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!!
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.
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!!