Evidently she has a problem with an insurance company paying what it's suppose to be paying in the first place.
I saw two planes, didn't you?
Yes two planes hit but I didnt see anyone rebuild the towers or replace his first loss before the second plane hit. He had one loss and thats what he should get paid for.
Say a GI gets mortally wounded. While lying dying he gets hit by a grenade. Is his wife owed double death benefits because he was mortally wounded twice? He died once. (sorry about the disgusting analogy)
I saw two planes, one event.
Or do you imagine that the two planes wear hijacked by entirely different groups, ignorant of each other? And that the attack was planned by two seperate groups?
For that matter, I remember it being reported early on that many insurance policies (including on the WTC) did not cover "acts of terrorism." Yet it seemed the insurance companies dared not enforce that clause.
Or do I mis-remember?
Indeed. Anyway, when you have a 7 billion dollar insurance policy, I would say having your lawyers hash out the precise amount due is entirely reasonable. I would insist on it, flea-bitten writers be damned.
A lot of people seem to believe that these families hit the "lottery" and they feel a bit envious. Every damn dollar these families received from the money donated to them was offset dollar for dollar by the insurance coverage the victims were entitled to. Yes the outpouring of donations was extreme and not sustainable for future terrorist acts but to blame the families is so out of bounds as to be criminal. The nation and the outpouring of support was as much a result of shock as anything else but it allowed many a sense of doing something to retain some semblance of control.