-Caveat Lector- http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20020103/bs/attacks_insurance_2.html
Thursday January 3 4:01 PM ET $3.5B WTC Insurance Dispute Debated By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) - It's the $3.55 billion question: Was there one attack on the World Trade Center or two? Experts are divided over whether the holder of the lease should get one insurance payment for that amount, or two, for the destruction of the twin towers. Larry Silverstein, who signed a 99-year lease at the trade center in July, claims that the towers were felled by two separate attacks and that he is entitled to $7.1 billion under his insurance policy. The insurers disagree. The Swiss Reinsurance Co., the lead insurer, sued Silverstein on Oct. 22, asking a federal court to declare that the Sept. 11 attacks - in which the 110-story towers were struck by hijacked airliners 18 minutes apart - were one occurrence. Silverstein countersued Swiss Re. His lawyers had pursued settlement talks until last week with the other insurers of the trade center. But last Friday, Silverstein sued Travelers Indemnity Co. and petitioned the court to expand its case against Swiss Re to 19 other insurers. ``It is unfortunate that we have been forced to sue to enforce our rights,'' Silverstein said in a statement. ``We are confident of our legal position that the crashes of two separate planes into two separate towers at two separate times entitle us to claim that there was more than one occurrence within the meaning of our insurance contracts.'' A decision is expected by early summer. Mark Geistfeld, a professor of insurance law at New York University, agreed that Silverstein is due $7.1 billion under New York state law. ``I just don't see any legal basis for finding one occurrence,'' he said. ``I understand why Swiss Re is making the claim, when you have that much money on the line.'' In an article in the New York Law Journal, Geistfeld cited precedents such as a case involving a heavy rain that caused the walls of two buildings to collapse. The insurers argued that the collapses constituted one occurrence, but New York's highest court ruled there were two accidents. A spokeswoman for Swiss Re did not return a call seeking comment. Travelers spokeswoman Marlene Ibsen had no comment. But industry representatives said they believe the court will rule in the insurers' favor. Todd Bault, an analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein Co. who follows the insurance industry, said there is precedent for the courts to rule that the terrorism was one occurrence. ``A simple example is weather,'' he said. ``If weather events occur for a long period of time, even over several days, that will often be considered one event.'' Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute, said insurers ``are standing on a very strong foundation for several reasons, the first being the language in the policy that was written.'' Quoting the Swiss Re lawsuit, Hartwig said the World Trade Center's insurance policy defined occurrence as ``all losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes.'' Hartwig added that the insurance industry expects more than $40 billion worth of claims to be filed as a result of Sept. 11. ``We are absolutely committed to paying the 40-plus billion dollars, including this 31/2 billion,'' he said. Silverstein's spokesman referred calls to his lawyers at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen and Katz. The firm declined to comment. Despite the destruction of the trade center, Silverstein is still paying more than $100 million a year in rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owned the building, as well as $36 million a year in debt service. The estimates for rebuilding the complex run from $4 billion to $6 billion. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
