I find it very difficult to believe that this can not be considered two incidents. Without review of the form I probably should not comment but how would the policy have responded if the cause of loss was another peril?
If the verdit supports a single event, would not the other “events”, the Pentagon and the PA damages, not fall under the same purview?
It would seem that all of these actions occurred at differing locations at differing times , by different people, and should be viewed as separate events.
It appears that there is a misunderstanding by both RD Hood and Mark H. Denman regarding the purpose of the trial. It was not about whether the tragic event on 9/11 was one or two occurrence. The issue before the jury was whether the insurers were bound by the WilProp form or the Travelers form. The partial verdict that was announced yesterday, was in favor of the insurers who contended that the WilProp form applied, which has a definition of occurrence and another court already ruled that under the WilProp form there was one occurrence.
It seems to me that the elephant in the room is that Silverstein willingly underinsured the property, presumably because he thought nothing could cause a total loss to all the buildings. Lenders finally forced a higher limit than Silverstein wanted, but it was still too low.
Now that the unimaginable has happened, he hopes to collect the limits twice, even though the property was destroyed only once.
The WTC has been viewed by the carriers as a single property. The 9/11 event shows how sleezy the carriers can be by not honoring the wording of their own policies. It is a singular event: one occurrance (of the exact same nature and magnitude) to one property.
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?
Two towers, two planes, but two separate claims? I have always heard the “twin towers” referenced as “the world trade center (one unit)in the media prior to the terrorist attack. The two planes were a part of a “single” terrorist attack. I cast my vote for the “one claim” side.
I am amused by the difference of opinion (supposedly by “insurance-professionals” on the issue of whether this was one or two occurrences. Imagine how the laypeople “jurors” have struggled in making their verdicts, especially in light of the fact that they had the extra burden of knowing what the twin towers meant to the City of New York.
Adding my $.02, I think that this was one occurrence. The terrorists conspired or acted in concert to take down the “twin towers” (2 buildings on 1 campus. Remember, when you first heard the news of: “plane struck 1 tower”, you may have thought it was a single engine plane piloted byu an idiot, but when you heard that a second plane struck the other tower, you quickly determined “act of terrorists”
All I know is that A brokerage house better have their E & O coverage layered up to the max, or a team of underwriters better find new employers before their names become synonymous with “Murphy” (Murphy’s law.
Dear John Fortman,
Indeed WTC was underinsured. Carriers are also guilty of sloppiness especially when mislead by a broker who is placing the risk with 12 different slips!
– The simple question I have yet to see asked is: whether the first event and the results from it constituted a total loss?
– If the experts opine that the campus complex would have been rendered a constructive total loss, which is likley … then the second occurrence would be rendered moot, as no more damage was incurred.
– As an aside, for those with a deep history in coinsuraance know, that very provision was created many decades ago due to the continued mentality of commercial businesses in the Northeast to underinsure risk, such as in the instant case. Since this issue has not been raised, it maybe that the carriers set this valuable provison aside, allowing “the perfume of the premium to cloud the stench of the risk.”
– In closing, this is a senior management failure for years downsizing and refusing to recognize the value of real world experience left (if any)within their organization, as a consequence of decades of purging of experienced underwriting and claims staff. The placement of this business was not rocket science and a rudimentary understanding of the risk and what was bargained for by a lead carrier underwriter with real experience in the Northeast mentality would have produced one following form policy, which had been case law tested with real 100% coinsurance penalites for the underinsuring owner.
– Unfortunately, much of this will be swept away by senior management and blamed on credentialed but ill trained and experienced underwritering staff, that will be discharged and it will be business as usual again, the lawyers will all be paid and the board of directors for these carriers will not act independently against the hand that feeds them (senior management) and ultimately the insurance buying public continues to be punished with unnecssarily higher premiums, passed along as a consequence of the same. This pattern is all too familiar for those on wall street, where greater infidelity with the public trust by senior management has occurred.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I find it very difficult to believe that this can not be considered two incidents. Without review of the form I probably should not comment but how would the policy have responded if the cause of loss was another peril?
If the verdit supports a single event, would not the other “events”, the Pentagon and the PA damages, not fall under the same purview?
It would seem that all of these actions occurred at differing locations at differing times , by different people, and should be viewed as separate events.
It appears that there is a misunderstanding by both RD Hood and Mark H. Denman regarding the purpose of the trial. It was not about whether the tragic event on 9/11 was one or two occurrence. The issue before the jury was whether the insurers were bound by the WilProp form or the Travelers form. The partial verdict that was announced yesterday, was in favor of the insurers who contended that the WilProp form applied, which has a definition of occurrence and another court already ruled that under the WilProp form there was one occurrence.
It seems to me that the elephant in the room is that Silverstein willingly underinsured the property, presumably because he thought nothing could cause a total loss to all the buildings. Lenders finally forced a higher limit than Silverstein wanted, but it was still too low.
Now that the unimaginable has happened, he hopes to collect the limits twice, even though the property was destroyed only once.
The WTC has been viewed by the carriers as a single property. The 9/11 event shows how sleezy the carriers can be by not honoring the wording of their own policies. It is a singular event: one occurrance (of the exact same nature and magnitude) to one property.
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?
Two towers, two planes, but two separate claims? I have always heard the “twin towers” referenced as “the world trade center (one unit)in the media prior to the terrorist attack. The two planes were a part of a “single” terrorist attack. I cast my vote for the “one claim” side.
I am amused by the difference of opinion (supposedly by “insurance-professionals” on the issue of whether this was one or two occurrences. Imagine how the laypeople “jurors” have struggled in making their verdicts, especially in light of the fact that they had the extra burden of knowing what the twin towers meant to the City of New York.
Adding my $.02, I think that this was one occurrence. The terrorists conspired or acted in concert to take down the “twin towers” (2 buildings on 1 campus. Remember, when you first heard the news of: “plane struck 1 tower”, you may have thought it was a single engine plane piloted byu an idiot, but when you heard that a second plane struck the other tower, you quickly determined “act of terrorists”
All I know is that A brokerage house better have their E & O coverage layered up to the max, or a team of underwriters better find new employers before their names become synonymous with “Murphy” (Murphy’s law.
Dear John Fortman,
Indeed WTC was underinsured. Carriers are also guilty of sloppiness especially when mislead by a broker who is placing the risk with 12 different slips!
Narinder Kabul
– The simple question I have yet to see asked is: whether the first event and the results from it constituted a total loss?
– If the experts opine that the campus complex would have been rendered a constructive total loss, which is likley … then the second occurrence would be rendered moot, as no more damage was incurred.
– As an aside, for those with a deep history in coinsuraance know, that very provision was created many decades ago due to the continued mentality of commercial businesses in the Northeast to underinsure risk, such as in the instant case. Since this issue has not been raised, it maybe that the carriers set this valuable provison aside, allowing “the perfume of the premium to cloud the stench of the risk.”
– In closing, this is a senior management failure for years downsizing and refusing to recognize the value of real world experience left (if any)within their organization, as a consequence of decades of purging of experienced underwriting and claims staff. The placement of this business was not rocket science and a rudimentary understanding of the risk and what was bargained for by a lead carrier underwriter with real experience in the Northeast mentality would have produced one following form policy, which had been case law tested with real 100% coinsurance penalites for the underinsuring owner.
– Unfortunately, much of this will be swept away by senior management and blamed on credentialed but ill trained and experienced underwritering staff, that will be discharged and it will be business as usual again, the lawyers will all be paid and the board of directors for these carriers will not act independently against the hand that feeds them (senior management) and ultimately the insurance buying public continues to be punished with unnecssarily higher premiums, passed along as a consequence of the same. This pattern is all too familiar for those on wall street, where greater infidelity with the public trust by senior management has occurred.
End…