I don’t agree with Kristy. We were not at war and never intended to be at war. We are at war now as a result of the attack. I have always felt the attacks were two separate incidents two towers attacked with two planes at two different times. Pay the people!
Al Quaeda is not a foreign government, so it fails the War Exclusion, but it was a single attack therefore it should be considered one occurrence. One incident – one occurrence. Just because two graffiti artists use two seperate spray cans, doesn’t make it two seperate incidents of vandalism.
I suspect the jury is allowing sympathy to cloud their objectivity.
Good point, all the pilots were members of the same army of “the religion of peace” with financing that could be tied directly to the Saudi monarchy.
However, I believe the policy specifically covered foreign terrorist acts, remember the WTC had been hit in the past by the same affiliated parties with paid insured claims, all the companies knew the risks.
If I were the insurance company I’d argue that half the building limit was used by the first plane and half by the second plane, you can’t collect payment on an already destroyed building.
Silverstein is essentially asking to be paid for 2 buidings destroyed-2 times, except his 2 buildings were only destroyed once.
WONDERFUL comparison of the issue using the VMM / spray cans theory. Too bad you weren’t consulting the lawyers for the defense.
Policies are contracts to be interpreted based on the words they contain, and not the words the insured wished they had after the fact. The industry doesn’t mind providing coverage that is intended — but jurors must be advised that changing the game after the deal is struck is not in anyone’s long term interest.
One plan, one organization, one intended result — destruction of one premises. Had there been twenty “bank robbers”, each bullet from their guns would not be a separate occurrence either. It just never occurred to any of us that airplanes could be used as bullets.
If this ends as multiple occurrences, everyone loses nationwide, because lawyers will be folly not to try to apply the same principals to every new case they work… and this sympathy for the WTC attack will be another success of the terrorists to ruin our values.
There were four planes and four targets.
One for one tower, one for the other, one for the Pentagon and one assumed for the White House that crashed in the woodlands.
By some of your reasoning, all of these would have been one event, just different targets. Each of the towers was a separate target just as the Pentagon and White House were, thus two separate claims. However, I don’t believe this is the arguement, it appears to be the wording of the different policy forms that is making the difference as to whether there is one or two claims.
I have always agreed that it was two occurences under a standard insurance policy, as did the insurance companies that believed it was to be written on the Travelers form. The 1 occurrence argument came from underwriers that believed it was to be written on a Willis form that I have never read. Assuming the Willis form defines an occurrence in some way to avoid multiple deductibles -does anyone know what the deductible is on the WTC policy?
Think of it this way. Two terrorists set a plan into place to use cars as a weapon of choice. Instead of targeting buildings they will target other cars. Their plan is well thought out to occur within minutes of one another and will take place in the same parking lot (same premises). Terrorist 1 is in Car 1 and Hits Car 2. Terrorist 2 is in Car A and hits Car B. The insurance company would look at this as two separate car accidents. The person in Car 2 as well as the person in Car B would be compensated.
In response to Kathi, the WillProp form at issue made it very clear that any instance, no matter how apart in time/distance sycg an attack on the World Trade Center properties (the buildings at issue) is considered one occurrence. At the time of the attacks, the policies were bound but not issued. Travelers specifically argued in the their underwriting documents that they did not want to use the WillProp form. Now they are paying the price for not following the broker’s form.
Stow the politics. Bush won.
Each plane was an occurrence as was so well described by someone else’s comment. If a barn in a field was set on fire by one,two or more people it is one occurrence.Each arsonist in not a seperate cause of loss.If they then set afire the nearby barn it would be
a seperate occurrence.Willis may have a legal problem if Silverstein sues them for using their form if it can be shown not to have been fully explained to them and accepted.
Stow the politics. Bush won.
Each plane was an occurrence as was so well described by someone else’s comment. If a barn in a field was set on fire by one,two or more people it is one occurrence.Each arsonist in not a seperate cause of loss.If they then set afire the nearby barn it would be
a seperate occurrence.Willis may have a legal problem if Silverstein sues them for using their form if it can be shown not to have been fully explained to them and accepted.
The basic principle of insurance is to indemnify the person back to the point they were at prior to the loss. If the WTC buildings were insured for $1.1 billion, the owner is only out $1.1 billion no matter how you look at it. To pay him twice that amount would actually put him back in better shape financially than he was before the loss, which violates the basic principle of indemnity of insurance policies.
This loss does not lend itself to analogies such as cars,v&mm,barns etc. Attempts at this kind of “simplification” is a bit purile. As one commenter wrote, the form governs coverage. The WillProp form is written on one “property” with a limit for that property. It defines occurrence to include the 9/11 strikes as one occurrence. The Travelers form had no such definition ergo two occurrences, the lack of a definition creating an ambiguity.
The lesson is to have concurrent forms and get the inefficient brokers or companies to ISSUE POLICIES PROMPTLY!!
Frank seems to have said it better than any so far. Even the people in this forum are letting emotion cloud their opinion. It does not matter if all 4 planes were headed to the WTC. If the policy form used defines an event, then coverage is based on an event, if it fails to define “an event” than you can argue for 2. This coverage issue far exceeds what most agents have ever seen and unless you know more specifics than the public has heard, you are probably spouting thought and opinion. It is clear that the WTC attack was 1 planned attack, carried out by multiple terrorists with multiple weapons. Here is a thought, if the Government insured both the Pentagon and the White House under a common policy and both buildings had been hit, would it be 1 event or 2? If you have already answered you are a fool, because you don’t know what the policy form said.
FOR THE OLD NY BROKER. YOU MUST BE A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. BLAMING THE PRESIDENT.TO THE OTHERS REPLYING WHAT ABOUT MR SILVERSTEIN OWN RISK MANAGER? IS HIS ACTIONS EXCUSEABLE FOR HIS RESPONSIBILITY WHILE HE WAS ACTING WITHIN HIS SCOPE & AUTHORITY FOR MR SILVERSTEIN.
A. Subject: INS.101
B. Re: Ambiguity in Form
C. Obsevation: “always settled in favor of the insured”
D. My Comments: I really enjoyed reading the resposes on this but the bottom line on this is addressed in “B and C”
E. Note: Paid my dues as property broker, am turned off by “RM Professors” (Hope I don’t sound like one) and have understood the ” Inland Marine Guiding Principles” since the early 60’s. Could have saved someone a lot legal expence.
It’s not quite that simple, since the policy language hadn’t been finalized. OTOH, why something as basic as a common definition of occurrence was not immediately attended to – particularly given the layered nature of the program – is perplexing. Had the definition found in the WilProp form been determined to govern, there would be no issue.
So far, Frank’s still got it the most right in understanding the intricacies in this incredibly complex situation.
JTM, you fall into Frank’s simplistic category when you state the crux of this dispute is your “…observation that ambiguity (in a policy form) is always settled in favor of the insured”. That has truth in a historical context, but much more so in personal rather than commercial lines, and in earlier times rather than the more recent past.
First, the use of a manuscript policy instead of a more standard form erodes many, if not most, of an insured’s argument of being at a disadvantage in the policy-drafting process. In fact, even if the drafter of the manuscript policy is the corporate insured’s broker (and not its own attorneys), all the knowledge and expertise of the broker can be imputed to the insured, weakening its assertions of being at the mercy of the insurance company.
Further, for the past 20 years or so, courts have increasingly relied upon a doctrine called the “sophisticated insured exception” when the parties are on a much more level playing field, as in the case of large commercial insurance transactions. It recognizes that both parties have the finacial resources to employ cadres of lawyers and contracts people and therefore, are in more or less equal standing in an arm’s length negotiation.
And that’s just one reason why the “simple answers” being offered up don’t apply here. And also why a few lucky attorneys will be upgrading their estates in the Hamptons in a couple of years!
Thank you Frank (and NUKE)for your comments. Most of the others should stick to handling personal lines auto and property until you have more training.
Nuke really has it figured out. But who reads policies any more – at least with understanding. It’s also quite interesting that after 9/11 most insurers no longer wanted to write broker/manuscript forms, as their forms were claimed to be better, and manuscripts provided coverage that was too broad. Isn’t hindsight educational!
Those commentators interested in informing themselves of the facts as they now stand should read the Appellate decision in the first trial which contains most of the players and Broker/Underwriter interchanges. Also exhibits another good lesson – Memorialize (make a written record) your conversations. Info can be found in the New York Law Journal 10/1/03. http://www.nylj.com This also shows an Amicus Brief filed by our insurance buddy Elliot Spitzer. For those of you shooting from the hip…please pursue continuing insurance education of some sort.
But it was all a single, coordinated event with different targets. Silverstein’s problem is that he had one location insured. It was hit by 2 planes, but they were part of the same conspiracy. they were not to random attacks. One attack, one occurrence. It seems pretty simple to me until you get a few lawyers involved to cloud the issue.
Say what you like, no one anticipated this type of event and we all learned a lesson at the insurance companies expense, next time the wording in the policy form will be a little more exact and hopefully the policy will be delivered quicker to the client. Silverstein never thought that they would use 2 planes to attack and neither did anyone else, but he will probably get a double dip, because of form ambiguity
Back to Kathi’s question on deductibles,I believe I remember reading several months
back the deductible was $100 million. Sounds like alot, but I don’t insure many
billion dollar buildings.
I am guessing that the Insured had a blanket policy for both buildings with a total limit of $1.1 billion per occurrence but what would the cost to replace both buildings be … anyone know ?
Yea but the new coplex is worth a lot more than the twin towers – THOSE THINGS WERE IN TERRIBLE SHAPE -They even concidered taking them down! But it cost too much money. So…….A convenient thing happened.
“A convenient thing happened”??? My good friend Barry Glick worked in the towers in the Risk Management Dept. of the Port of NY-NJ. He died on 9/11. Perhaps Old Age should retire and seek help for his Alzheimer’s. Perhaps some counseling as well.
I think Larry Silverstein should be investigated, charged and arrested for insurance fraud and possibly conspiracy to murder. On September 11th, 2001 Silverstein had inside information that the buildings he managed were to be destroyed by demolitions.
It is now common knowledge that he (Silverstein) admitted publicly (on a PBS documentary) the scenario on 9/11/2001 by which he was complicit in the destructions of at least one building, the 7 World Trade Center in New York City.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7.
Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. Thus the building’s collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.
Why is this criminal allowed to collect millions of dollars from insurance underwriters (billions when you figure in the Twin Towers too) when obviously it’s a case of blatant insurance fraud?
If I were to burn my house down and file an insurance claim, then tell someone about it later (who reported me), I would be arrested and charged with a crime.
Am I the only one who thinks there’s something VERY wrong with this picture? Larry Silverstein is a crook and everyone knows it …why aren’t the authorities acting on this information?
This is ridiculous!
The “attack” on the world trade centers was an act of war- excluded from coverage.
I AGREE!! WERE THE INSURANCE ATTORNIES ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL? TELL ME, THEN WHAT IS CONSIDERED AN ACT OF WAR?
I don’t agree with Kristy. We were not at war and never intended to be at war. We are at war now as a result of the attack. I have always felt the attacks were two separate incidents two towers attacked with two planes at two different times. Pay the people!
Al Quaeda is not a foreign government, so it fails the War Exclusion, but it was a single attack therefore it should be considered one occurrence. One incident – one occurrence. Just because two graffiti artists use two seperate spray cans, doesn’t make it two seperate incidents of vandalism.
I suspect the jury is allowing sympathy to cloud their objectivity.
Good point, all the pilots were members of the same army of “the religion of peace” with financing that could be tied directly to the Saudi monarchy.
However, I believe the policy specifically covered foreign terrorist acts, remember the WTC had been hit in the past by the same affiliated parties with paid insured claims, all the companies knew the risks.
If I were the insurance company I’d argue that half the building limit was used by the first plane and half by the second plane, you can’t collect payment on an already destroyed building.
Silverstein is essentially asking to be paid for 2 buidings destroyed-2 times, except his 2 buildings were only destroyed once.
WONDERFUL comparison of the issue using the VMM / spray cans theory. Too bad you weren’t consulting the lawyers for the defense.
Policies are contracts to be interpreted based on the words they contain, and not the words the insured wished they had after the fact. The industry doesn’t mind providing coverage that is intended — but jurors must be advised that changing the game after the deal is struck is not in anyone’s long term interest.
One plan, one organization, one intended result — destruction of one premises. Had there been twenty “bank robbers”, each bullet from their guns would not be a separate occurrence either. It just never occurred to any of us that airplanes could be used as bullets.
If this ends as multiple occurrences, everyone loses nationwide, because lawyers will be folly not to try to apply the same principals to every new case they work… and this sympathy for the WTC attack will be another success of the terrorists to ruin our values.
One plane hit one building; then another plane hit another building. I am not a mathemetician but I can count that high.
There were four planes and four targets.
One for one tower, one for the other, one for the Pentagon and one assumed for the White House that crashed in the woodlands.
By some of your reasoning, all of these would have been one event, just different targets. Each of the towers was a separate target just as the Pentagon and White House were, thus two separate claims. However, I don’t believe this is the arguement, it appears to be the wording of the different policy forms that is making the difference as to whether there is one or two claims.
Flying a jumbo jet into the pentagon was an act of war-you can’t argue with that.
I don’t think acts commited by unaffiliated entites have to be done by foreign states to qualify as “acts of war”.
I put terrorism in the same catagory as piracy-call it an individual act of war.
I have always agreed that it was two occurences under a standard insurance policy, as did the insurance companies that believed it was to be written on the Travelers form. The 1 occurrence argument came from underwriers that believed it was to be written on a Willis form that I have never read. Assuming the Willis form defines an occurrence in some way to avoid multiple deductibles -does anyone know what the deductible is on the WTC policy?
TWO AIRPLANES, TWO BUILDINGS, TWO CLAIMS.
THE REAL PROBLEM IS WITH THE BROKER.TWO FORMS A NONO. INSURANCE 101 MAKE SURE YOUR POLICIES ARE CONCURRENT.
Think of it this way. Two terrorists set a plan into place to use cars as a weapon of choice. Instead of targeting buildings they will target other cars. Their plan is well thought out to occur within minutes of one another and will take place in the same parking lot (same premises). Terrorist 1 is in Car 1 and Hits Car 2. Terrorist 2 is in Car A and hits Car B. The insurance company would look at this as two separate car accidents. The person in Car 2 as well as the person in Car B would be compensated.
In response to Kathi, the WillProp form at issue made it very clear that any instance, no matter how apart in time/distance sycg an attack on the World Trade Center properties (the buildings at issue) is considered one occurrence. At the time of the attacks, the policies were bound but not issued. Travelers specifically argued in the their underwriting documents that they did not want to use the WillProp form. Now they are paying the price for not following the broker’s form.
But the attack was allowed to happen by our govt. and George Bush knew about it ahead of time. Is there an exclusion for conspiracy theories?
Dear fellow old broker,
Stow the politics. Bush won.
Each plane was an occurrence as was so well described by someone else’s comment. If a barn in a field was set on fire by one,two or more people it is one occurrence.Each arsonist in not a seperate cause of loss.If they then set afire the nearby barn it would be
a seperate occurrence.Willis may have a legal problem if Silverstein sues them for using their form if it can be shown not to have been fully explained to them and accepted.
Another old broker.
Dear fellow old broker,
Stow the politics. Bush won.
Each plane was an occurrence as was so well described by someone else’s comment. If a barn in a field was set on fire by one,two or more people it is one occurrence.Each arsonist in not a seperate cause of loss.If they then set afire the nearby barn it would be
a seperate occurrence.Willis may have a legal problem if Silverstein sues them for using their form if it can be shown not to have been fully explained to them and accepted.
Another old broker.
The basic principle of insurance is to indemnify the person back to the point they were at prior to the loss. If the WTC buildings were insured for $1.1 billion, the owner is only out $1.1 billion no matter how you look at it. To pay him twice that amount would actually put him back in better shape financially than he was before the loss, which violates the basic principle of indemnity of insurance policies.
Why has there never been any discussion on what the total value of the property was and why it was not insured to full value?
What became clear in both trials is that Silverstein severely underinsured the WTC property.
This loss does not lend itself to analogies such as cars,v&mm,barns etc. Attempts at this kind of “simplification” is a bit purile. As one commenter wrote, the form governs coverage. The WillProp form is written on one “property” with a limit for that property. It defines occurrence to include the 9/11 strikes as one occurrence. The Travelers form had no such definition ergo two occurrences, the lack of a definition creating an ambiguity.
The lesson is to have concurrent forms and get the inefficient brokers or companies to ISSUE POLICIES PROMPTLY!!
Frank seems to have said it better than any so far. Even the people in this forum are letting emotion cloud their opinion. It does not matter if all 4 planes were headed to the WTC. If the policy form used defines an event, then coverage is based on an event, if it fails to define “an event” than you can argue for 2. This coverage issue far exceeds what most agents have ever seen and unless you know more specifics than the public has heard, you are probably spouting thought and opinion. It is clear that the WTC attack was 1 planned attack, carried out by multiple terrorists with multiple weapons. Here is a thought, if the Government insured both the Pentagon and the White House under a common policy and both buildings had been hit, would it be 1 event or 2? If you have already answered you are a fool, because you don’t know what the policy form said.
FOR THE OLD NY BROKER. YOU MUST BE A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. BLAMING THE PRESIDENT.TO THE OTHERS REPLYING WHAT ABOUT MR SILVERSTEIN OWN RISK MANAGER? IS HIS ACTIONS EXCUSEABLE FOR HIS RESPONSIBILITY WHILE HE WAS ACTING WITHIN HIS SCOPE & AUTHORITY FOR MR SILVERSTEIN.
A. Subject: INS.101
B. Re: Ambiguity in Form
C. Obsevation: “always settled in favor of the insured”
D. My Comments: I really enjoyed reading the resposes on this but the bottom line on this is addressed in “B and C”
E. Note: Paid my dues as property broker, am turned off by “RM Professors” (Hope I don’t sound like one) and have understood the ” Inland Marine Guiding Principles” since the early 60’s. Could have saved someone a lot legal expence.
It’s not quite that simple, since the policy language hadn’t been finalized. OTOH, why something as basic as a common definition of occurrence was not immediately attended to – particularly given the layered nature of the program – is perplexing. Had the definition found in the WilProp form been determined to govern, there would be no issue.
So far, Frank’s still got it the most right in understanding the intricacies in this incredibly complex situation.
JTM, you fall into Frank’s simplistic category when you state the crux of this dispute is your “…observation that ambiguity (in a policy form) is always settled in favor of the insured”. That has truth in a historical context, but much more so in personal rather than commercial lines, and in earlier times rather than the more recent past.
First, the use of a manuscript policy instead of a more standard form erodes many, if not most, of an insured’s argument of being at a disadvantage in the policy-drafting process. In fact, even if the drafter of the manuscript policy is the corporate insured’s broker (and not its own attorneys), all the knowledge and expertise of the broker can be imputed to the insured, weakening its assertions of being at the mercy of the insurance company.
Further, for the past 20 years or so, courts have increasingly relied upon a doctrine called the “sophisticated insured exception” when the parties are on a much more level playing field, as in the case of large commercial insurance transactions. It recognizes that both parties have the finacial resources to employ cadres of lawyers and contracts people and therefore, are in more or less equal standing in an arm’s length negotiation.
And that’s just one reason why the “simple answers” being offered up don’t apply here. And also why a few lucky attorneys will be upgrading their estates in the Hamptons in a couple of years!
Thank you Frank (and NUKE)for your comments. Most of the others should stick to handling personal lines auto and property until you have more training.
Nuke really has it figured out. But who reads policies any more – at least with understanding. It’s also quite interesting that after 9/11 most insurers no longer wanted to write broker/manuscript forms, as their forms were claimed to be better, and manuscripts provided coverage that was too broad. Isn’t hindsight educational!
Those commentators interested in informing themselves of the facts as they now stand should read the Appellate decision in the first trial which contains most of the players and Broker/Underwriter interchanges. Also exhibits another good lesson – Memorialize (make a written record) your conversations. Info can be found in the New York Law Journal 10/1/03.
http://www.nylj.com This also shows an Amicus Brief filed by our insurance buddy Elliot Spitzer. For those of you shooting from the hip…please pursue continuing insurance education of some sort.
But it was all a single, coordinated event with different targets. Silverstein’s problem is that he had one location insured. It was hit by 2 planes, but they were part of the same conspiracy. they were not to random attacks. One attack, one occurrence. It seems pretty simple to me until you get a few lawyers involved to cloud the issue.
Say what you like, no one anticipated this type of event and we all learned a lesson at the insurance companies expense, next time the wording in the policy form will be a little more exact and hopefully the policy will be delivered quicker to the client. Silverstein never thought that they would use 2 planes to attack and neither did anyone else, but he will probably get a double dip, because of form ambiguity
Back to Kathi’s question on deductibles,I believe I remember reading several months
back the deductible was $100 million. Sounds like alot, but I don’t insure many
billion dollar buildings.
What was the value of each building ?
I am guessing that the Insured had a blanket policy for both buildings with a total limit of $1.1 billion per occurrence but what would the cost to replace both buildings be … anyone know ?
or care???????? enough already, the policy language, or lack thereof, is going to make this guy rich. enough said.
Was Pearl Harbor one attack or hundreds?
He hit the nail right on the head. It was all one building, half destroyed, then the other half.
Make him rich? he was rich prior to. And he’s spending the money to build a new complex anyway.
Yea but the new coplex is worth a lot more than the twin towers – THOSE THINGS WERE IN TERRIBLE SHAPE -They even concidered taking them down! But it cost too much money. So…….A convenient thing happened.
“A convenient thing happened”??? My good friend Barry Glick worked in the towers in the Risk Management Dept. of the Port of NY-NJ. He died on 9/11. Perhaps Old Age should retire and seek help for his Alzheimer’s. Perhaps some counseling as well.
Age Old is whacked in the head. He talks like Bin Laden did Silverstein a favor.
He must be an actuary or some mind-numb bean-counter that has been at it too long. He needs a martini, and I hope he doesn’t have access to a gun!
I think Larry Silverstein should be investigated, charged and arrested for insurance fraud and possibly conspiracy to murder. On September 11th, 2001 Silverstein had inside information that the buildings he managed were to be destroyed by demolitions.
It is now common knowledge that he (Silverstein) admitted publicly (on a PBS documentary) the scenario on 9/11/2001 by which he was complicit in the destructions of at least one building, the 7 World Trade Center in New York City.
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7.
Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. Thus the building’s collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million.
Why is this criminal allowed to collect millions of dollars from insurance underwriters (billions when you figure in the Twin Towers too) when obviously it’s a case of blatant insurance fraud?
If I were to burn my house down and file an insurance claim, then tell someone about it later (who reported me), I would be arrested and charged with a crime.
Am I the only one who thinks there’s something VERY wrong with this picture? Larry Silverstein is a crook and everyone knows it …why aren’t the authorities acting on this information?
See these websites for more info:
http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/wtc7newspaper.htm
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/pullit.html
http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wot/wtc_other.htm
Well Now,
That is certainly a different opinion???
Not likely to go anywhere, but different.
What can the average citizen do to help bring this criminal to justice?