[Dave S]

However, the real question is, would the damage have been the same if only one plane had hit? Is the second his a separate attack? There are arguments to be made on both sides, but I see each crash as a discrete event. But for the second crash, the second tower would be standing.

Do you really believe that the 2nd tower would have remained standing if the second plane hadnt hit it. All of the other nearby buildings became structurally unsound and collapsed within a day of the attack.

[SarahW]

Its important to note that the insurance claim involves the entire complex of buildings, not just the two towers. Perhaps some of those buildings would have survived a single crash.

I think the second tower would have remained, although compromised to what extent I do not know.
If experts for insurance company are persuasive that no additional damage resulted from the second, discrete crash event that occurred, they I presume they will prevail. However, I doubt they will be able to argue that one crash would have caused the total destruction that occurred.

There is a case to be made for either position and this is exactly the sort of thing the courts are for.