The interrogation of Irmgard Viera, who is now head of BF&M Management Ltd., moved into its ninth day yesterday in the Supreme Court.

Mrs. Viera's detailed memory of events ten years ago is incomplete, so much of the day's cross-examination of Mrs. Viera was devoted by counsel Clare Montgomery, who is representing the liquidator of Bermuda Fire & Marine Insurance Company Ltd. (BFMIC), to reconstructing what Mrs. Viera might have, or should have, known.

The day began with Mrs. Viera outside the courtroom, as an earlier matter relating to her evidence was rehashed.

When the witness was reinstated, the subject turned to brokers' balances due to BFMIC in 1989 and 1990, specifically balances due from H.S. Weavers. Within minutes, Mrs. Viera was again asked to leave the courtroom as the merits of BFMIC policy on setting up loss provisions was discussed.

Ms Montgomery repeatedly asked Ms Viera to explain why 1990's reserve for bad debts was discounted from $9.57 to $4.959 million, when no such discount had been applied to the preceding year's provision. "It just made good business sense,'' said Mrs. Viera.

Ms Montgomery then turned instead to cash flow problems BFMIC had experienced.

Mrs. Viera explained that Weavers had been unable to balance or reconcile their accounting and that, in her opinion, the behaviour of the agents was "probably a power play''.

In a manner as painful to behold as the Chinese water torture, Ms Montgomery relentlessly tried to reconstruct Mrs. Viera's memory for her on meetings, company policies and tactics, without extracting much from the witness other than an admission that her recollections of the late 1980s were hazy.

After the lunch break, Ms Montgomery turned her attention to pollution and the insurance claims arising from it in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

"By the time you left Marsh MacLennan, you must have known that the US industry was aware of the growing phenomenon of claims arising from pollution,'' said Ms Montgomery.

Mrs. Viera testified that she was not directly involved in pollution coverage prior to joining BFMIC. Indeed, the first time she dealt with the matter, she said, was when Keith White, her predecessor at BFMIC, introduced her to it.

"Claims were coming from government agencies, private parties and employees,'' said Ms Montgomery. "Were you aware of that?'' Mrs. Viera, entirely undaunted and giving as good as she got throughout the day, said she was aware of the pollution claims "in general''.

Ms Montgomery then introduced a series of documents which Mrs. Viera "might have seen''. An enormously detailed analysis of one particular article followed, even though Mrs. Viera could not recall seeing it nine years ago.

Eventually, several of the overseas lawyers rose to object to Ms Montgomery analysing an article the witness could not recall reading. Mrs. Viera once again left the room.

Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux listened attentively to the arguments and then said of Mrs. Viera: "This is no two-penny washerwoman before this court, wringing her hands and saying `No, I did not read the article', and so I must allow her evidence.'' The comment caused much merriment among the score of expensive lawyers in attendance. Mrs. Viera's return failed to prove as exciting and an inconclusive day of testimony quickly came to an end a little after 4 p.m.

The cross-examination of Mrs. Viera will continue on Monday, when the court reconvenes, after its by now traditional three-day weekend.