Signing the letter were Maurice R. Greenberg, chairman of New York-based American International Group; John Degnan, vice chairman of Warren, N.J.-based Chubb; and Joseph Brandon, chairman of Stamford, Conn.-based General Reinsurance.

"We believe the industry as a whole has no alternative but to oppose this legislation and to cease all ill-fated attempts to revive it," the letter says.

"We would prefer to continue to fight our claims in the current tort system, despite the excessive costs and unfairness of doing so," the letter adds.

The occasion for the letter was a meeting Wednesday morning of the presidents of the five major property-casualty company associations to discuss the asbestos issue.

They are Franklin Nutter of the Reinsurance Association of America, Larry Forrester of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, Jack Ramirez of the National Association of Independent Insurers, Robert Vagley of the American Insurance Association and Rodger Lawson of the Alliance of American Insurers.

The letter says that enactment of an affordable asbestos trust fund, a trust fund being at the heart of S. 1125, is not possible at this time.

"We need alternative legislation that addresses the issues so troublesome to most insurers and reinsurers," the letter says.

The letter reads that, "We need venue reform to streamline the process and to assure fair legal judgments. We need standardized medical criteria and claims values. And we need limitations on legal expenses,"

S. 1125, the letter notes, fails to cap insurer and reinsurer contributions at $45 billion, which was the amount originally proposed. Costs to insurers and reinsurers are now estimated to be more than $75 billion over the 50-year life of the fund, with no firm cap.

"This amount is inequitable and unaffordable," the letter says.

In addition, according to the letter, S. 1125 does not achieve finality and certainty in asbestos litigation. The insurance industry is left with an unknown number of claims that either remain in or may revert to the tort system.

Finally, the letter says that while the trust fund could cease operating at any time for any number of reasons, insurers would still bear the costs of the current litigation system, even after contributing to the fund.

"We have concluded that passage of this or any similar bill is neither possible nor desirable," the letter says.

Sources told National Underwriter that some four or five insurers, which were not named, have been meeting to try and find ways to salvage S. 1125. The sources said these companies believe they need legislation and that the process is too far along to find an alternative to S. 1125.

But industry representatives say they do not see any way that S. 1125 can pass. Robert Rusbuldt, chief executive officer with the Alexandria, Va.-based Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, said that based on everything he has heard from Capitol Hill, S. 1125 is no longer a front-burner issue.

As of now, he said, most of the industry is focusing on class-action reform legislation and finding the last three or four Democratic senators needed to get the legislation approved in the Senate.

Mr. Rusbuldt said he does not see how a trust fund bill that meets the industry's need for certainty and finality can emerge from this Congress.

There are only two ways to achieve certainty and finality, Mr. Rusbuldt said. The first is for the federal government to assume responsibility for any claims that cannot be paid by the trust fund. That, he said, is unacceptable to Republicans.

The second is to simply say "tough luck" to claimants should the trust fund run out of money. That, he said, is unacceptable to labor unions and Democrats.

As for the meeting of the trade association executives, Jennifer Gibson, director of federal affairs with NAMIC, said the associations agreed to coordinate their activities and to develop a united document outlining their objections to S. 1125 for distribution on Capitol Hill.