From: ben.jacoby@enron.com
To: chris.booth@enron.com
Cc: james.studdert@enron.com, ben.jacoby@enron.com, james.bouillion@enron.com, kay.mann@enron.com, carlos.sole@enron.com, andrew.edison@enron.com
Date: 2001-05-17 21:18:00+00:00
Subject: Re: SWPC 501D5A Generator Damager onboard M/V: INDUSTRIAL BRIDGE

I think ultimately this is likely a case of an insurance company not wanting 
to reasonably analyze the claim as regards Chris' point below.


   
	Enron North America Corp.
	
	From:  Chris Booth @ ENRON                           05/17/2001 04:49 PM
	

To: James P Studdert/ENRON@enronXgate
cc: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, James L Bouillion/Enron@EnronXGate, Kay 
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Carlos Sole/NA/Enron@Enron, Andrew 
Edison/NA/Enron@Enron 
Subject: Re: SWPC 501D5A Generator Damager onboard M/V: INDUSTRIAL BRIDGE  

Jim,

I would suggest that we arrange for another inspection of the generator at 
the Westinghouse facility here in Houston.  I would suggest that Westinghouse 
bring additional experts and would also suggest that the insurance company 
send an additional surveyor.  I firmly believe that Mr Newell does not 
appreciate complexity and of the generator and all the electrical properties 
of the insulation system and he is not going to change his mind.

I will defer to Ben for final direction.

Chris



From: James P Studdert/ENRON@enronXgate on 05/17/2001 04:15 PM
To: Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT, Chris Booth/NA/Enron@Enron
cc: James L Bouillion/ENRON@enronXgate, Andrew Edison/NA/Enron@Enron, Kay 
Mann/Corp/Enron@Enron, Carlos Sole/NA/Enron@Enron, James P 
Studdert/ENRON@enronXgate 

Subject: SWPC 501D5A Generator Damager onboard M/V:  INDUSTRIAL BRIDGE

Have just talked with adjuster again, and she has preliminary verbal report 
from surveyor who says that drawings merely confirm his prior contention that 
this generator was NOT a total loss at the time of the loss, but that further 
inspection of the unit would be necessary to prove otherwise.  

The comments from Andrew Edison about pressing SWPC on their responsibilities 
and ownership of the unit, this has previously been expressed by the adjuster 
to Jim Bouillion.  She definitely would like to have a sit down meeting with 
Enron people only, not SWPC at this time,  to discuss options and where we go 
from here.  She still hasn't signed the CA, but that is not necessary as she 
is not looking at the drawings and looking at them by her is not necessary 
for the purpose of a meeting with Enron.  

I did not check her availability for a meeting at this time because my 
schedule for Mon-Tues is still up in the air, and Jim Bouillion has a Mon-Wed 
meeting with our captive insurer in Vermont and would not be available before 
Thursday.  Do we collectively want to go forward with the sit down meeting 
with the adjuster, and if yes, who all needs to be involved and what are 
their availabilities?

Concerning the VALUE of the generator, the declared value of the entire 
shipment was $24,506,000.  There is no breakdown on the paperwork I have (or 
the broker) that puts a separate value on just the generator.  Thus I guess 
someone either has that or SWPC can provide that information.  The policy is 
not a "replacement cost value"  policy nor an "actual cash value" policy, but 
a "valued" policy.  What that means is we get paid what ever we declared the 
value to be CIF + 10%.  Hence the need to know what part of the $24,506,000 
is the "value" of the generator.

I await further instructions as to how you want to proceed.