Jury Rules WTC Destruction Was Two Separate Events (I got Mine alert!)

WSJ ^ | 12/6/04 | A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP

[BurbankKarl]

NEW YORK -- A federal jury ruled Monday that the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center was two occurrences for insurance purposes, meaning leaseholder Larry Silverstein stands to collect up to $2.2 billion from nine insurers.

The verdict in U.S. District Court in Manhattan was the latest twist in Mr. Silverstein's efforts to turn his $3.5 billion insurance policy on the trade center complex into a $7 billion payout.

The verdict Monday in the second trial to address the issue applied to nine insurers who covered the trade center for a total of $1.1 billion. Mr. Silverstein lost at the first trial earlier this year, which applied to 13 insurers.

The jury was asked to rule specifically whether the terrorism could be considered one or two events for nine of the trade center's 24 insurance companies. Judge Michael Mukasey thanked the jury for reaching a verdict on a complicated case.

Regardless of the insurance payout, Mr. Silverstein and redevelopment officials have promised to rebuild the trade center complex in the next decade, including 10 million square feet of office space, a memorial and cultural buildings.

The insurance companies involved in the case were: Travelers Indemnity Co., Industrial Risk Insurers, Royal Indemnity Co., Allianz Insurance Co., Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Tig Insurance Co., Westfield WTC LLC and Zurich American Insurance Co.

In her closing argument, lawyer Carolyn H. Williams argued on behalf of the companies that the hijacked planes were like guided missiles and that the insurance payout should not depend on whether terrorists used "one or two or 10 or 100 weapons."

[BroncosFan]

This is insane. I worked on a wee tiny part of this case (as outside counsel for one of the insurers) and the definition of occurrence that all parties based their decision to enter the deal on was very broad. It had language in their to the effect of, and I paraphrase, "if there's some kind of relationship between two or more damage causing events, the event shall be construed as ONE occurrence."

[William of Orange]

difficult to say who is right and who isn't, when the Japs attacked Pearl Harbor and the Phillipines, I guess that was 2 events as well, 2 events under the umbrella of the larger programme...hmmmm...

[taxcontrol]

Proves the law of clarity - "If clarity is not provided in the contract, it will be provided by judge and jury at time of trial."

[PackerBoy]

Summary judgment must have proved unsuccessful. I wonder what the triable issues were.

[Guillermo]

My lifetime experience with insurance companies has been this: They are always hardasses when it comes to collecting the premium, and hardasses when it comes time to pay on a policy.

And my step-father has been a State Farm agent for almost 40 years, so I have no natural bias against insurance co's.

[BurbankKarl]

yes, but this clown owned the WTC for all of a month, and he tried to double his money.

[BurbankKarl]

Let me rephrase that, he didnt own it, he was one month into a 99 year lease.

[BroncosFan]

Good question. It was such a miserable experience, I've stopped following the legal details. The egos involved . . . fun to read about, but you wouldn't want to be on the contact list.

[Guillermo]

I don't know why it would matter the length of time he owned the WTC...

I'm no insurance expert either, so I don't have a comment either way on the adjudication on the case.

I just know how Insurance Co's work.

[Chad Fairbanks]

If your right and left fists both hit my face, does that qualify as two separate crimes?

No, but if his left fist and my right fist hit your face, that is two distinct crimes - and each of us would be charged with an individual crime.

However, that being said, I could go either way with this case. My own gut feeling, however, is that this was really one big event using multiple weapons...

[Boundless]

> A federal jury ruled ...

Given the amount of money involved, this will certainly
be appealed ad infinitum. Jury verdicts are only slightly
more reversible than 9th Circus rulings.

Don't expect a final resolution anytime soon.

Meanwhile, expect the terms in YOUR insurance policies to
suddenly get less ambiguous.

[OldFriend]

This is a tremendous victory for the property owner.

The opinion was that since it was two planes it is two events.

[Political Junkie Too]

If someone takes two gunshots at a building, will that count as two counts of property damage or one count of property damage?

-PJ

[FreedomCalls]

I guess this means that Amadou Diallo's heirs can now sue the NYPD 41 times, once for each bullet shot at him instead of filing just one lawsuit. Can they collect his life insurance policy 41 times as well?

[BroncosFan]

Perfect analogy. Wish I thought of it. Perfect.

[Jambe]

I believe they should be considered two individual events using the following logic:

The first tower was struck by an individual plane. When struck it did not immediately collapse nor did it cause any known damage to the 2nd tower, nor caused the 2nd tower to collapse.

After a period of time, the second tower was struck, again by a different plane. When struck, the second tower did not collapse nor was there any known damage done to the first tower - still standing.

Finally, when the second tower collapsed to the ground, while there was structural damage to the first tower, the second tower again did not cause the first tower to collapse. The cause of their collapse and destruction was being struck by individual airplanes.

Conclusion: If either plane had not struck their individual tower, that tower would most likely be standing today.

[connectthedots]

If someone takes two gunshots at a building, will that count as two counts of property damage or one count of property damage?

I would say this was comparable to a gang of arsonists burning down two buildings and not the starting of two fires in one building.

[MissAmericanPie]

Doesn't sound like a clown to me.