Posted On: April 30, 2004, 3:11 pm CDT

Posted By: Smitty

As far as which form applied I think the jury was correct.

Sloppy insurance-unimaginable to have terms of such a huge risk not clearly defined before it was bound.

Were the intentional crashing of airplanes into the buildings specifically defined as terrorism?
I would have defined the attack as an act of war and denied the claim.

I would also argue the attack was one ongoing occurence, the first building was still burning when the second plane piloted by the same affiliated parties hit the second building at the same location. If the buildings were destroyed by separate meteors from the same meteor shower be considered one occurence or 2. If they were destroyed by windstorm on the same day at the same time but by different wind energies would that be one occurence or 2?

I believe the intenet of the "per occurence" clause was to provide for additional coverage after a loss was repaired or partially repaired. If the towers were totally destroyed on the first occurence how could they be totally destroyed again without being rebuilt?