- 30 -
making those payments was to assist the claimants to pay bills
and other expenses that they had difficulty in paying due to the
alleged damage to their business as a result of Benlate, to help
reestablish their businesses, to mitigate losses, and for good-
will. Du Pont made assistance payments to claimants only after
having received their respective claims and after having them
evaluated by Crawford. As a rule of thumb, du Pont limited the
amount of any assistance payment that it made to one-third of the
amount of any anticipated settlement between it and a claimant of
that claimant's claim for damage. Thus, at the time du Pont made
an assistance payment to a claimant, it expected that it would be
paying that claimant an additional amount equal to around twice
as much as the amount of that assistance payment. We believe
that explains why it was expected, and the assistance receipt
provided, that any assistance payment that du Pont had made to a
claimant would be deducted as having been paid from any ultimate
settlement or judgment relating to Benlate claims by that claim-
ant.
In 1991, Mr. Henry began negotiating with du Pont concerning
the damage to his orchid plants caused by Benlate. Around
September or October 1991, a representative of du Pont inspected
the orchid plants in Mr. Henry's possession and informed him that
those plants had been damaged by Benlate. At the end of November
1991, Mr. Henry requested, and at the end of December 1991, Mr.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011