As I reflect on my career, I think about the evolution of asbestos litigation and the broader development of mass tort and class action practice in the United States. I settled my first asbestos case in 1982, approximately two months before Johns-Manville declared bankruptcy in August of that year. That moment marked a turning point, not only in my career, but in the trajectory of asbestos litigation nationwide.
In the years that followed, I spent considerable time educating insurance underwriters about asbestos policy exclusions, addressing the application of insurance coverage to asbestos-related losses, and meeting with reinsurance representatives in Munich, London, and Tokyo as the global insurance community grappled with the growing scope of asbestos liability in the United States. These conversations underscored how deeply interconnected law, insurance, and financial systems had become in responding to mass claims.
I later became involved in the formation of the Asbestos Claims Facility (ACF), joining in May 1986. From there, I continued my work at the Center for Claims Resolution from 1988 until 2001. During that period, I participated in the resolution of millions of asbestos-related personal injury claims. It was an extraordinary time, one defined by complexity, scale, and the constant need for thoughtful problem-solving.
Over time, I came to understand that no two claims are the same. Whether resolving an individual claim, a group of claims, or a global population of claims, each settlement depended on the specific facts and circumstances involved. Many challenges emerged as litigation evolved, and solutions required creativity, flexibility, and innovation. We developed claim resolution techniques that allowed for fairness while accounting for each claimant’s unique medical history, exposure profile, and personal circumstances.
Ultimately, along with my partner Mark Eveland and other colleagues, we founded Verus LLC. We were intentional about building a team with strong operational discipline and deep information technology expertise because we understood that modern claims administration demands both legal insight and technological precision.
Throughout my career, I have had the privilege of helping hundreds of thousands of individuals who were harmed by asbestos exposure receive fair compensation. I have also worked closely with hundreds of law firms representing claimants in both the tort system and the bankruptcy trust system. Those partnerships reinforced the importance of collaboration, transparency, and professionalism in achieving equitable outcomes.
Today, Verus serves as Trust Administrator to more than forty asbestos personal injury bankruptcy trusts. These trusts were created to replace insolvent defendants and serve as settlement vehicles for resolving valid and compensable claims. Each trust operates under established Trust Distribution Procedures (TDPs), which define the standards and processes for evaluating and paying claims.
As Trust Administrator, Verus has a fiduciary obligation to the trustees, the settling parties, and all trust constituents. Our responsibility is to implement the TDPs in a fair, unbiased, and transparent manner. We strive to ensure that every claim is evaluated on its individual merits, while maintaining consistent standards and best practices that protect the integrity of the trust.
At Verus, we have always believed that the administration of any settlement whether in mass torts, class actions, or bankruptcy trusts rests on four essential principles:
- Accuracy of data
- Fairness and consistency in claim evaluation
- Timely resolution of claims
- Control of transaction costs to preserve assets for eligible claimants
These principles are not abstract ideals. They are operational commitments that guide how we design processes, structure systems, and train our teams.
Effective third-party administration requires deep understanding of claim submission requirements and the ability to guide law firms through what can be a complex post-settlement process. Clear communication and reasonable expectations are essential. The quality of settlement data submitted to a trust depends heavily on the submitting parties’ understanding of the governing procedures. Likewise, the fairness of outcomes depends substantially on the processes used to evaluate and resolve claims.
Successful trust administration ultimately relies on communication, coordination, and cooperation among all stakeholders, trustees, claimants, counsel, and administrators. When those elements align, the system functions efficiently, transparently, and fairly.
Looking back, it has been an extraordinarily rewarding career. I have had the opportunity to work alongside outstanding, intelligent, kind, and humble professionals across decades of meaningful work. Most importantly, I have been privileged to contribute to a system that helped compensate individuals and families harmed by asbestos exposure.
Thank you to everyone who has been part of this journey. The work has mattered and it has been an honor to be a part of it.
