactured by T&N from 1935 to 2003 was estimated based on product information provided in the Disclosure Statement for mesothelioma claims.24 A doseresponse model approved by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration ("OSHA")25 was then applied to the exposed population data to estimate the future annual incidence of mesothelioma deaths. Incidence of other asbestos-related malignant diseases was based on projections by KPMG, as presented by Dr. Peterson in other bankruptcies.26 The number of asbestosis and pleural claims were based on past ratios of such compensated claims to compensated malignant claims. Dismissal rates based on T&N's historical closed claims experience were applied to pending claims and compensability rates based upon historical closed and pending claims experience were applied to estimate the projected future claims to determine the number of claims to be compensated annually. As noted, settlement values were derived by taking into consideration the historical values paid by T&N. Liability for T&N was determined by applying these settlement values to the estimate of pending and future compensable tort claims expected to be filed through 2054. B. Historical Claim Filings 1. Data Received My analysis is based upon data received by messenger from Adam Strochak of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP on October 26, 2004. It is my understanding that these datasets represented all closed and open claims for Federal-Mogul and its subsidiaries. At my direction, NCI staff converted the various datasets to a single dataset that contained only T&N claims in the U.S. Also at my direction, NCI staff removed claims received after the

23

William J. Nicholson, George Perkel and Irving Selikoff, "Occupational Exposure to Asbestos: Population at Risk and Projected Mortality -- 1980-2030," American Journal of Industrial Medicine 3:259-311, 1982. 24 Disclosure Statement at 31-34. 25 Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, 48 Fed. Reg. 51,086 (Nov. 4, 1983) ("1983 OSHA Regulations"). 26 See, for example, Dr. Peterson's analysis in the Owens Corning bankruptcy (Owens Corning and Fibreboard Projected Liabilities for Asbestos Personal Injury Claims As of October 2000, In re: Owens Corning, et al. (No. 00-03837) (Bankr. Del.) (2004)) and in the Armstrong bankruptcy (Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Projected Liabilities for Asbestos Personal Injury Claims As of December 2000, In re: Armstrong World Industries, Inc., et al. (No. 00-4471) (Bankr. Del.) (2003)), where the KPMG data is presented as an alternative epidemiological model for sensitivity analysis.

Page 8

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 11 of 49

October 1, 2001 bankruptcy date and duplicate claims,27 which resulted in a dataset of 383,790 claims for analysis ("T&N Claims Database"). Exhibit 1 is a comparison between the data received by NCI and the apparent data record counts reported by Dr. Peterson in the Feb. 2004 Peterson Memorandum. There is general agreement on the total number of records. There is less correspondence on the number of duplicate records, but because the identification of such record depends on the decision criteria used, the observed difference is not remarkable.

Exhibit 1: Claims Data Comparisons
NCI Analysis Total Records Observations Filed After Bankruptcy Duplicate Claims Observations Analyzed Open Claims1 Closed Claims1 396,649 23 12,836 383,790 138,102 245,688 LAS Analysis 396,649 N.A. 15,335 381,314 134,235 247,079

Sources: NCI T&N Claims Database and Peterson November 2004 Report. General Note: On November 25, 2004, NCI received an additional 4,498 FederalMogul claims in a separate file. The 4,062 T&N claims included in this additional dataset were not included in our analyses. Specific Note: 1) Open Claims include Settled But Not Documented and Settled But Not Paid claims. In my analysis, however, open claims refer only to the 108,240 pending claims. The 29,862 Settled But Not Documented and Settled But Not Paid claims are considered closed claims in my analysis to follow (bringing the total to 275,550).

2. Disease Distribution The T&N Claims Database contained information about the distribution of diseases across the filed claims. Two disease fields were contained on the claims record: defense disease and plaintiff disease. I understand that these categories tend to capture the final and demand

27

Duplicates were identified through a decision making process described in Attachment C. There were some records identified by the decision making process which may have been "resettlements" or "staged" payments. Conversations between my staff and Federal-Mogul and my general understanding of the CCR record-keeping procedures could not sufficiently identify which of these records should be retained. I conducted a sensitivity analysis, however, on keeping all the positive value records and found that they increased weighted average settlement values in my calibration window by no more than 1%.

Page 9

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 12 of 49

disease conditions, respectively, for the claim. Exhibit 2 shows the distribution of the T&N Claims Database across disease categories based on the recorded defense disease.
Exhibit 2: Disease Distribution of Filed Claims by Defense Disease
Status Mesothelioma Lung Cancer 14,699 5% 2,188 2% 16,887 4% Other Cancer 4,349 2% 741 1% 5,090 1% Asbestosis Pleural Unknown Other Disease 292 0% 933 1% 1,225 0% Total

Closed

9,410 3% 1,703 2% 11,113 3%

193,226 70% 55,166 51% 248,392 65%

23,766 9% 3,054 3% 26,820 7%

29,808 11% 44,455 41% 74,263 19%

275,550

Open

108,240

Total

383,790

Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

3. Missing Information Before proceeding with a claims analysis, there are many steps that must be conducted to prepare the data. Claim records often have missing information in data fields that are important for the broader analysis. For example, the year in which the claim was filed, the disease of the claimant, and other key claim and claimant-specific information are required for the analysis of dismissal rates, settlement values, and compensability rates, among other parameters of the liability estimation. Below I explain my procedures for obtaining or imputing data on claim records when key data fields were empty in the received T&N Claims Database. As a central indicator of the severity of the alleged injury, disease is an important aspect of the claim information for my analysis. I therefore used an ordered process with other information available to me to fill in missing disease values on the claims. When the claim was closed and the defense disease was known on the record (i.e., not recorded as unknown, other disease, or blank), that disease value was used for the record. If the claim was closed and the defense disease was not known (i.e., missing) but the plaintiff disease was recorded, then the plaintiff disease value was used for the claim record. If the claim was open and the plaintiff disease was known, that value was recorded for the record. If a closed or open claim did not fit the above conditions, then the record was "matched" to the Manville Trust Claims Database, and the disease recorded in the Manville database was used for the record.28 If no match to the Manville database satisfied the specified matching criteria, I

28

The matches to the Manville Trust Database were made through a decision making process described in Attachment C.

Page 10

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 13 of 49

used a "transition matrix" of disease composition to distribute the remaining claims with an unknown plaintiff disease. The transition matrix was constructed with the closed claims with a known defense disease and an unknown plaintiff disease. Exhibit 3 summarizes the ordered process and the number of claims that were filled in with each treatment.

Exhibit 3: Process to Fill in Missing Disease
Filled In Observations Using the Defense Disease when it is a Closed Claim Using the Plaintiff Disease when it is a Known Disease Using the Manville Matched Disease Category Remaining Missing 249,791 94,495 20,088 Missing Observations 146,835 52,340 32,252 32,252

Sources: NCI T&N Claims Database and Manville Trust asbestos claims database, September 2004.

File year is also an important value of the claims used to make inferences about dismissal rates or to estimate ratios of nonmalignant claims to malignant claims. I used the earliest of the recorded file, service, or received years for the T&N claim when any of these three values was recorded on the record.29 If none of these dates were recorded on the record, I used the earliest of the comparable dates when the same claim was filed against Flexitallic or Ferodo. If a T&N claim had no match with the other defendants, I used the "Plaintiff ID" number to estimate the file year as long as this produced a file year greater than 1970 and less than or equal to 2001, and greater than or equal to the claimant's diagnosis year (if known or imputed from a match with the Manville Trust Database).30 If these conditions were not satisfied for the record, but a diagnosis date was recorded or could be imputed from the Manville data, then I used the median lag observed for records where a file year and a diagnosis year were known to "forecast" the file year. If none of the preceding conditions could be satisfied, no file year value was recorded for the claim. Exhibit 4 summarizes the file year recording process and the number of claims that were filled in with each treatment.

29

In a small number of cases, the year 1901 was recorded for one of these values. In such cases, that value was treated as missing. 30 For claims with recorded dates, there was high correspondence between the year extracted from the Plaintiff ID and the file year value. Approximately 92% of the year values extracted from the Plaintiff ID were within 1 year of the served year (where available), 90% of the year values extracted from the Plaintiff ID were within 1 year of the received year (where available), and 85% of the year values extracted from the Plaintiff ID were within 1 year of the file year (where available).

Page 11

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 14 of 49

Exhibit 4: Process to Fill in Missing File Year
Filled In Observations Using the Earliest T&N Filing, Receive, or Serve Year Using the Earliest Ferodo/Flexitallic File, Receive, or Serve Year Using the Plaintiff ID Receive Year Using the Average Lag between Diagnosis and Filing Years Remaining Missing
Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

Missing Observations 38,141 38,022 2,338 364 364

358,485 119 35,684 1,974

The death year of a claimant is important for determining the compensability rates for malignant diseases. "Incidence" projections, whether from the OSHA model, Nicholson, or KPMG, are all in terms of the number of deaths by year of death. Thus, calculations of propensity to sue which divide claim filings in their file year (numerator) by incidence (denominator) over some specified calibration period will include claimants who file in the calibration period and may or may not have died. The count in the numerator, to the extent that it includes living claimants, would overestimate the propensity to sue. Note that it is also true that some claimants who filed before the calibration period may have died in the period. Failure to count these claimants would underestimate the propensity to sue. My methodology addresses both problems. My approach for estimating future malignant claims is based upon compensability rates rather than propensity to sue; however, the same general principles apply to dividing the count of compensated claimants by incidence. Both numerator and denominator should be in terms of death counts to avoid biasing the estimated rate. In practice, some claim databases have little or no information on death year of the claimants. That was not the case with the T&N Claims Database, which did have death year data for most of the malignant claims used in my calculations. Where the T&N Claims Database lacked death year data, I augmented it with information in the Manville data. I also conducted a sensitivity analysis using alternative assumptions about the death and file year which is discussed in a later section. In the first instance, death year values were extracted from the plaintiff-level data received. If no death year was recorded in the plaintiff-level data, I used the death year recorded in a match to Manville data. If no match satisfied the specific criteria, then I imputed a death year by using the median lag of two combined groups: (1) claim data when both the file year and the claimant death year were known and (2) closed claim data where the file year and the expense year were known. Exhibit 5 summarizes these decision steps and the number of claimant death years filled in with each treatment.

Page 12

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 15 of 49

Exhibit 5: Process to Fill in Missing Death Year
Filled In Observations Using the Death Date in the T&N Claims Database Using the Manville Matched Death Date Remaining Missing
Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

Missing Observations 380,380 342,094

38,286 16,246 372,094

Finally, the settlement amount for each claim was recorded as the net expense amount from the received database. If this amount was unavailable for a compensated claim, which I note it was for a very particular set of claims described in the next section, then the average settlement value for the same disease and expense year was recorded as the value. If no expense year was available, then the average settlement value for the same disease for 2001 was recorded as the value. Exhibit 6 summarizes the settlement value process and the number of claims filled in by each treatment.

Exhibit 6: Process to Fill in Missing Settlement Amount
Filled In Observations Using the Net Settlement Value Using the Average Settlement Value for the Same Disease Remaining Missing
Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

Missing Observations 27,649

2,213 27,649

After addressing missing information, the dataset of final records ("NCI T&N Claims Database") was used in the remaining analysis to estimate disease distributions, dismissal rates, compensability rates, and settlement values. C. Closed Claims 1. SBNP and SBND In the T&N Claims Database there were 29,862 records in which the status is recorded as "Settled But Not Paid" ("SBNP") or "Settled But Not Documented" ("SBND"). I treated these claims as closed claims with missing settlement values, unless there was an expense Page 13

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 16 of 49

amount recorded for the claim. Thus, the only closed claims with missing settlement values were a subset of the SBNP and SBND claims, and for this subset, values were estimated as described above. I used these claims to calculate dismissal and compensability rates, but not in the estimation of average settlement amounts. 2. Disease Transition Matrices Disease transition matrices are computed from closed claim data. These matrices are used in a number of operations for the liability estimation as explained below. In general terms, the matrices allow the redistribution of claims where the claimed disease is "unknown", a common problem for pending claims because claimants often do not allege a specific disease when first asserting a claim. Two disease transition matrices are described in this section: one for redistribution of the unknown disease claims by file year, and one for redistribution of the unknown disease claims by death year. Below I discuss how each matrix is applied later in my calculations. Exhibit 7 shows the distribution of closed claims across disease categories by file year. The data for 2001 is for a partial year since no claims would have closed after October 1, 2001, however, this does not alter the calculated percentages as long as the pattern for the first nine months of 2001 is the same as the pattern that would have occurred absent the bankruptcy. This transition matrix is based upon the closed claims with a known defense disease and unknown plaintiff disease. This group of closed claims is selected to construct the matrix because it corresponds most closely to the condition of the pending claims with unknown plaintiff disease. Thus, it shows the distribution claims across diseases where the claims were filed in a particular year with an unknown plaintiff disease and were ultimately closed with a particular defense disease. Assigning all unknown disease claims to known diseases is necessary for various operations in my asbestos liability estimation. This transition matrix, for example, is used to redistribute compensable pending claims with unknown plaintiff diseases. This matrix is also used to redistribute closed claims with unknown plaintiff and defense diseases. The redistribution of the compensable pending claims is necessary to estimate the indemnity costs for pending claims. The redistribution of the closed claims is necessary to estimate the ratios of compensated nonmalignant claims to compensated malignant claims. The transition matrix in Exhibit 7 is in terms of file year because both of the foregoing operations are referenced to the file year.

Page 14

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 17 of 49

Exhibit 7: Transition Matrix For Unknown Diseases by File Year
File Year Mesothelioma Lung Cancer 2.8% 3.3% 4.3% 3.3% 6.6% 2.5% 4.0% 6.4% 2.6% 4.0% 3.1% 2.9% 1.2% 1.3% 3.9% Other Cancer 2.2% 0.6% 1.7% 1.0% 2.0% 1.4% 1.5% 0.7% 0.9% 1.6% 1.0% 1.2% 0.7% 0.3% 3.9% Asbestosis Pleural

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

1.6% 1.6% 2.3% 1.2% 1.4% 0.7% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.5% 0.9% 0.6% 0.1% 0.8% 3.9%

84.4% 72.1% 74.7% 84.9% 83.7% 94.3% 89.2% 82.3% 95.1% 92.8% 94.9% 94.1% 95.1% 95.1% 88.2%

9.1% 22.4% 17.0% 9.6% 6.4% 1.1% 4.0% 9.4% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 1.1% 2.8% 2.6% 0.0%

Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

Exhibit 8 is a second disease transition matrix that shows the disease distribution of the closed claims with known defense disease and no recorded plaintiff disease by claimants' death year. This matrix was required to redistribute the compensable pending claims with unknown disease for the use in the calculation of the compensability rates that I use to estimate future claims.31 As is discussed above, the malignant incidences are death counts in the year of death, thus compensability for future claims must be referenced in the death year.

31

Compensable pending claims are those where the estimated dismissal rates, discussed below and which vary by disease, are applied to the historical pending claims.

Page 15

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 18 of 49

Exhibit 8: Transition Matrix For Unknown Diseases by Death Year
Death Year 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Mesothelioma Lung Cancer 19.0% 23.6% 18.6% 15.8% 4.0% 4.9% 6.4% 4.5% 2.9% 0.8% 1.7% 2.9% 2.2% 3.7% 0.8% Other Cancer 5.4% 2.8% 4.1% 4.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1.7% 2.2% 2.7% 0.5% 0.4% 1.2% 0.7% 1.3% 0.9% Asbestosis Pleural

10.7% 11.7% 11.0% 6.4% 1.8% 1.4% 1.9% 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 0.5% 0.7% 0.3% 0.3% 0.1%

52.9% 47.2% 48.5% 47.2% 68.1% 79.4% 76.6% 85.4% 90.3% 96.8% 94.1% 94.7% 96.4% 94.4% 96.9%

12.0% 14.7% 17.7% 25.9% 25.1% 13.1% 13.4% 7.1% 3.4% 1.6% 3.2% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 1.3%

Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

3. Average Settlement Amounts To estimate average settlement amounts by disease, I examined the number of settled and paid claims and the total indemnity costs by the expense year. Exhibit 9 shows the claim counts by expense year.

Page 16

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 19 of 49

Exhibit 9: Number of Paid Claims by Disease
Settlement Year
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 19982001

Mesothelioma
574 445 562 837 560 324 405 607 480 297 282 695 802 938 356 2,791

Lung Cancer
707 615 1,166 1,465 803 575 794 1,127 755 441 521 954 1,025 1,499 590 4,068

Other Cancer
177 155 220 337 174 177 235 348 271 112 178 213 347 582 266 1,408

Asbestosis
4,584 4,327 9,084 11,043 5,320 4,382 8,408 11,815 9,600 7,201 7,686 8,766 15,550 29,763 29,351 83,430

Pleural
530 908 3,714 5,472 2,282 3,280 1,994 1,543 516 99 63 15 7 153 17 192

Unknown
3 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 9 13

Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

Average settlement amounts are estimated by disease and by expense year for closed claims in the 1987 to 2001 period. Exhibit 10 shows that with the exception of mesothelioma, there is essentially no evidence that claim values escalated in the more recent years before the Federal-Mogul filing for bankruptcy. In fact, for this data, a decline in some average values is observed in the last four years. The relatively higher mesothelioma value in 2001 as compared to previous years might be a result of the average being computed over a smaller base. Moreover, the data shows that there is a much thinner database in 2001 for compensated mesothelioma claims, making inferences based on these claims more questionable than other years.

Page 17

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 20 of 49

Exhibit 10: Estimated Average Settlement Amount by Disease
Settlement Year
1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 19982001

Mesothelioma

Lung Cancer
$1,008 1,224 4,754 4,305 7,736 9,969 12,534 11,971 14,134 13,926 12,908 13,231 11,683 13,758 13,065 $13,011

Other Cancer
$606 868 2,225 2,412 3,367 6,525 6,235 6,221 7,255 6,010 6,659 5,440 6,439 6,074 3,937 $5,664

Asbestosis

Pleural

Unknown

$1,399 2,464 11,773 8,623 19,614 25,622 31,042 30,393 36,857 35,987 41,332 43,520 60,570 82,027 102,361 $68,866

$530 558 1,783 1,593 2,152 3,403 3,883 3,832 3,343 3,234 3,134 2,924 3,513 3,086 1,526 $2,600

$994 575 1,295 774 1,234 1,473 1,997 2,378 2,049 1,982 2,056 1,405 2,043 803 1,021 $915

$51 . 1,160 964 . . . . . . 657 . 9,323 5,309 2,925 $4,585

Sources: NCI T&N Claims Database and U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers, CPIU), November 17, 2004. Note: Settlement amounts are adjusted to 2001 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

It is also instructive to examine T&N's claim values after the CCR disbanded and when it settled claims against it on its own, rather than with the purported benefits of CCR membership. Exhibit 11 displays the mean claim values by disease for the last six months prior to T&N's bankruptcy after the disbanding of the CCR in February 2001 and the mean claim values for the same months in the prior year when the CCR still functioned. As the data demonstrate, while on its own T&N experienced only a slight increase in mesothelioma claim values, a slight decrease in lung cancer values, and substantial decreases in claim values for other cancer and asbestosis claims (the number of pleural claims settled in 2001 is too small to make its claim average reliable). Thus, the historical claims data provide little or no basis for presuming that, had it not filed for bankruptcy, T&N would have faced substantial and widespread increasing claim values in the future. Indeed, based on the claim values, T&N's overall asbestos claims liabilities decreased after the CCR disbanded.

Page 18

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 21 of 49

Exhibit 11: Mean Claim Values and Numbers of Claims by Disease
AprilSeptember 2000 Disease Mesothelioma Lung cancer Other cancer Asbestosis Pleural Mean Claim Value $79,004 12,535 5,720 2,739 592 Claim Count 495 801 347 14,606 136 AprilSeptember 2001 Mean Claim Value $83,051 12,379 3,468 1,266 1,104 Claim Count 213 338 144 21,355 7

Source: NCI T&N Claims Database. Note: All dollar figures are adjusted to 2001 dollars using the Consumer Price Index.

D. Pending Claims Exhibit 12 shows the distribution of pending claims across disease categories. The table indicates that a high percentage of pending claims have an unknown disease (about 18%) before the disease transition matrix is applied.

Exhibit 12: Disease Distribution of Pending Claims
Mesothelioma Lung Cancer 2,929 Other Cancer 995 Asbestosis Pleural Unknown Total

2,101

77,998

4,354

19,863

108,240

Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

For illustrative purposes, I used the transition matrix (Exhibit 7) from the closed claims where the defense disease was known, but the plaintiff disease was unknown, to redistribute the unknown disease claims that were pending. Exhibit 13 shows the new distribution of the pending claims by disease category after application of the transition matrix, but before application of disease-specific dismissal rates which yields the number of claims for the pending liability.

Page 19

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 22 of 49

Exhibit 13: Disease Distribution of Pending Claims After Addressing Unknown Disease Claims
Mesothelioma Lung Cancer 3,496 Other Cancer 1,365 Asbestosis Pleural

2,478

96,245

4,657

Source: NCI T&N Claims Database.

E. Future Claims Future compensable claims are estimated by considering an exposed population, doseresponse relationships, and the compensability rates that convert future injuries to compensable claims. 1. Potentially Exposed Populations a) Population Estimates I estimated the number of individuals exposed to T&N's asbestos products by starting with the eleven industries and occupations identified by Nicholson, et al.32 and then analyzed the extent to which T&N's products would have been used in each of the eleven industries. The labor force exposure for this estimate is from the use of Limpet, which was distributed and installed in locations throughout the U.S. My analysis of the role of each of the Nicholson industries was based in part upon the list of locations and facilities where Limpet was installed.33 b) Industries and Occupations Limpet is a spray-on asbestos insulation that was initially developed for insulating steam pipes for steam locomotives, and was used in several industrial applications. Exposure to this product would have occurred in eight of the Nicholson categories: Construction: While there were numerous asbestos-related materials used in industrial and non-single family residential construction, the use of asbestoscontaining insulation products resulted in widespread direct and indirect exposure according to Nicholson, including workers in occupations not directly involved in

32

Nicholson, William J., Perkel, George, and Selikoff, Irving J., "Occupational Exposure to Asbestos: Population at Risk and Projected Mortality 1980-2030," American Journal of Industrial Medicine 3:259311 (1982). 33 See the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy website for a detailed listing: http://www.fmoclaims.com/us/php3.

Page 20

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 23 of 49

the insulation process. None of the construction exposures estimated by Nicholson during the time period in question were excluded from this analysis. Shipbuilding: In addition to the use of asbestos insulating cements, spray-on asbestos insulation was commonly used to insulate the holds of ships as early as World War II. While this insulation activity might logically be expected to occur at the end of the shipbuilding activity, according to Nicholson, intermittent or indirect exposure was widespread among a variety of occupations, making it difficult to ascertain the particular source of any given exposure. None of the shipbuilding exposures estimated by Nicholson are excluded from this analysis. Utilities (electric, gas, and combination utility services): There are many facilities with work areas that have elevated temperatures which have been insulated with asbestos-containing materials. Operation and maintenance activities working with and around these materials, particularly given their propensity to crack and flake, would likely create direct and indirect exposure. Nicholson included one-quarter of the "physical workers" employed in these utilities 10 percent representing maintenance workers and 15 percent representing other persons in the area who are indirectly exposed. Insulators: This occupation would clearly be exposed to asbestos in spray-on insulation products such as Limpet. The product was used to insulate steam pipes, boilers and other industrial machinery with elevated temperatures. This product was also used for insulation purposes in a variety of industrial construction and marine settings. Nicholson estimated exposures for this occupation separate from each of these categories in order to better assess their unique risk. Marine engineers: Flaking and cracking of asbestos insulating materials covering machinery casings, steam and hot water piping, and tanks was a common source of exposure for this occupation. Nicholson estimated that all engine room personnel on seagoing vessels would have this exposure. Chemical and petroleum maintenance employees: The manufacture and refining of chemical and petroleum products involves extensive use of networks of pipes, boilers and other high temperature equipment typically insulated with asbestos materials. Nicholson included all maintenance workers in the chemicals and allied products and petroleum refining and coal products industries in his estimate of asbestos exposures. Steam locomotive repair: Limpet was originally designed to insulate steam pipes and machinery in steam locomotives. Nicholson included all employees of railroad repair back shops in his estimate of asbestos exposures. Note that his estimate of new exposures in this industry decline to zero in 1960 as steam locomotives were phased out of use.











Page 21

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 24 of 49



Stationary engineers, stationary firemen, and power station operators: Operation and maintenance of stationary engines and mechanical equipment to provide utilities for buildings and industrial processes involve the same types of exposure to asbestos-related materials as described under utility services. c) Time frame

Limpet production for sale in the U.S. began in 1934 and was discontinued in March 1973.34 Known locations and dates for the use of Limpet in various locations in the U.S. extend from 1936 through 1969.35 Exposure estimates include labor force entrants in the above listed industries and occupations from 1935 through 1973; even though there apparently are no known locations for Limpet used during 1970-73, the Disclosure Statement intimates that it was being produced for sale and use in the U.S. during this time.36 Construction and insulator exposures during construction maintenance and rehabilitation activities are included in the Nicholson construction and insulator exposure estimates. However, given that some exposures in the rehabilitation and maintenance of existing structures may have resulted from products previously installed, additional estimates of these exposures were added to this analysis.37 These exposures begin in 1974 and continue (at a declining rate) until 2000, the last year of first exposure reported in the Federal-Mogul claims data. The Nicholson study estimated the number of new entrants in exposed occupations by tenyear cohorts.38 I used a similar methodology to estimate the cohorts in five-year increments. Exhibit 14 shows the aggregate estimated number of new entrants by five-year cohort from the industries described above who might have been exposed to T&N products over time.

34 35

Disclosure Statement at 32-33. Disclosure Statement at 32-33. 36 Disclosure Statement at 32. 37 For the years 1974-2004, exposures for building rehabilitation and maintenance have been estimated for nonresidential construction workers and insulation workers by NCI. These exposure estimates maintain Nicholson's industry definitions and new entry assumptions, and use historical Gross Domestic Product by industry tables maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis' web site (www.bea.gov) to allocate nonresidential rehabilitation and maintenance employment from the U.S Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistic's historical Current Employment Survey (www.bls.gov). Construction output and nonresidential construction output were calculated for each year and divided into Nonresidential Building R&M to calculate shares, and appropriate adjustments were made to account for overlap between nonresidential and residential construction (see: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1967 Census of Construction Industries, Special Report 26, pp. 26-31 and 26-32) and new vs. rehab construction (see: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1967 Census of Construction Industries, Special Report 1B, p. 1B-13). Exposures for building rehabilitation and maintenance were then reduced by a compound annual rate of 15% per year (roughly the rate of rehabilitation and maintenance activity per dollar of total construction activity) beginning in 1980, reflecting the decline in use of asbestos materials in new construction (see BEA data cited earlier). 38 Nicholson, Table XII at 283.

Page 22

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 25 of 49

Exhibit 14: Estimated Population of New Entrants of Exposed Workers
Cohort 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Number of Workers 1,270,620 6,010,800 2,575,820 1,554,760 1,485,040 1,617,960 1,643,220 1,369,758 195,152 169,569 95,121 41,872 21,480 2,866

Sources: Nicholson et al (1982), U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, and U.S. Department of Labors Bureau of Labor Statistics.

d) Temporal Distribution of the Living Population To estimate the living population over time, first, at my direction, NCI staff annualized the five-year cohort data by industry and then distributed the new entrants by age and duration of employment by industry.39 Second, NCI staff converted the age-distributed new entrant cohorts into a living population over time by using the mortality data compiled by the Social

39

New entrants for 1935-1973 are those estimated by Nicholson Table XII at 283 excluding those in auto maintenance, primary and secondary asbestos manufacturing. Note that the data have been smoothed and annualized by industry.

Page 23

Case 1:05-cv-00059-JHR

Document 27

Filed 04/26/2005

Page 26 of 49

Security Administration40 and excess occupational mesothelioma deaths per year as estimated using the formula published by OSHA.41 I used the aggregate annual living population potentially exposed to asbestos products relevant to T&N as the basis for my estimate of the mesothelioma injuries discussed below. 2. Incidence of Asbestos Related Disease According to standard sources on the subject,42 mesothelioma is a rare cancer of the thin lining surrounding the chest (the pleura) and the abdomen (the peritoneum). It is virtually always fatal, usually within a year or two of diagnosis. Asbestos exposure is the only definitively known cause of mesothelioma, although between 10 and 30 percent of mesotheliomas are idiopathic, occurring in individuals with no known exposure to asbestos.43 Exposure to asbestos can cause lung cancer, particularly among workers who smoke. Several other cancers have been attributed to asbestos exposure, although there has been dispute over medical causation. The most commonly claimed "other cancers" include stomach, colorectal, esophageal, laryngeal, and pharyngeal. Asbestosis is a form of fibrosis, a nonmalignant scarring of the lungs and their surrounding membrane resulting from a reaction to the presence of fibers or dust. Asbestosis is a chronic disease that can result in shortness of breath, and in the most serious cases, disability and death. However, it can also be asymptomatic or only mildly impairing. Pleural plaques is a scarring of the pleura, the lining that covers the inside of the chest and the outside of the lung. People exposed to asbestos may have plaques with no diminished pulmonary function or other clinical symptoms. a) Mesothelioma Incidence To estimate and project the number of mesothelioma deaths, a mesothelioma incidence formula was applied to the population of exposed workers living in each year. The mesothelioma incidence formula used is based upon an OSHA document from November 1983.44 The mesothelioma formula used is not the same formula used in the 1982 original

40 41

Period Life Tables in 2004 OASDI Trustees Report dated March 23, 2004. 1983 OSHA regulations. The excess