BF&M chief executive officer Glenn Titterton yesterday insisted that at the time of the company's reorganisation, he was personally comfortable that nothing threatened its traditional stand on pollution claims.

Mr. Titterton's assertions came as the Bermuda Fire case resumed in Supreme Court. Afternoon sessions began with questions from Clare Montgomery QC, representing liquidators Ernst & Young, on what Mr. Titterton was told at the time on Bermuda Fire's loss reserves.

Ms Montgomery began with a June, 1991 memo from Richard Gauthier of Toronto actuaries Coopers & Lybrand to David Lines of Cooper & Lines. Cooper & Lines supplied financial advice to Bermuda Fire. Mr. Gauthier's letter voiced his concerns that the case reserves for pollution liabilities were not posted as an unpaid liability of the company.

Mr. Titterton could not recall specific concerns regarding pollution claims being raised with him in May or June, 1991, when he met with Mr. Gauthier. He said he was not kept up to date on pollution claims issues in that year.

Ms Montgomery said: "I suggest that over 1991 the case reserve estimates went up from $5.3 million to over $15 million -- you didn't know it then, or accept it now?'' "I'm not denying it,'' Mr. Titterton said, "but the numbers don't mean anything to me.'' "Were you aware than the London market, particularly Lloyd's syndicates, were by 1991 making case reserves for pollution claims?'' Mr. Titterton said: "No, I was not.'' The court then heard that Mr. Gauthier had reviewed the 1991 report by Tillinghast actuaries on the Bermuda London Underwriting Agency, and that according to a Cooper & Lines discussion paper he felt Bermuda Fire was "taking a very aggressive stand in relation to its reserves'', especially in its lack of provision for pollution and other claims.

Mr. Titterton could not recall the subject being discussed, and was unaware that other insurance companies were in 1990 making reserves for pollution claims.

In January, 1993, Mr. Titterton met with insurance run-off agents Atropos, at which it emerged that there were pollution cases which Bermuda Fire would lose, and have to pay for. "Didn't you ask Atropos why they hadn't warned you of this earlier?'' Ms Montgomery asked. Mr. Titterton said he saw nothing untoward in their report.

"You knew, didn't you, that cover was being denied in relation to pollution claims,'' Ms Montgomery asked, "because your exclusion clauses excluded sudden and accidental claims. And so you would have known in September, 1991, that if a claim had been sudden or accidental, your exclusion clause wouldn't have been much help?'' Mr. Titterton answered, "Yes.'' Ms Montgomery then suggested that at the time of Bermuda Fire's reorganisation, no provisions were made for these policy holders. Mr.

Titterton said he was the wrong person to attempt to answer this question.

"It's a level of detail that (accountant) Irmgard Viera should comment on,'' he said. "I personally don't know.'' Elizabeth Gloster BUSINESS BUC