Mr. Boyd, an assistant vice president at Willis, was responsible for securing World Trade Center coverage for Mr. Silverstein. Under examination by Barry Ostrager, the lead attorney for Swiss Reinsurance Company, he acknowledged that there was no paperwork showing a change in policy forms was made before the Center was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001.

The 13 insurers contesting the Silverstein claim argue they are bound to a "Wilprop" (Willis property) form, which specifically defines "occurrence" and would limit the claim to one event of $3.5 billion, rather than a Travelers form, which offers no such definition and could support Mr. Silverstein's position that the pair of jetliners which struck the towers qualifies as two events worth $7 billion.

Mr. Boyd, prior to Mr. Ostrager's questioning, testified that even though the Wilprop form was sent out to the marketplace to find carriers for the WTC program, the form governing the coverage was later switched to Travelers' by mid-July of 2001.

However, prodded by Mr. Ostrager Monday, Mr. Boyd said he couldn't remember ever seeing this specific information officially written down to alert carriers about the change.

"Isn't it a fact, Mr. Boyd, that there is not a single piece of paper that states that as of any certain date [prior to Sep. 11, 2001] the Wilprop policy form is not going to be the policy form for the WTC placement" for the carriers in this trial, Mr. Ostrager asked. Mr. Boyd replied, "I don't recall seeing a written document to that effect."

Mr. Ostrager also asked, "Do you understand that post Sept. 11, your client, the Silverstein parties, would prefer that the Wilprop form not be the applicable form governing the WTC property placement?" Mr. Boyd answered, "I think that's correct."

Mr. Ostrager inquired, "So, even though you started out wanting to bind 100 percent of the insurers on the Wilprop form, that is not the form your client wants to have now, correct?"

"That's correct," Mr. Boyd responded. The exchange took place in his fourth day on the witness stand.

Mr. Silverstein's attorneys, while acknowledging that many insurers received only the Wilprop form before they issued binders, also contend that the Wilprop form was provided only as "a starting point" and that when Travelers had insisted on using its own form, the Travelers document had become "the operative form" for the entire consortium. Final policy documents were never signed before the terrorist event.

Mr. Boyd during his time on the stand appeared rattled at points, changing testimony, saying "I misspoke" and volunteering extra commentaries that led trial Judge Michael Mukasey to prod him to answer more succinctly.

Mr. Boyd testified he considered Travelers to be the "the lead insurer," with its form governing the entire WTC insurance program consortium. In response, Mr. Ostrager brought up contrary deposition testimony from Mr. Silverstein's risk manager, Robert Strachan?who had worked with Mr. Boyd on obtaining WTC insurance.

Mr. Strachan in that testimony said "the whole concept of lead insurers and follow form" was introduced by attorneys at the deposition proceeding.

Mr. Strachan also said in deposition that Travelers "did rise to the top and start fulfilling all the requirements" that he would anticipate from a would-be lead insurer, and that "if you are asking me who I thought the lead insurer was going to be on the program, it is obviously the Travelers." But, he said, "There was never a lead insurer picked prior to 9/11, this is a creation by all you guys."

In responding to Mr. Strachan's statements, Mr. Boyd told Mr. Ostrager, "I do see that. I don't agree with it."

Also testifying this week was Paul Blackmore, the Willis executive who oversaw the marketing of the Trade Center placement with the London and European markets. Mr. Blackmore at the time of the WTC placement was a property insurance broker at Willis London office.

He testified that the Wilprop form was the only form that had been sent to Swiss Re before the reinsurer signed a slip?or a binder?to offer coverage in July 9, 2001. But the Wilprop form, Mr. Blackmore said, was provided only as "a starting point."

Tuesday's trial action before testimony began saw the judge questioning Mr. Silverstein's lawyers as to whether Mr. Strachan had committed perjury when he was recalled to the stand for additional testimony.

Mr. Strachan testified concerning a conversation he had on Sept. 12, 2001, with Peter Lefkowitz from the Harbor Group, an insurance consulting firm that had advised GMAC, which lent $563 million to Mr. Silverstein for his WTC lease. Mr. Strachan said that for the most part, he couldn't remember details of the conversation.

When Judge Mukasey asked Mr. Strachan if he had any conversations with Mr. Silverstein's lawyers or had any idea why he was asked back, Mr. Strachan said, "no."

However, at the start of the hearing Tuesday, Marc Wolinsky, one of Mr. Silverstein's lawyers, revealed that he had actually talked with Mr. Strachan before his recall appearance. "I wanted to clear up something from Mr. Strachan," Mr. Wolinsky told the judge. "I did meet with him briefly before he took the stand yesterday."

"You are telling me he perjured himself?" Judge Mukasey asked Mr. Wolinsky, who quickly answered, "No, your Honor, I don't think he perjured himself?I think he misunderstood your first question and then continued from there." Mr. Wolinsky went on: "He understood the question to be, ?Did any lawyer tell you how to testify today?' and the answer to that, truthfully, is no. No lawyer told [Mr. Strachan] how to testify."

"It sounds like [Mr. Strachan] had a guilty conscience? This whole business is getting curiouser and curiouser, it really is," said Judge Mukasey.