Continuing our two-part series on Bermuda Form policies, John Ellison, Richard Lewis and Catherine Lewis return to discuss how policyholders can perfect their coverage and handle the dispute resolution process. ----more---- Transcript: Intro: Hello, and welcome to Insured Success, a podcast brought to you by Reed Smith's Insurance Recovery lawyers from around the globe. In this podcast series, we explore trends, issues, and topics of interest affecting commercial policyholders. If you have any questions about the topics discussed in this podcast, please contact our speakers at insuredsuccess@reedsmith.com. We'll be happy to assist.  John: Greetings, everyone. Thanks for joining us again for another session of Insured Success. This is part two of our podcast on the Bermuda Form, and today we are focusing on perfecting the coverage available under the Bermuda Form coverage and how to deal with the dispute resolution process. We've already covered the history of the form and key policy terms and coverage issues in our part one podcast, but now we're on to how the policy actually works and how you can put it to use. Joined today by two Lewises, Richard in New York and Catherine in London. And without further ado, I'll turn it over to you, Rich.  Richard: Okay. We're going to talk a little bit about some of the issues that we've seen at the claim side from the manner in which the program is structured. As we covered, I think, in the first one, the limits of Bermuda Form policies are huge. A program can have hundreds of millions of dollars in limits. And so are the retentions. They can be, I think when the policies first came out, they were 25 to 50. And a lot of policy holders have up to a hundred million dollars in retentions. And what will often happen is a policy holder will buy different products, whether it be captive insurance or actual domestic GL insurance and put that in their retention. And this can lead to some issues. The first issue being, as we covered in the first podcast, that the trigger of the occurrence-first reported policies, the Bermuda Form policies, is notice of an occurrence or notice of an integrated occurrence during the annual period. The problem would be if the policyholder in the retention purchase GL insurance that's triggered on a different mechanism, either an occurrence policies or claims made policies. Occurrence policies are policies that are generally triggered by injury during the policy period. And the issue you can see that may occur, and we've seen it many, many times, is that, you know, the policyholder gives notice in say 2005 of an integrated occurrence or an occurrence under its Bermuda Form policies. And there have been problems with this, you know, say a product over a 10-year period with injuries triggering a 10-year period in the occurrence policies. And so what the Bermuda Form carrier will say is that I'm excess not only of the retention in my year 2005, but I'm also excess of all the other limits that were recoverable under the occurrence policies from years 1995 to 2005. So I'm excess of 10 retentions. There's language you can use in your occurrence first report or in your occurrence policies, either like a deeming clause or something that deems only one year to be triggered. Similar issues occur with claims made policies, although generally claims made policies have a batching mechanism where only one year is triggered. Unfortunately, if the first claim came in in say 2003 and you give notice of integrated occurrence in 2004, the same issue can occur. The Bermuda Form carrier will say that I'm excess of two retentions. The other big problem that we've seen a lot is where the underlying coverage has defense costs outside the limit. Obviously, in these mass tort cases that implicate Bermuda form coverage, the defense costs can be massive. And a lot of those defense costs are incurred before there's any settlements or judgments. And if for some reason, the coverage and