An order granting a new trial on the ground of insufficiency of the evidence must be supported by a specification of reasons that does more than just recite ultimate facts.  The specification must point to the evidence which convinced the trial court that there was insufficient evidence on a particular issue.  Here, the specification of reasons did not do so.  It just recited that plaintiff had proved that he was exposed to asbestos from defendant’s product and that defendant failed to rebut plaintiff’s showing.  The specification of reasons did not discuss any of the evidence that convinced it plaintiff had proven exposure, nor did the specification set out any reason why the court found defendant’s evidence to the contrary to be wanting.  In particular, the specification stated no reason for rejecting the defense expert’s opinion that defendant’s product was safe and did not release asbestos fibers.  So the new trial order is reversed and the judgment for defendant reinstated.