thanx for note.  

ref: section 19.2.1, cargo insurance of the "purchase contract between enron 
equipment procurement company and siemens westinghouse power corporation (a 
siemens company) for one (1) w501d5a gas turbine generator package," 
y2k(6)-2-98 contract, r3 (ct) 03/17/99, provides that:

"Purchaser shall provide or cause to be provided and maintained for the 
period of transportation, in sufficient time so as not to delay Seller's 
transportation of the Equipment, Cargo Insurance for Equipment.  Such 
insurance will be provided as Marine Cargo Insurance on a warehouse to 
warehouse basis insuring Equipment against loss or damage arising from 
customary "all-risk" marine perils (including war, strikes, riots and civil 
commotion) while in transit.  The deductible (the responsibility of Seller) 
shall be Twenty Five Thousand US Dollars ($25,000) for each and every 
physical damage loss.  Purchaser shall provide, or cause to be provided, 
Seller the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Cargo insurance 
policy prior to its placement.  Such review shall occur as soon as 
available.  Seller's review shall be limited to 15 days from Purchaser's 
submission of draft Cargo Policy.  Purchaser shall incorporate or cause to be 
incorporated Seller's suggested changes to the Cargo Policy provided such 
provisions are common, customary, and are reasonable commercially available.  
Such policy shall specify Seller as an additional insured and waive any 
rights of subrogation against Seller under such policy."

where Purchaser is enron.
where Seller is siemens-westinghouse.
where Equipment "shall mean the CT-Unit and all other material and supplies 
to be furnished by Seller pursuant to the Scope of Work."
where CT-Unit "shall mean a nominal 501d5a gas turbine generator econopac 
with generator package with all its ancillary and auxiliary equipment."

hope this helps.  we can fax a cc of this section as needed.  plz advise, 
including names and fax numbers.  also, plz advise if addl info needed.  
regards.  scott.





James P Studdert@ECT
11/30/2000 12:46 PM
To: Scott Laidlaw/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Matthew 
Tezyk/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc: James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: FURTHER UPDATE TO Westinghouse 501D5A Generator Damaged, M/V 
IndustrialBridge.
Project: 
Doc. Nbr.: 

Please see the comments from Ted Rosen below and advise if this can be 
answered.  Thanks.
---------------------- Forwarded by James P Studdert/HOU/ECT on 11/30/2000 
12:41 PM ---------------------------


James P Studdert
11/30/2000 09:23 AM
To: David Marshall/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc: James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT 
Subject: Re: FURTHER UPDATE TO Westinghouse 501D5A Generator Damaged, M/V 
IndustrialBridge.

David, can you come up with the requested documentation, and if there is 
none, can you write an explanatory memo as to how this came down?
---------------------- Forwarded by James P Studdert/HOU/ECT on 11/30/2000 
09:17 AM ---------------------------


"Ted Rosen" <trosen@jwortham.com> on 11/30/2000 09:19:51 AM
To: <James.P.Studdert@enron.com>
cc:  
Subject: Re: FURTHER UPDATE TO Westinghouse 501D5A Generator Damaged, M/V 
IndustrialBridge.


Jim:

Thanks for the reply. Sharron has focused on the comment that the unit has 
not actually been "delivered" to  Enron and that title, ownership, and 
custody are still with SWPC.   She is therefore questioning Enron's insurable 
interest.

I have commented to her that Enron can insure goods titled to another party 
as long as Enron has instructions to insure the goods.  Sharron does not 
dispute this, but has asked if there is any documentary evidence that would 
show that Enron had instructions to insure this cargo. I think we can 
interpret "instructions" liberally.  If there is a purchase order or similar 
agreement that states that Enron is to insure the turbine, that should be 
sufficient.  Would you please ask for this?

Thanks and regards,





Ted Rosen

>>> <James.P.Studdert@enron.com> 11/29/00 11:08AM >>>
Here's the response, finally.
---------------------- Forwarded by James P Studdert/HOU/ECT on 11/29/2000
11:04 AM ---------------------------


Scott Laidlaw@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
11/29/2000 10:24 AM

To:   James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthew
      Tezyk/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dan
      Shultz/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:  FURTHER UPDATE TO Westinghouse 501D5A Generator Damaged, M/V
      Industrial Bridge.

plz see addl comments below in blue; i.e., reflects conversation with mr.
matt tezyk.
regards.  scott.

---------------------- Forwarded by Scott Laidlaw/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT on
11/29/2000 10:13 AM ---------------------------


Scott Laidlaw
11/29/2000 08:38 AM

To:   James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT, Matthew
      Tezyk/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Dan
      Shultz/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Ben Jacoby/HOU/ECT@ECT
cc:
Subject:  Re: Westinghouse 501D5A Generator Damaged, M/V Industrial Bridge.
      (Document link: Scott Laidlaw)

regrets.  i thought that this had been previously responded to.  see below
for comments in red.
regards.  scott.




James P Studdert@ECT
11/28/2000 08:51 PM

To:   Scott Laidlaw/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Matthew
      Tezyk/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject:  Westinghouse 501D5A Generator Damaged, M/V Industrial Bridge.
Project:
Doc. Nbr.:

No one has bothered to respond!  The questions below need to be answered BY
SOMEONE!  Underwriters are growing impatient, and if no response is
forthcoming, they will assume we have withdrawn the claim and close their
file.  Can SOMEONE please respond?
---------------------- Forwarded by James P Studdert/HOU/ECT on 11/28/2000
08:45 PM ---------------------------


James P Studdert
11/15/2000 12:17 PM

To:   Scott Laidlaw/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT, Matthew
      Tezyk/ENRON_DEVELOPMENT@ENRON_DEVELOPMENT
cc:   James P Studdert/HOU/ECT@ECT
Subject:  Westinghouse 501D5A Generator Damaged, M/V Industrial Bridge.

Gentlemen, if I've left out who this should be directed to, please forward
to whomever can provide the answers.

Is Enron Equipment Procurement Co. still pursuing a claim against Enron
cargo insurers?
comment - we probably need to discuss this with ena's ben jacoby so that
you can receive specific guidance.  as i understand it, since enron's
insurance (e.g., marine cargo) is primary, enron will pursue a claim
against the enron cargo insurer.
further comment - the answer remains "yes."  again, must discuss with ena's
ben jacoby because of his commercial involvement/expectations.

If so, I must provide proof of ownership of the damaged generator (other
than an e-mail message).  Please provide ASAP.
comment - what do you need?  while enron has made approx. 95% of the
payments for the gas turbine generator unit, it is likely that ownership
still resides with westinghouse - i.e., it was never delivered per the
equipment purchase contract with enron.  again, what type of documentation
do you need?  does it matter if westinghouse is still in the loop?
further comment - at this time, title, ownership, care, custody and control
remain with westinghouse.  further, westinghouse must continue to be in the
loop because the monies for the damaged might ultimately be paid to them -
i.e., westinghouse provides enron with a new replacement generator; then,
westinghouse receives the insurance money to cover their loss/damaged
generator.

Is the generator to be repaired?
comment - no, the generator is not to be repaired.  instead, a replacement
generator is being manufactured in austria for westinghouse and is to be
delivered to the port of houston in the mid-april01 timeframe.

If so, when and where.
comment - n/a.

Underwriters surveyor needs to examine it when it is taken apart.
comment - n/a.

The surveyor was told when he made an inspection at the Port that a
detailed repair estimate would be provided to him on the other unit that
was damaged, and this would provide a guide as to the type of damage on our
unit.
comment - only the generator was damaged.  the gas turbine is complete and
resides in houston.  i do not understand your comment about damage to
another unit
further comment - the "other unit" does not belong to enron - i.e., it
belongs to another westinghouse client.  plz understand that the "other
unit" was immersed deeper in salt water than our unit.  as a result, its
damage was greater.  in that we are getting a replacement generator, we
have to assume that the "other unit" that was also damaged is also being
replaced.  therefore, it can be inferred that the damage estimate for both
generators are approximately the same.

To date, nothing has been sent to our surveyor.
comment - none.
further comment - we are not sure about your statement.  our understanding
is that you previously both communicated with and sent the accident survey
of westinghouse's underwriter to our surveyor.

As it has been over three months since the unit arrived in Houston in its
damaged condition, if Enron expects to collect from Enron cargo insurers,
we must move forward in providing the information previously requested, or
prejudice Enron's claim to recovery due to lack of cooperation with the
adjuster/surveyor.
comment - noted.