David,

       Please be advised that Underwriters' adjuster has agreed that our 
chemist may meet with theirs.  Please so advise Steve Jones, provide him with 
a copy of Underwriters' response to our claim, and have him meet with 
Underwriters' adjuster as soon as possible.

 (Jim, thanks for getting this set up with Underwriters' adjuster so quickly).

       Many thanks.

       Britt

 -----Original Message-----
From:  Davis, Britt  
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 8:58 AM
To: Studdert, James P.
Cc: Sanders, Richard; Collins, Harry; Robison, Michael; Aronowitz, Alan; 
'David.Best@clyde.co.uk'
Subject: In re M/V PACIFIC VIRGO


 
 Jim,

 This will confirm our telephone conference about this matter, in light of 
Underwriters' recent response to our claim.  You will ask Underwriters' 
adjuster for permission for our chemist to speak directly with their chemist 
immediately about the facts.  You will also ask for a meeting to be set up 
for you, our broker, and Underwriters' adjuster to see whether Underwriters 
mean to take a hard line on our claim.

 Interestingly, Underwriters' position seems to be, at least preliminarily, 
and subject to further comment by their chemists, that nothing was wrong with 
our cargo or the ship; the cargo was simply misdescribed as turbine 
fuel-grade condensate by SGS due to flawed testing by SGS at loadport, when 
it was in fact nothing better than crude. Meanwhile, we all noted that 
Underwriters' adjuster included the following statement in her report:  "It 
has not been demonstrated that the oil suffered from inherent vice."  I am 
both pleased and surprised that this was included in Underwriters' report, 
and share David's feeling that the adjuster probably inadvertantly copied 
this from a confidential report from her chemist.  If we can successfully 
hammer at Underwriters' preliminary theory, Underwriters will find it more 
difficult to fall back on an inherent vice defense.

 I await further word from you.  Many thanks for your help.

 Britt