- 30 -
estimates.15 Petitioner offered no contemporaneous documentary
evidence supporting the basis for its add-ons to Tillinghast’s
point estimate. Petitioner introduced into evidence an undated
and untitled document that Maurer contends is a list of
“qualitative factors” that he relied upon to justify petitioner’s
increments to Tillinghast’s point estimates.16 Petitioner has
not established, however, that this list, which Maurer created
after the fact, relates to the years in issue.17 Consequently,
the list is of little probative value. Even if we were to
assume, for sake of argument, that the list accurately reflects
factors that petitioner contemporaneously relied upon in arriving
at its add-ons to Tillinghast’s point estimates, petitioner has
not established that these factors do not duplicate factors that
15 Although David L. Maurer (Maurer) testified that he
selected his estimates of unpaid losses as a point that was “ten
percent above Tillinghast’s initial point estimate”, his
testimony was vague and evasive as to why the unpaid loss
estimates were not in fact exactly 10 percent greater than
Tillinghast’s point estimate, but rather 9.95 percent greater in
1993 and 9.77 percent greater in 1994.
16 The list notes the following “qualitative factors”: A
trend toward increased claims against corporations; possible
liability to the Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund for
settlements or bad faith claims; turnover in clients; pending
tort reform legislation; greater uncertainty with “new states”
and other lines of business recently offered; and increased
litigation resulting from petitioner’s aggressive claims defense.
17 Maurer testified that he did not recall when he prepared
the list, but he believed it was in 1997. He testified that he
did not “recall exactly what period of time * * * [the list]
relates to”. According to his testimony, he spent 10 or 15
minutes putting this document together.
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