Insurance, was the target of a writ filed this week in Supreme Court by Belvedere's former vice president and treasurer, Ms Vanessa Ellen (Johnson) Thomas.

The writ is the latest action in a long-running legal battle between Ms Thomas and Belvedere, a company that has been in run-off for almost a year.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court struck out her petition to wind up Belvedere's parent, Caliban Holdings Ltd., calling the petition "an abuse of process''.

Then Chief Justice, Sir James Astwood, in his June 4, 1993 judgment agreed with Belvedere that the true motive behind the (then) Ms Johnson's winding up petition was "to exert undue pressure on the company to have Belvedere settle or compromise the petitioner's claim against Belvedere''.

Sir James added: "She has a problem, no doubt, with O'Connor, but it does not seem to me that the company is conducting its affairs in such a manner oppressive to the petitioner or to any other members of the company.

"She is using the petition to try to compel the company to purchase her shares. It is my opinion that she has no enforceable contract with the company whereby the company should be compelled to purchase her shares.'' Ms (Johnson) Thomas was one of seven members of senior management who bought out Belvedere in 1989. She reportedly left Belvedere, after 14 years, under acrimonious circumstances.

She and the company have been at legal loggerheads ever since, with the parent, Caliban, refusing to buy her 5,000 shares, as she believed it was obligated to do.

She had claimed that Mr. O'Connor had reneged on an agreement to give her a further 1,000 shares of Belvedere, which she also wanted the company to buy.

She asked the court to have Mr. O'Connor transfer the 1,000 shares, order Caliban to buy all her shares and have Caliban turn over its unaudited management accounts and financial statements.

Sir James wrote in his judgment: "With regard to her allegations that O'Connor had reneged on their option agreement, it would appear to me this is a matter which does not concern the company per se.

"It involves an officer of the company in his private dealings with the petitioner and, in my view, the company should not be brought in unnecessarily in a dispute between them.'' Belvedere officials placed the solvent company into run-off because of the small capitalisation of the firm in relation to other reinsurers.

The company determined the reinsurance marketplace was no longer an attractive place to be among highly-capitalised competitors. The firm has been working toward the settlement of its liabilities.