Posted On: February 1, 2005, 3:08 pm CST

Posted By: Peter Polstein

Come on, everyones missing the point. No question that bid rigging is illegal, it should be punished to the full extent of the law, whether this has occured or not remains to be seen. Jeff 's gone, a number of Marsh senior people are gone, unfortunately, a considerable number of Marsh employees have lost their job, through no fault of their own, a lot of people lost on this deal. Marsh is not going to be back doing this - period.

But the bigger question is how the hell does any prospective client of Marsh or x client come to prove ecomonic loss, to gain a portion of this settlement .

The majority of this client base are not unknowledgeable insurance clients. A great many are handled with informed risk managers. The question of the day has to be, was the specific client unhappy with the outcome of their renewal negotiations, when most had familiarity with the marketplace. Given that assumption, and the time and place of negotiation in a marketplace with specific underwriting philosophy, how do you prove your loss? The mere fact that two or three carriers were used to provide whatever quotations to prove or disprove a particular premium base, did the final outcome become a loss potential under this scenario, irrespective of the fact that Marsh did rig the deal, but to whose benefit? Marsh - did the insured physically suffer economic loss.

I'd love to be the advocate reviewing proof's of loss on this deal.

Be well all.