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
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.
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