UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, INC. 

ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY 

SETTLEMENT TRUST, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

 

 Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 02-CV-4360-RBS 

MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF ARMSTRONG WORLD INDUSTRIES, 

INC. ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY SETTLEMENT TRUST IN 

OPPOSITION TO REQUEST OF DEFENDANT 

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY FOR BIFURCATION

I. INTRODUCTION

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Liberty Mutual”) has moved under Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 42 to bifurcate this case into a “liability” phase and a “damages” phase. Such an evidentiary 

distinction is not possible in this case. Rather, the evidence of “damages” that Liberty Mutual 

seeks to exclude from the “liability” phase of this case is inextricably intertwined with the 

evidence that the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust 

(the “Trust”) will offer to prove Liberty Mutual’s liability. Thus, Liberty Mutual has not 

established (as Rule 42 requires) that bifurcation would promote judicial economy and would not 

prejudice the Trust. The motion therefore should be denied. 

The key issue in this case is whether the Trust’s liability for asbestos-related bodily injury 

claims arose from the installation of asbestos-containing insulation materials rather than the 

manufacture or sale of such materials. The expert testimony that Liberty Mutual seeks to 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 1 of 28
 -2-

exclude bears directly on this issue. That testimony will show that a large percentage of the 

asbestos-related liabilities that the Trust inherited from its predecessor, Armstrong World 

Industries, Inc. (“Armstrong”), results from exposures to asbestos during the installation, not the 

manufacture or sale, of asbestos-containing insulation materials by Armstrong and its whollyowned subsidiary. This evidence goes to the heart of this litigation: Liberty Mutual’s liability 

for hundreds of thousands of bodily injury claims arising from asbestos exposure during such 

installation. 

The specific expert testimony that Liberty Mutual seeks to exclude involves two distinct 

but related opinions that will be offered by a single “estimation expert”: (i) an estimation of the 

percentage of asbestos-bodily injury claims that arose out of installation activities (which 

therefore should be classified as “non-products claims” under the Liberty Mutual insurance 

policies at issue); and (ii) an estimation of the magnitude of liability for asbestos-related bodily 

injury claims that the Trust will face as Armstrong’s successor. 

To reach these opinions, the expert will review the data for each claimant to obtain 

information about the sites at which the claimant alleged exposure to asbestos, the dates when 

such exposure occurred, and other relevant information relating to the alleged involvement of 

Armstrong or its wholly-owned subsidiary. The expert will match the times and places that the 

claimants worked with the times and places that Armstrong or its wholly-owned subsidiary 

installed insulation. To estimate the magnitude of the Trust’s future liability, the expert also will 

consider the historical asbestos-related experience of Armstrong, including historical settlement 

values. 

All of this expert evidence forms a crucial part of the Trust’s case-in-chief, which will 

establish that Liberty Mutual is liable for non-products claims under the insurance policies at 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 2 of 28
 -3-

issue. Indeed, this evidence will support the testimony of Armstrong’s former employees that 

Armstrong’s involvement with asbestos-containing insulation materials arose principally from 

the installation activities of Armstrong and its wholly-owned subsidiary. 

The estimation evidence also is directly relevant to Liberty’s course of conduct in 

handling Armstrong’s asbestos bodily injury claims. In handling those claims, Liberty Mutual 

had an obligation to inquire into the nature of the claims to determine whether they should be 

classified as products or non-products claims under the applicable insurance policies. Instead, 

Liberty Mutual decided to classify all asbestos-related claims as products claims. Had Liberty 

Mutual complied with its obligation to handle the claims properly, it would have confirmed that 

the bulk of those claims were non-products claims – which is precisely what the expert evidence 

here will show. 

In sum, the exclusion of expert testimony that Liberty Mutual argues is relevant only to 

the Trust’s claim for “damages” would not promote judicial economy and would prejudice the 

Trust. Trying liability and estimation issues separately, when the evidence required to prove 

them is so intertwined, inevitably will result in (a) discovery disputes over what is a liability 

issue and what is an estimation issue and (b) unnecessary additional costs for a second trial that 

will involve duplicative evidence. More importantly, separate trials would delay for an 

indefinite period of time the awarding of damages to the Trust and the benefits that this money 

would bring to many thousands of asbestos claimants, who presently stand to receive only onefifth of their claimed damages. Thus, Liberty Mutual has failed to satisfy the requirements for 

bifurcation set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 42, and the motion to bifurcate should be denied. 

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

This is an insurance coverage action. The Trust is the successor to the asbestos-related 

liabilities of Armstrong, which for many years installed asbestos-containing insulation materials, 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 3 of 28
 -4-

either directly or through a wholly-owned subsidiary, at commercial and industrial job sites 

across the United States. The Trust is also the successor to Armstrong’s rights to insurance 

coverage for those liabilities. 

This action was brought to determine the Trust’s rights under insurance policies that 

Armstrong purchased from Liberty Mutual that cover the period between 1977 and 1981 (the 

“Policies”). The Policies provide sweeping coverage, obligating Liberty Mutual to pay “all 

sums” that Armstrong became “legally obligated to pay” for “bodily injury, sickness or disease” 

during the policy period caused by an “occurrence,” which the Policies define as an “accident” or 

“continuous or repeated exposure” to injurious conditions. 

Each of the Policies contains an “aggregate limit” that caps the amount that Liberty 

Mutual must pay for certain types of tort claims, which the parties refer to as “products” claims. 

Products claims arise from injuries that happened (a) away from Armstrong’s (or its whollyowned subsidiary’s) premises and (b) after Armstrong (or its wholly-owned subsidiary) had 

completed its installation operations at a job site and relinquished possession of the asbestoscontaining insulation materials it was installing. Thus, a claim arising from exposure to 

asbestos-containing materials that Armstrong manufactured and sold to others would be a 

products claim because any exposure occurred away from Armstrong’s premises and after 

Armstrong had relinquished possession of the materials. 

By contrast, tort claims arising from injuries that began before Armstrong or its whollyowned subsidiary completed an installation operation and relinquished possession of these 

materials are known as “non-products” claims. For example, a claim arising from exposure to 

asbestos-containing insulation materials while Armstrong was installing them would be a nonproducts claim because the exposure occurred before Armstrong had completed its installation 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 4 of 28
 -5-

operation and relinquished possession of the materials. The Policies’ aggregate limits do not 

apply to non-products claims. 

The primary issue in this case is the extent to which Armstrong’s liabilities arise from 

non-products claims. The Trust will prove at trial that the vast majority of Armstrong’s 

liabilities result from exposures to asbestos-containing insulation materials while Armstrong or 

its wholly-owned subsidiary was installing those materials at various job sites, and therefore that 

these are non-products liabilities. To do so, the Trust will offer two types of proof. 

First, the Trust will offer testimony of former Armstrong employees that Armstrong’s 

involvement with asbestos-containing insulation materials consisted primarily of obtaining and 

performing contracts to install these materials at job sites across the United States. The former 

employees will testify that these sites included shipyards, refineries, chemical plants, steel plants, 

and other commercial and industrial sites. At these sites, Armstrong’s contracting division 

would install asbestos-containing materials to insulate pipes and boilers. Armstrong’s former 

employees also will testify that Armstrong manufactured only two asbestos-containing insulation 

products, each of which was sold in small amounts for only a brief period. Outright sales of 

asbestos-containing products accounted for only about ten percent of Armstrong’s revenues from 

asbestos insulation. The remaining ninety percent came from Armstrong’s installation activities. 

The second type of evidence dealing with the non-products issue will be expert testimony 

in the form of a statistical analysis of the percentage of the asbestos claims that have been 

brought against Armstrong and the Trust that are attributable to installation activities. This 

analysis will involve a comprehensive review of the claims brought against Armstrong and the 

Trust, including dates and locations of alleged exposures; a comprehensive review of the 

historical installation activities of Armstrong and its wholly-owned subsidiary, including dates 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 5 of 28
 -6-

and locations; and a cross-referencing of these groups of data to evaluate the extent to which the 

claims are non-products claims. Expert testimony offered in Armstrong’s Alternative Dispute 

Resolution Proceeding against Liberty Mutual and other insurers (the “ADR”) showed that 74% 

of Armstrong’s asbestos liabilities were attributable to such activities, and the Trust plans to 

offer similar expert testimony here. This testimony, which Liberty Mutual claims is relevant 

only to the issue of “damages,” in fact will reinforce and support the testimony of Armstrong’s 

former employees regarding Armstrong’s historical installation activities. 

If this expert testimony is excluded, an essential portion of the Trust’s proof will not be 

heard in the “liability” phase of this case. The fact witnesses who will be testifying about this 

issue will be testifying about events that occurred from the 1930s through the 1960s. The 

statistical analysis will go the heart of the credibility of these former employees and will confirm 

the accuracy of their testimony. 

Moreover, the expert estimation evidence is relevant to Liberty Mutual’s assertions and 

credibility because this evidence bears directly on Liberty Mutual’s course of conduct in 

handling Armstrong’s asbestos-related bodily injury claims in the 1970s and 1980s. If Liberty 

Mutual had complied with its obligation to investigate claims to determine whether they should 

be classified as products or non-products claims, it would have found that a large percentage of 

Armstrong’s claims arose out of installation activities. 

III. ARGUMENT

A court may order separate trials “in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or 

when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). “A 

defendant seeking bifurcation has the burden of presenting evidence that a separate trial is proper 

in light of the general principle that a single trial tends to lessen the delay, expense and 

inconvenience to all parties.” McCrae v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 97 F.R.D. 490, 491 (E.D. 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 6 of 28
 -7-

Pa. 1983); see also Zurich Ins. Co. v. Health Sys. Integration, Inc., No. Civ. A. 97-4994, 1998 

WL 211749, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 1998) (same); Reading Tube Corp. v. Employers Ins. of 

Wausau, 944 F. Supp. 398, 404 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (party requesting bifurcation must prove “that it 

is necessary”). 

“Separation of issues for trial is not to be routinely ordered.” James v. Interstate Credit 

& Collection, Inc., No. Civ. A. 03-CV-1037, 2005 WL 2989305, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 2, 2005) 

(Surrick, J.) (citing Lis v. Robert Packer Hospital, 579 F.2d 819, 824 (3d Cir. 1978)). On the 

contrary, “bifurcation is an infrequent exception.” Nathanson v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., No. 01-

CV-3377, 2001 WL 1392165, at *1 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 7, 2001) (citing 9 Wright & Miller, Federal 

Practice and Procedure § 2388 at 474 (2d ed. 1994)). Liberty Mutual has failed to demonstrate 

that this case constitutes the “infrequent exception.” 

A. Liberty Mutual Has Failed To Meet Its Burden To Establish That 

Bifurcation Will Promote Judicial Economy.

Liberty Mutual has not established that “judicial economy would be promoted” by 

bifurcation. James, 2005 WL 2989305, at *1. As the court stated in McCrae, bifurcation is “an 

extraordinary measure to be used where it is clearly economical.” 97 F.R.D. at 494. 

Separating the liability and damages phases of this case will not be “clearly economical.” 

There is significant overlap in the evidence that the Trust will present as to all counts in the First 

Amended Complaint, which will result in the Trust having to introduce much of the same 

evidence at both the first and second trials if bifurcation is allowed. Counts One to Six and Eight 

of the First Amended Complaint, the Trust’s so-called “liability” claims, seek declarations 

regarding the existence and extent of the Trust’s rights to coverage for non-products asbestos 

claims under all of the Policies. Count Seven of the First Amended Complaint, the so-called 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 7 of 28
 -8-

“damages” claim, seeks an award of damages under the 1977 Policy based on Liberty Mutual’s 

breach of its obligation to provide coverage for non-products asbestos claims under that Policy. 

In order to establish Liberty Mutual’s liability under all the Policies – including the 1977 

Policy – the Trust will present evidence regarding the nature and amount of installation 

activities, the times and places that insulation was installed, the types of asbestos-related diseases 

that resulted, and the claims that have been asserted by persons exposed to asbestos-containing 

insulation materials during the installation work. The Trust will bolster this evidence with expert 

testimony analyzing the claims and describing the extent to which claimants allege exposures to 

asbestos-containing insulation materials at the times and places that Armstrong and its whollyowned subsidiary were installing insulation. The Trust would have to offer the same evidence in 

support of its estimation of damages. 

Indeed, In re Federal-Mogul Global, Inc., 330 B.R. 133 (D. Del. 2005), a decision that 

Liberty Mutual cites for the proposition that expert estimation of damages is “complex” (Liberty 

Mut. Mem. at 2), demonstrates that the estimation-related expert testimony is directly relevant to 

liability issues. Specifically, in estimating the value of existing and future claims in In re 

Federal-Mogul, the experts and the court considered (1) the nature of the asbestos diseases 

alleged in the pending claims, (2) the history of the company and the claims asserted against it, 

(3) the company’s litigation strategy, (4) historical settlement values, and (5) trends in litigation 

against asbestos companies. 300 B.R. at 145-49, 159-61. 

This type of evidence is equally relevant to whether Liberty Mutual is liable for the nonproducts asbestos claims under the Policies. Indeed, Liberty Mutual admits as much by 

conceding that it “does not seek to defer any fact discovery of evidence relating to the nature or 

quantity of the claims against Armstrong, and [that] the Trust will be free to develop and present 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 8 of 28
 -9-

all such evidence that is relevant and admissible to resolve the question whether coverage exists 

for such claims.” (Liberty Mut. Mem. at 2.) If the factual evidence regarding the nature and 

quantity of claims is relevant and admissible, expert evidence regarding the nature and quantity 

of claims is equally so. 

Liberty Mutual nonetheless argues that the complexity of claims estimation justifies 

bifurcation. Case law makes clear, however, that complexity alone does not suffice to justify 

bifurcation. See, e.g., Rodin Props.-Shore Mall, N.V. v. Cushman & Wakefield of Penn., Inc., 49 

F. Supp. 2d 709, 721-22 (D.N.J. 1999) (holding that complexity of issues was insufficient to 

warrant bifurcation where duplication of testimony and evidence would result). Nor will 

testimony on the estimation issues be so time-consuming or difficult for the parties to present at 

trial. Liberty Mutual seeks to defer the testimony of only one estimation expert of the Trust, and 

perhaps one of its own, who will base their opinions on methodologies with which the parties 

already have considerable experience in the ADR that preceded this litigation. (Liberty Mut. 

Mem. at 4-5.) 

Liberty Mutual further argues that the Trust’s expert estimation of the Trust’s future 

liability is irrelevant and improper, but this argument is meritless. Liberty Mutual contends that 

expert claims estimation is unnecessary because, under Fuller-Austin Insulation Co. v. Highlands 

Ins. Co., 38 Cal. Rptr. 3d 716, 741-46 (Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2006), an insurer’s liability is not 

determined by an estimation of future liability. Liberty Mutual fails to disclose, however, that 

this California state appellate court decision is not the lone authority on this issue. The Seventh 

Circuit in UNR Industries, Inc. v. Continental Cas. Co., 942 F.2d 1101 (7th Cir. 1991), reached 

the opposite conclusion. In UNR, the Seventh Circuit held that where a bankruptcy trust operates 

“for the exclusive benefit of the asbestos claimants” and where “their claims would ‘be fully 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 9 of 28
 -10-

settled and satisfied’” by the corpus of the trust, the insurer’s obligations are triggered and its 

liabilities can be determined by an estimation of the magnitude of present and future claims. Id. 

at 1104-05 (citation omitted). That is precisely the Trust’s position in this case. 

Second, to the extent Liberty Mutual is concerned only with severing the estimation of 

future liability, such a bifurcation would be highly inefficient and uneconomical because that 

estimation and the estimation of the non-products percentage involve substantially overlapping 

evidence – i.e., the dates and locations of the claimants’ alleged exposures and relevant 

employment information of the claimants. Requiring the expert to revisit all of that data in a 

second phase would be duplicative and unnecessarily costly. 

For all of these reasons, bifurcation here would be clearly uneconomical because of the 

additional time required for discovery. Bifurcation would extend the discovery period far 

beyond what the parties proposed for the non-bifurcated case. The parties agree that, absent 

bifurcation, all discovery will be completed in fifteen months. See Proposed Unbifurcated Case 

Schedule (attached as Exhibit A to the Joint Case Report). In contrast, Liberty Mutual’s 

bifurcated case schedule (attached as Exhibit B to the Joint Case Report) provides a thirteenmonth period just for discovery regarding liability, plus an unspecified amount of time for 

discovery regarding damages. Finally, bifurcation would create discovery disputes about 

whether overlapping evidence is “liability” or “damages” evidence, as well as additional costs 

for a second trial that would involve duplicative evidence. 

In such circumstances, where issues of liability and damages are inextricably intertwined, 

courts do not hesitate to rule against bifurcation. For example, in Welcker v. Smithkline 

Beckman, 746 F. Supp. 576 (E.D. Pa. 1990), an age and sex discrimination case, the court held 

that bifurcation was inappropriate because “[m]any of the issues and testimony relate to both 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 10 of 28
 -11-

liability and damages” and thus “bifurcation would result in duplicative testimony, rather than a 

saving of time.” Id. at 583; see also, e.g., Doebler’s Penn. Hybrids, Inc. v. Doebler, No. 4:CV03-1079, 2006 WL 3325607, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 30, 2006) (denying motion to bifurcate where, 

inter alia, “there is likely to be considerable overlap in testimony as to liability and damages by 

the key witnesses”).1

The intertwining of evidence regarding liability and damages in this case distinguishes it 

from Koch v. First Niagara Risk Mgmt., Inc., Nos. 04-4711, 05-6696, 2006 WL 2794166, at *2 

(E.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2006) (cited in Liberty Mut. Mem at 13.). While the Koch court granted 

bifurcation, it nevertheless acknowledged the rule that bifurcation should be denied “‘when the 

evidence on the two subjects is overlapping or the liability and damages issues are so intertwined 

that efficiency will not be achieved or confusion may result from any attempt at separation.’” Id. 

at *2 (quoting 9 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 2d § 2390 at 502 

(1995)). The court in Koch found that “the issue of the defendants’ alleged negligence . . . [was] 

wholly distinct from the issue of the individual damages of the twenty plaintiffs,” since the 

damages evidence would have involved the testimony of twenty plaintiffs regarding their 

individual medical histories and current conditions. Id. (emphasis added); see also Goldman v. 

Radioshack Corp., No. Civ. A. 03-0032, 2005 WL 1155751, at *1-2 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2005) 

(cited in Liberty Mut. Mem. at 13) (granting bifurcation only after finding that “the standards 

 

1 Accord Rodin Properties-Shore Mall, 49 F. Supp. 2d at 721-22 (ruling that, even where the 

issues are “moderately complex” and denying bifurcation will prolong discovery period, such 

concerns are outweighed by the need to avoid “duplicative testimony and evidence” and the need 

to encourage settlement); Vichare v. AMBAC Inc., 106 F.3d 457, 466 (2d Cir. 1996) (affirming 

denial of bifurcation where “issues of liability and damages are intertwined,” “[s]everal of the 

same witnesses would have to be called [twice],” and jury would not be prejudiced by unitary 

trial). 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 11 of 28
 -12-

and evidence required to prove liability and damages were entirely different” and that a decision 

not to bifurcate might prejudice the defendant). 

Here, by contrast, the liability issues are not “wholly distinct” from the damages issues. 

Cf. Koch, 2006 WL 2794166, at *2. To the contrary, as shown above, the liability and damages 

issues “‘are so intertwined that efficiency will not be achieved’” if bifurcation is granted. Id.

(citation omitted). 

In sum, bifurcation inevitably will result in increased litigation costs, wasting of judicial 

resources, and a lengthy postponement of a final decision on Liberty Mutual’s obligation to pay 

the claims of many thousands of asbestos claimants. Accordingly, Liberty Mutual’s request for 

bifurcation should be denied. See James, 2005 WL 2989305, at *1 (denying defendant’s motion 

for bifurcation in part because defendant failed to demonstrate that judicial economy would be 

served). 

B. Bifurcation Would Prejudice the Trust By Preventing It From Presenting Its 

Entire Liability Case and By Causing Substantial Delay and Expense.

Liberty Mutual also has failed to meet its “burden of demonstrating that . . . no party 

would be prejudiced by separate trials,” as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b). See James, 2005 

WL 2989305, at *4 (citing John Middleton, Inc. v. Swisher Int’l Inc., No. Civ. A. 03-3908, 2004 

WL 792762, *1 (E.D. Pa., April 8, 2004)). In fact, the Trust would be severely prejudiced in 

numerous ways if the Court should grant bifurcation. 

First, the Trust would be prevented from presenting the entirety of its evidence on the 

liability issue at one time. This, in itself, may adversely impact the Trust’s ability to obtain a 

verdict in its favor on liability. 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 12 of 28
 -13-

Second, because the evidence needed to prove liability and damages substantially 

overlaps, discovery disputes regarding the line that divides liability discovery and damages 

discovery will abound. 

Third, it will certainly require much more time for the Trust to obtain a damage verdict if 

the trials are separated, and the delay may prevent some witnesses from testifying. Since the 

period of the claimants’ exposure to asbestos extends back more than fifty years and the Policies 

were issued decades ago, many of the fact witnesses are elderly and may not be alive or well 

enough to provide testimony in two separate proceedings. 

Fourth, unnecessary delay in reaching a conclusion in this case will further delay the 

Trust’s ability to provide the maximum payment possible to those claimants with meritorious 

claims. The fact that the Trust “has substantial financial resources” does not mean that the Trust 

and the asbestos claimants will not be prejudiced, as Liberty Mutual argues. (Liberty Mut. Mem. 

at 2.) There are hundreds of thousands of asbestos claimants. At present, the Trust can afford to 

pay only 20% of the value of each meritorious claim. See Letter from Trust to Prospective 

Claimant or Claimant Counsel, May 11, 2007, at 3, available at http://www.armstrongworld 

asbestostrust.com/files/AWI%20POC%20Instructions%20v5.pdf (“The current payment 

percentage is 20%.”) (attached hereto as Exhibit 1). If bifurcation is granted, the Trust will have 

to incur additional litigation costs to present much of the same evidence at two separate trials, 

potentially reducing further the amount that can be paid to claimants. 

C. Liberty Mutual’s Alleged “Substantial and Dispositive Defenses to 

Coverage” Are Not Relevant to Bifurcation.

Liberty Mutual’s argument that bifurcation should be granted because claims estimation 

will be unnecessary if Liberty Mutual prevails on its “substantial and dispositive defenses to 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 13 of 28
 -14-

coverage” (Liberty Mut. Mem. at 8) is contrary to well-established law that bifurcation may not 

be based on a defendant’s belief in the merits of its own defenses. 

In James v. Interstate Credit & Collection, Inc., this Court rejected the very argument 

that Liberty Mutual now raises. In denying the defendant’s request for bifurcation in James, this 

Court expressly stated that, “while a finding against Plaintiff on liability would obviate the 

necessity for proof of damages, such is the case with every civil case in this courthouse.” 2005 

WL 2989305, at *2 (citation omitted). Similarly, in Reading Tube, the court rejected the 

defendant insurer’s argument that bifurcation of liability and damages was warranted because, 

inter alia, there would be no need to address damages if the policyholder failed to prove liability. 

944 F. Supp. at 404 (“Neither can Wausau successfully argue that it should prevail on its motion 

for separate trials because it believes that Reading Tube will not be able to meet its burden of 

establishing liability, and it wishes to avoid issues of damages altogether.”); see also Innovative 

Office Prods., Inc. v. Spaceco Inc. No. 05-04037, 2006 WL 1340865, at *2 (E.D. Pa. May 15, 

2006) (“[T]he validation of this type of self-serving argument, without more, would permit all 

defendants in all cases to sever liability from damages.”) (citation omitted); McCrae, 97 F.R.D. 

at 492 (“A determination on the merits of the defense is neither required nor appropriate at this 

time [in ruling on a defendant’s bifurcation motion].”); accord Zurich Ins. Co., 1998 WL 

211749, at *3 (denying insurer’s request to bifurcate policyholder’s liability claims from bad 

faith claims based on insurer’s “assumption that it will win the coverage issue” because “it 

assumes the very thing that [the insurer] must prove”); John Middleton, Inc., 2004 WL 792762, 

at *2 (rejecting defendant’s argument that bifurcation would save time and expense of damages 

discovery and trial if defendant prevailed on liability). 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 14 of 28
 -15-

Nor does Nyazie v. Kennedy, No. Civ. A. 97-0120, 1998 WL 472504 (E.D. Pa. July 27, 

1998), which Liberty Mutual cites (Liberty Mut. Mem. at 7), support bifurcation. In Nyazie, the 

court found that “bifurcation offer[ed] substantial benefits regardless of who prevails on 

liability.” Id. at *3 n.4. The sole liability issue in Nyazie was “very narrow” and concerned 

whether the governmental defendants could be held liable for the death of a teenager who fell in 

the Potomac River because of the defendants’ “alleged failure to provide a brochure [regarding 

the hazardous rocks overlooking the river] to plaintiffs on the day of the accident.” Id. at *2. 

The court ruled that bifurcation was appropriate because a shorter liability trial would benefit all

parties – the other Nyazie children were young and many witnesses would not be necessary for 

the damages issue – and the damages issue was clearly severable from and would involve 

entirely different evidence than the liability issue. Id. at *3. Here, by contrast, Liberty Mutual 

does not (and cannot) claim that all parties or the Court would benefit from bifurcation if the 

Trust prevails on liability, or that the Trust would benefit in any way from excluding the expert 

estimation testimony from the liability phase. 

In any event, Liberty Mutual will not prevail on its supposedly “substantial and 

dispositive defenses.” (Liberty Mut. Mem. at 8.) The Trust has numerous factual and legal 

arguments that rebut those defenses, including the expert estimation evidence, which is directly 

relevant to Liberty Mutual’s course of conduct in handling Armstrong’s asbestos bodily injury 

claims as well as the claims of other similar policyholders. Liberty Mutual had an obligation to 

inquire into the nature of Armstrong’s claims to determine whether they should be classified as 

products or non-products claims. Had Liberty Mutual complied with that obligation, it would 

have confirmed that (as the expert testimony will show) most of those claims arose out of 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 15 of 28
 -16-

exposure during the installation activities of Armstrong or its wholly-owned subsidiary, and 

therefore should have been treated as non-products claims. 

Thus, Liberty Mutual cannot rely on its defenses as a justification for improperly limiting 

the Trust’s proof of liability and forestalling indefinitely a crucial portion of the Trust’s liability 

case. 

D. The Cost of Expert Claims Estimation Does Not Justify Bifurcation.

Finally, Liberty Mutual argues for bifurcation on the grounds that expert claims 

estimation will be “extraordinarily costly.” (Liberty Mut. Mem. at 1.) This argument cannot 

support bifurcation. Liberty Mutual has spent vast sums of money over the last decade fighting 

to avoid covering the non-products claims at issue. For Liberty Mutual to complain now that 

retention of a claims estimation expert would be “extraordinarily costly” is meritless. The cost 

involved in retaining such an expert pales in comparison to the litigation costs that Liberty 

Mutual has incurred in an effort to avoid its obligations under the Policies. 

Moreover, to the extent Liberty Mutual’s argument relies on the fact that the Trust will 

expend its resources on expert testimony, that argument also is meritless. The Bankruptcy Court 

found that $3.1 billion is a reasonable approximation of Armstrong’s present and future liability 

for asbestos-related personal injury claims, In re: Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 348 B.R. 

111, 136 (D. Del. 2006), and the Trust will show that the bulk of that liability is for non-products 

claims. The cost to the Trust of obtaining an estimation expert is small relative to the total 

amount of insurance coverage sought by the Trust to pay the claims of hundreds of thousands of 

claimants. 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 16 of 28
 -17-

IV. CONCLUSION

Delay has been Liberty Mutual’s modus operandi for over a decade as it has fought 

coverage of Armstrong’s asbestos-related bodily injury claims. Now that the litigation is on a 

schedule that will lead to a trial within the next two years, it comes as no surprise that Liberty 

Mutual would seek to require the Trust to split its case-in-chief and postpone claims estimation 

to a second phase. For the foregoing reasons, this Court should deny defendant Liberty Mutual 

Insurance Company’s request for bifurcation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: November 21, 2007 /s/ Stephen A. Madva 

Stephen A. Madva 

Mary F. Platt 

Steven Pachman 

Dave Frankel 

MONTGOMERY, MCCRACKEN, 

WALKER & RHOADS, LLP 

123 South Broad Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19109 

Tel: (215) 772-1500 

Fax: (215) 772-7620 

/s/ Jerome C. Randolph 

Jerome C. Randolph 

Mark A. Packman 

Alyson A. Foster 

GILBERT RANDOLPH LLP 

1100 New York Avenue, NW 

Suite 700 

Washington, DC 20005 

Tel: (202) 772-2200 

Fax: (202) 772-3333 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 17 of 28
Exhibit 1

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 18 of 28
Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust

May 11, 2007

Dear Prospective Claimant or Claimant Counsel,

The Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust (“the Trust”) has

been established under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code to resolve all “Asbestos Personal Injury

Claims” as defined in the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Plan of Reorganization ("the Plan")

caused by exposure to asbestos-containing products for which Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

("AWI”) and its predecessors, successors, and assigns have legal responsibility ("PI Trust Claims"), as

provided in and required by the Plan and by the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal

Injury Settlement Trust Agreement ("PI Trust Agreement"). The Trust is organized to provide fair,

equitable and substantially similar treatment for all personal injury claims that may presently exist or

arise in the future.

The Trust is commencing its operations and will begin receiving claims on Monday, May 14,

2007 at 10:00 AM EST. The materials necessary to file a claim with the Trust, including Claim

Forms, the Trust Distribution Procedures (the “TDP”) and associated materials, are included in

this package. Copies of Claim Forms as well as these instructions and other relevant documents

and reference material also are available on the Trust’s website

(www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com), and may be downloaded at any time.

This instruction letter is intended to summarize certain significant issues related to filing a personal

injury claim with the Trust. Nothing in this letter is intended to replace or modify the requirements

of the Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Distribution

Procedures ("TDP"). All claimants are encouraged to read thoroughly and understand the TDP

(enclosed) before filing a claim with the Trust.

Ordering of Claims:

Pursuant to Section 5.1(a)(1) of the TDP, prior to the Initial Claims Filing Date (November 14, 2007),

claims will be ordered for processing based on the earlier of:

i. The date prior to the Petition Date (December 6, 2000) that the specific claim was either filed

against AWI in the tort system or was actually submitted to AWI pursuant to an

administrative settlement;

ii. The date before the Petition Date that a claim was filed against another defendant in the tort

system if at the time the claim was subject to a tolling agreement with AWI;

iii. The date after the Petition Date, but before the date claim filing materials were made

available (May 14, 2007), that the asbestos claim was filed against another defendant in the

tort system;

iv. The date after the Petition Date, but before the Effective Date (October 2, 2006), that a Proof

of Claim was filed by the claimant against AWI in AWI’s Chapter 11 case;

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 19 of 28
2

v. The date a ballot was submitted on behalf of the claimant in AWI’s Chapter 11 case on behalf

of the claimant for purposes of voting on the Plan in accordance with the voting procedures

adopted by the Bankruptcy Court; or

vi. The date after the Effective Date, but on or before the Initial Claims Filing Date, that the

claim was filed with the PI Trust

Claims will be paid in the order in which they are evaluated and approved for payment.

Expedited Review (ER) and Individual Review (IR) Claims

Pursuant to Sections 5.3(a) and 5.3(b) of the TDP, a claimant may elect to submit a claim for either

Expedited Review (ER) or Individual Review (IR). The ER process is designed primarily to provide

an expeditious, efficient and inexpensive method for liquidating all categories of PI Trust claims

(except those involving Lung Cancer 2 and all Foreign Claims). ER is a method of review intended

for claims that can be easily verified by the Trust as meeting the presumptive Medical/Exposure

criteria for the relevant disease level. ER will provide qualifying claimants fixed claims payment

subject to the Payment Percentage (see Scheduled Values below). Accordingly, ER provides

claimants with a less burdensome process for pursuing PI Trust claims than the IR process described

below and in Section 5.3(b) of the TDP.

Alternatively, a claimant may elect to have a claim undergo the IR process if the claim does not meet

presumptive Medical/Exposure criteria for any of the Disease Levels in TDP Section 5.3 or to

determine whether the liquidated claims value exceeds the Scheduled Value. The IR Process provides

the claimant with an opportunity for individual consideration and evaluation of the Medical/Exposure

information submitted as well as the liquidated value of the claim. The IR process is intended to result

in payments equal to the liquidated value for each claim multiplied by the Payment Percentage;

however, the liquidated value of any PI Trust claim that undergoes IR may be determined to be less

than the claimant would have received under ER. Because the detailed examination and valuation

process related to IR requires additional time and effort, claimants electing to undergo the IR process

may have a longer waiting period for payment than would have been the case had the claimants

elected the ER process.

Settlement Offers:

Valid ER claims will be paid the following Scheduled Values, multiplied by the Payment Percentage

that is effective at the time of liquidation. Disease Level I claims are not subject to the Payment

Percentage.

Disease Level Scheduled Disease Scheduled Value

VIII Mesothelioma $110,000

VII Lung Cancer 1 $42,500

VI Lung Cancer 2 None

V Other Cancer $21,500

IV Severe Asbestosis $42,500

III Asbestosis/Pleural Disease $9,700

Level III

II Asbestosis/Pleural Disease $3,700

Level II

I Other Asbestos Disease $400

(Cash Discounted Payment)

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 20 of 28
3

The current payment percentage is 20.0%. At this payment percentage, a Mesothelioma claim paid at

scheduled value will receive $22,000, a Lung Cancer Level I claim will receive $8,500, an Other

Cancer claim will receive $4,300, etc. The payment percentage is subject to adjustment by the

Trustees under the terms of the TDP. Payment will be made as soon as practicable after receipt and

review of the completed Claim Forms and receipt of a fully executed release.

Proof Required to Qualify for Payment:

To qualify for payment, a claimant must provide credible medical and exposure evidence and a

submission deemed to be complete by the Trust.

Medical Criteria for Qualification

The medical criteria that a claim must meet to receive an offer for the Scheduled Value are as follows:

Level VIII: Mesothelioma

1. Diagnosis of mesothelioma; and

2. Credible evidence of AWI Exposure (as defined in Section 5.7(b)(3) of the TDP).

Level VII: Lung Cancer 1

1. Diagnosis of a primary lung cancer plus evidence of an underlying Bilateral AsbestosRelated Nonmalignant Disease as defined in Footnote 3 of the TDP;

2. Six months of AWI Exposure prior to December 31, 1982;

3. Significant Occupational Exposure to asbestos as defined in Section 5.7(b)(2) of the

TDP; and

4. Supporting medical documentation establishing asbestos exposure as a contributing

factor in causing the lung cancer in question.

Level VI: Lung Cancer 2

1. Diagnosis of a primary lung cancer;

2. AWI Exposure prior to December 31, 1982; and

3. Supporting medical documentation establishing asbestos exposure as a contributing

factor in causing the lung cancer in question.

Lung Cancer 2 (Level VI) Claims are those that do not meet the more stringent medical an/or

exposure requirements of Lung Cancer 1 (Level VII) claims. All claims in this Disease Level

shall undergo IR. The estimated likely average of the individual evaluation awards for this

category is $15,000, with such awards capped at $50,000 unless the claim qualifies for

Extraordinary Claim treatment.

Level VI Claims that show no evidence of either an underlying Bilateral Asbestos-Related

Nonmalignant Disease or Significant Occupational Exposure may be individually evaluated,

although it is not expected that such claims shall be treated as having any significant value,

especially if the claimant is also a Smoker. In any event, no presumption of validity shall be

available for any claims in this category.

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 21 of 28
4

Level V: Other Cancer

1. Diagnosis of a primary colo-rectal, laryngeal, esophageal, pharyngeal, or stomach cancer,

plus evidence of an underlying Bilateral Asbestos-Related Nonmalignant Disease;

2. Six months AWI Exposure prior to December 31, 1982;

3. Significant Occupational Exposure to asbestos; and

4. Supporting medical documentation establishing asbestos exposure as a contributing

factor in causing the Other Cancer in question.

Level IV: Severe Asbestosis

1. Diagnosis of asbestosis with ILO of 2/1 or greater, or asbestosis determined by

pathological evidence of asbestos, plus (a) TLC less than 65% or (b) FVC less than 65%

and FEV1/FVC ratio greater than 65%;

2. Six months AWI Exposure prior to December 31, 1982;

3. Significant Occupational Exposure to asbestos; and

4. Supporting medical documentation establishing asbestos exposure as a contributing

factor in causing the pulmonary disease in question.

Level III: Asbestosis/Pleural Disease

1. Diagnosis of Bilateral Asbestos-Related Nonmalignant Disease, plus (a) TLC less than

80%, or (b) FVC less than 80% and FEV1/FVC ratio greater than or equal to 65%;

2. Six months AWI Exposure prior to December 31, 1982;

3. Significant Occupational Exposure to asbestos; and

4. Supporting medical documentation establishing asbestos exposure as a contributing

factor in causing the pulmonary disease in question.

Level II: Asbestosis/Pleural Disease

1. Diagnosis of Bilateral Asbestos-Related Nonmalignant Disease;

2. Six months AWI Exposure prior to December 31, 1982; and

3. Five years cumulative occupational exposure to asbestos.

Level I: Other Asbestos Disease (Cash Discount Payment)

1. Diagnosis of Bilateral Asbestos-Related Nonmalignant Disease or an asbestos-related

malignancy other than mesothelioma; and

2. AWI Exposure prior to December 31, 1982.

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 22 of 28
5

Medical Evidence Required to Establish an Asbestos-Related Disease:

All diagnoses of a Disease Level shall be accompanied by either:

i. A statement by the physician providing the diagnosis that at least ten years have elapsed

between the date of first exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products and the

diagnosis, or

ii. A history of the claimant’s exposure sufficient to establish a ten-year latency period.

A finding by a physician after the Effective Date (October 2, 2006) that a claimant’s disease is

“consistent with” or “compatible with” asbestosis shall not alone be treated by the Trust as a

diagnosis.

For Disease Levels I-IV – All diagnoses of nonmalignant asbestos-related disease (Disease Levels

I-IV) shall be based upon a physical examination of the claimant by the physician providing the

diagnosis of the asbestos-related disease

For Disease Levels V-VIII – All diagnoses of asbestos-related malignant disease shall be based

upon either (1) a physical examination of the claimant by the physician providing the diagnosis of

the asbestos-related disease, or (2) a diagnosis of such a malignant Disease Level by a boardcertified pathologist or by a pathologist report prepared at or on behalf of a hospital accredited by

the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (“JCAHO”).

In the case of a claimant who was deceased at the time the claim was filed, all diagnoses of a

nonmalignant asbestos-related disease (Levels I-IV) shall be based upon either:

i. A physical examination of the claimant by the physician providing the diagnosis of the

asbestos-related disease, or

ii. Pathological evidence of the asbestos-related disease, or

iii. In the case of Disease Levels I-III, evidence of Bilateral Asbestos-Related Nonmalignant

Disease and for Disease Level IV, either an ILO reading of 2/1 or greater or pathological

evidence of asbestosis

iv. For either Disease Level III or IV, Pulmonary Function Testing as defined in Footnote 6

of the TDP.

For a detailed description of the medical evidence requirements by Disease Level see TDP

Section 5.7(a). You should review this section of the TDP before filing a claim.

Exposure Criteria for Qualification

Exposure to AWI Asbestos Products and Significant Occupational Exposure

As set forth in Section 5.3(a)(3) of the TDP, to qualify for any Disease Level, the claimant

must demonstrate exposure to an asbestos-containing product manufactured or distributed by

AWI, and for Disease Levels II, III, IV, V and VII, that exposure must be for at least six

months; and (2) for Disease Levels III, IV, V and VII, a claimant must demonstrate

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 23 of 28
6

Significant Occupational Exposure (“SOE”) to asbestos products as described in Section

5.7(b)(2) of the TDP.

Site/Plant Where Exposure Occurred

In Part 3 of the Proof of Claims Form (“POC”) questions 1 through 4 ask about the sites

where the claimant was exposed to asbestos products. In response to these questions, a

claimant must list the sites where he/she was exposed to asbestos products to prove both (1)

exposure to AWI asbestos products, and (2) SOE, if applicable.

There are two ways to demonstrate that AWI asbestos products were at a work site:

1. The claimant worked at a site which is listed on the approved AWIsite list, found on

the website at www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com; or

2. The claimant can establish, through affidavit, invoices, deposition testimony, or other

means as described below in the section “Sufficiency of Evidence” that AWI’s

asbestos products were used at a particular work site. A certification of counsel

alone is not sufficient to establish AWI product at a particular site. However,

certification of counsel is sufficient to satisfy SOE requirements.

Significant Occupational Exposure

As noted above, questions 1 through 4 in Part 3 of the Claim Form seek information

regarding SOE, as well as exposure to AWI asbestos products. Additionally, questions 5 and

6 also relate to SOE. Pursuant to TDP Section 5.7(b)(2), SOE means employment for a

cumulative period of at least five years with a minimum of two years prior to December 31,

1982, in an industry and an occupation in which the claimant (a) handled raw asbestos fibers

on a regular basis; (b) fabricated asbestos-containing products so that the claimant in the

fabrication process was exposed on a regular basis to raw asbestos fibers; (c) altered, repaired

or otherwise worked with an asbestos-containing product such that the claimant was exposed

on a regular basis to asbestos fibers; or (d) was employed in an industry and occupation such

that the claimant worked on a regular basis in close proximity to workers engaged in the

activities described in (a), (b) and/or (c).

If a claimant worked in an occupation/industry listed on the Presumptive SOE Occupations

Rating list, found on the website at www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com, for at least five

years with a minimum of two years prior to December 31, 1982, and if any box other than

“None of the above” is checked in Part 3 question 5, no further evidence of SOE is required.

If the claimant’s occupation/industry is not set forth on the Presumptive SOE Occupations

Rating list, or if the box labeled “None of the above” is checked in POC question 5, then

evidence of the claimant's SOE must be submitted. Evidence of SOE can be demonstrated by

certification of counsel or as set forth below under “Sufficiency of Evidence.”

It is only necessary for a claimant to demonstrate SOE to qualify for Disease Levels III, IV, V

and VII.

Exposure to AWI Asbestos Products

If a claimant has demonstrated in response to question 1 of Part 3 that AWI asbestos products

or activities were present at a site/plant where the injured party worked, the claimant must

then demonstrate exposure to the type of AWI products or activities at that site/plant. This

information must be provided in response to question 7 in Part 3.

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 24 of 28
7

Question 7 in Part 3 of the Claim Form can be answered several ways. If the injured party’s

occupation/industry at that site/plant is on the Presumed Company Exposure List, found on

the website at www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com, simply list that occupation/trade in the

response. Nothing more needs to be provided.

If the occupation/industry at that site is not on the Presumed Company Exposure List, a

description must be provided of the injured party’s exposure to the type of AWI asbestos

products or activities at that site.

If this description is already set forth in documents submitted in response to question 1 in Part

3 of the Claim Form (e.g., claimant affidavit, interrogatory answers, etc.), respond to question

7 by simply referencing the documents.

Sufficiency of Evidence

Where a claimant must demonstrate that AWI asbestos products were at a site/plant, or where

a claimant seeks to demonstrate SOE, such evidence may be established by:

 An affidavit of the injured party (an example is included in the filing instruction)

 An affidavit of a co-worker or the affidavit of a family member in the case of a

deceased claimant

 Invoices

 Construction or similar records

 Sworn statement, interrogatory answers, work history, or deposition

 Other reliable evidence

Releases:

A claimant accepting an offer must execute a full release for all malignancy payments, or a limited

release for nonmalignancy payments. Any claimant who receives a payment for a nonmalignant injury

may file a new personal injury claim for an asbestos-related malignancy that is subsequently

diagnosed. Any additional payments to which such claimant may be entitled shall not be reduced by

the amount of the prior payment for a nonmalignant disease.

How to Initiate a Claim:

If a claimant is qualified and elects to file a claim, he or she must file a complete Claim Form and

submit all supporting documentation indicated.

A sample of the Claim Form is enclosed and may be copied to provide forms for all claimants

represented by a law firm. A claimant must submit the appropriate, fully completed Claim Form,

including all supporting information referenced in the form. To expedite processing, claimants are

encouraged to file electronically by following the instructions at the Trust website

(www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com).

Claims can be filed electronically using the Trust Online system. To do so, download and complete

the E-Filer Agreement (EFA) from the Trust website (www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com). Once

that agreement is executed, a Trust Online user ID and password will be provided to login to the

system. Trust Online supports the ability to enter new claims, edit existing claims, cure deficiencies

on existing claims, upload and view supporting documents and run a variety of reports on filed claims.

These features are designed to simplify and expedite the claim filing process while saving time and

money for all parties. Claimants and counsel are encouraged to use these online filing features.

Claims can be filed in bulk using the Trust Online Bulk Upload Tool or using web services. These

tools support the submission of multiple claims quickly and efficiently. For law firms that have

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 25 of 28
8

claimant data already in electronic form, either tool can be used to send that data to the Trust without

having to retype it into Trust Online or submit paper claims. These tools also support the submission

of supporting document images along with the claim records. Contact the Trust for detailed

instructions on how to use the Bulk Upload Tool or web services at (866) 665-5790.

Finally, using Trust Online it is possible that claim data previously submitted to the Celotex Trust, the

B&W Trust or the USG Trust can be used to expedite the preparation and review of claims for the

AWI Trust. By using claim data already available in the Celotex Trust, B&W Trust or USG Trust

systems, the Trust may expedite the approval of AWI claims. In no situation will using existing data

negatively impact a review, nor will this information be used without the express approval of the

claimant.

Where to Submit Claim Forms:

Electronic claim submissions, including document images, can be filed directly through the Trust

Online system. There is no need to submit paper claims for Trust Online submissions.

However, if paper claims and documents need to be sent to the Trust, they should be addressed to:

Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Settlement Trust

P.O. Box 1079

Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1079

Statutes of limitation on filing a claim:

To be eligible for processing, a claim must meet either:

i. For claims first filed in the tort system against AWI prior to the Petition Date (December 6,

2000), the applicable federal, state, and foreign statute of limitation and repose that was in

effect at the time of the filing of the claim in the tort system, or

ii. For claims not filed against AWI in the tort system prior to the Petition Date, the applicable

federal, state or foreign statute of limitation that was in effect at the time of the filing with the

Trust. However, the running of the relevant statute of limitation may be tolled by a number of

factors (see TDP Section 5.1(a)(2).

Doctors and Medical Facilities:

Section 5.7(a)(2) of the TDP requires that before making any payment the Trust must have reasonable

confidence that the medical evidence provided in support of the claim is credible and consistent with

recognized medical standards. The Trust has determined, based on currently available information,

that medical reports from certain doctors and medical facilities may not meet the reliability standards

of this section. Accordingly, until further notice, the Trust will not accept medical reports from and

will not process claims relying upon medical information from the following doctors and medical

facilities: Dr. James Ballard, Dr. Kevin Cooper (of Pascagoula, Mississippi), Dr. Todd Coulter, Dr.

Andrew Harron, Dr. Ray Harron, Dr. Glynn Hilbun, Dr. Barry Levy, Dr. George Martindale, Dr. W.

Allen Oaks, Netherland & Mason, Inc., Respiratory Testing Services, Inc. and Occupational

Diagnostics.

Questions and Assistance:

If you have questions concerning these filing procedures or forms, you may reach the Trust in a

variety of ways. The Trust has established a Help Line and website to report on the status of Trust

operations and respond to questions. You can reach the Help Line at (800) 708-8925 or at

helpline@armstrongworldasbestostrust.com. The Trust’s website address is

www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com. The Trust also offers convenient web-based training for all

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 26 of 28
9

Trust Online users. The detailed user manual explains how to log onto Trust Online, submit a new

AWI claim, convert an existing Celotex Trust, B&W Trust or USG Trust claim to an AWI claim, how

to link claims, and submit documents. To access these training tools, go to

www.armstrongworldasbestostrust.com and click on the Resources link. Simply download the desired

information and view them at your convenience.

In addition to these resources, the Facility offers in-person training sessions at our Wilmington claims

processing facility. If you or your staff is interested in attending a training session, please contact our

Web Administrator at (866) 665-5790 or websupport@armstrongworldasbestostrust.com.

Sincerely,

The Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust Trustees

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 27 of 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I certify that a copy of the foregoing Memorandum of Plaintiff Armstrong World 

Industries, Inc. Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement Trust in Opposition to Request of Defendant 

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company for Bifurcation was mailed today by U.S. first-class mail, 

postage prepaid, to: 

A. Hugh Scott, Esquire 

Kathleen Cloherty Henry, Esquire 

Kathleen Burdette Shields, Esquire 

Choate, Hall & Stewart 

Two International Place 

Boston, MA 02110 

John C. Sullivan, Esquire 

Four Penn Center 

1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd. 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Attorneys for Defendant 

This document has been filed electronically and is available for viewing and downloading 

from the ECF system. 

Dated: November 21, 2007 /s/ Stephen A. Madva 

Stephen A. Madva 

Case 2:02-cv-04360-RBS Document 69 Filed 11/21/2007 Page 28 of 28