Reforms to the US legal system's handling of asbestos lawsuits still has a chance of getting through this year - or not.

Proposed legislation is currently on the table in the US Senate, but a panel of lawyers and insurance executives yesterday told a group of its peers that the bill may, or may not be, passed by the US Congress and signed into law before the end of the year.

Speaking at the Hawksmere 17th International Reinsurance Congress yesterday, panel speakers walked the audience through the issues - albeit from the insurance industry's perspective with some panellists likening themselves to evangelists - and outlined where the matter stood at both state and federal levels.

Critics of the current legal system have said that presently lawyers as well as those not actually suffering from asbestos-related illnesses are benefiting from excessive court awards at the expense of those who are genuinely afflicted as a result of exposure to the fireproofing and insulation product widely used in US home construction and commercial building projects up to the 1970s.

However, even some stakeholders are not happy with the current draft legislation being considered which would set up a monetary trust that critics claim would put an unfair economic burden on insurers.

They add that it would do so without correcting one of the central issues which is those who have no signs of illness or impairment being awarded rich legal awards.The speakers in yesterday's panel discussion - lawyer David Mendelsohn, head of APH Claims for Equitas Glenn Brace, head of Government Relations for Travelers Timothy Campbell and lawyer John Merrigan - also talked the audience through where tort reform and class action reform measures stood with US lawmakers.

Mr. Merrigan, who openly declared himself as an active Democrat (a party that has been more resistant to these type of reforms than Republicans), said asbestos reform legislation stood some chance of getting approval before Congress broke for the Christmas recess.

But Mr. Merrigan stressed a decision and approval this year, or its getting pushed off to next year or the next, had little to do with the issues but could be said to be "highly political".

The panel agreed that US legislators did see current legal practices as "absurd" and in desperate need of reform.

But politics being what they are, the proposed bill - Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution (FAIR) Act (S.1125), which calls for the set up of a fund holding up to $153 billion to pay asbestos claims, and which has already been approved by the US Senate Judiciary Committee - can only move from the Senate into the House if it gets the Senators vote.

"Basically it is a matter of counting votes. You've got to get 60 in the Senate," Mr. Merrigan said.

Breaking down favour for this reform along party lines, Mr. Merrigan said the right wing were generally supportive of such measures. He added that in the House all but two or three Republican representatives - of 51 in total - could be counted to vote in favour of such a bill.

Democrats, in contrast, were a harder sell with Mr. Merrigan saying that post-campaign finance reform meant the trial bar was a key contributor to the party. He added, however, that some Democrat representatives were becoming alarmed at the "excesses" seen in the tort system and were more likely to be swayed now.

Panel moderator, Mr. Mendelsohn, pointed out examples of that excess including a class action suit against tax accounting firm H&R Block where lawyers reaped $49 million while 7,000 plaintiffs were not awarded money but tax software and the like.

In general, the panel agreed that there had been a shift in consciousness since the first draft of an asbestos reform bill was brought before Congress in 1998.

At that time they said there was little awareness of the situation but there was now general acceptance that the US court system was in a state of near-crisis on the back of hundreds of thousands of asbestos-related cases flooding the system, and leading to a cry from trade unions, corporations and industry groups for reform to the way cases are heard. The insurance industry has been hard hit by asbestos claims with a number of top companies - including Bermuda-based insurance giant ACE Limited - posting significant reserve increases in anticipation of the possibility of future claims. The panel yesterday added that not only insurers, but business in general, was suffering with more than 60 bankruptcies - resulting in the loss of 60,000 US jobs - being the direct result of asbestos suits.