Court this week were taken up with the cross-examination of Michael Owner, who served as an insurance consultant to Bermuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company (BFMIC) and worked alongside company management.

Mr. Owner's background and that of his wife were among the central themes of the first two days testimony, as lawyers for the various parties sought to establish Mr. Owner's qualifications and what he knew about the company's reinsurance accounts with the Weavers, BLUA and other groups.

First to cross-examine Mr. Owner was Richard Millett, representing the interests of 827 shareholders. Mr. Millett focussed his enquiries on the inclusion of legal fees incurred by BFMIC in defending pollution claims.

Mr. Millett took Mr. Owner through a series of documents and spreadsheets Mr.

Owner explained various matters and identified figures, initially without difficulty.

It transpired that Mr. Owner and his wife, Janet, had in 1990 co-authored a report on the state of the Weavers group, with whom BFMIC did considerable business. Mr. Millett was interested in Mrs. Owner's background, which led to a recounting by Mr. Owner of how he had met his wife and what her qualifications were.

Mr. Martin Moore, appearing for the "individual defendants'' -- Michael Collier, the late Charles Collis, and William Cox, Gregory Haycock and Donald Lines -- broke his 70-day silence in making his first direct contribution to the trial in cross-examining Mr. Owner.

Mr. Martin's questions related to pollution claims and what exactly qualified for coverage. Mr. Martin had Mr. Owner explain to the court the ways in which ceding arrangements differed between Weavers and others.

Tom Weitzman, instructed by Hector, Wakefield, Dwyer & Pettingill, appears in the case on behalf of local accountants Cooper & Lines.

Consultant questioned group.

In his cross-examination of Mr. Owner, Mr. Weitzman concentrated on Mr.

Owner's working arrangements at BFMIC -- he was a consultant -- and what he recalled of certain meetings. Mr. Weitzman repeatedly asked questions which would tie the individual directors to certain key pieces of information, but Mr. Owner's memory of events ten years ago did not very often extend to who knew what, or when they knew it.

Typical of much of the interchange was this discussion of whether BFMIC was being misled over an "apparent deterioration'' of the Weavers account.

Mr. Weitzman: "Do you recall a discussion along those lines?'' Mr. Owner: "No, Sir.'' Mr. Weitzman: "Do you recall that people expressed doubt about the reliability of figures emanating from Weavers?'' Mr. Owner: "No, I do not, Sir, no.'' Mr. Weitzman: "Was a concern, for example, expressed that Weavers might be trying to make BFMIC pay losses for which BFMIC was not itself liable?'' Mr. Owner: "I do not recall anybody expressing that opinion, Sir, no.'' Each of the cross-examiners had questions for Mr. Owner about his background, which revealed that he had spent most of his working life in insurance, in one form or another. He met his wife in the Caribbean, when they were travelling independently.

Clare Montgomery, instructed by Milligan-Whyte and Smith, appears in the case for the liquidators of BFMIC. She was next to cross-examine Mr. Owner.

Like those who had gone before, Ms Montgomery had specific questions about specific documents, which went towards the case she is painstakingly building, fact by often unconnected fact.

Ms Montgomery also dwelt on pollution and asbestos claims, as well as the Weavers and BLUA agencies.

Ms Montgomery continued her questioning on Tuesday morning, turning her attention to Deutsche Ruck and the reinsurance it underwrote.

Mr. Owner agreed with a description Ms Montgomery gave of how reinsurance matters worked at BFMIC in regard to the BLUA book, starting at the end of the 1970s.

Ms Montgomery: "All the risks written up until 1980 were on BFMIC paper, and so BFMIC was going to be liable for 100 percent up to 1980, if its reinsurers failed?'' Mr. Owner: "Correct''.

Ms Montgomery: "Thereafter (BFMIC) was going to be liable for two-thirds, because Brittany had also put its paper up front?'' Mr. Owner: "Yes.'' Mr. Owner explained that, later, he was relying on Tillinghast to accurately estimate the likely claims payable, arising out of reinsurance BFMIC had placed with other companies.

Ms Montgomery asked Mr. Owner to explain in his own language what Tillinghast might have meant when they recommended, at the start of the 1990s, the addition of " a reasonable margin for the risk of adverse deviation from expected levels.'' Mr. Owner replied that Tillinghast was suggesting "adding something on to cover possible adverse developments''.

The conversation which ensued went to the heart of the impossibility of estimating with real accuracy what claims might arise over the life of a book of insurance business, particularly long-tail business such as pollution-related insurance.

Miss Elizabeth Gloster, leading the "corporate defendants'' team, rose to object to Ms Montgomery's entire line of questioning and her technique, when Mr. Owner left the witness box on a scheduled break.

"Many of the questions have not been legitimate questions,'' objected Ms Gloster, on grounds of speculation and appropriateness.