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?
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.
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?