WTC Insurance Trial: One Insurance Policy, Two buildings, Two Planes = Two Claims

[dmcowen674]

Travelers Property Casualty Corp is trying to get away with only paying for the Insurance on one building getting destroyed.

If you or I have one Policy at home and have 2 vehicles and you have a wreck with the two of them it is two claims, it should not be any different for Travelers on this Commercial scale.

12-16-2003 Travelers Property Casualty Corp., argues the WTC tragedy is worth one claim not two

The land is owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the leaseholder is developer Larry Silverstein, Silverstein argues the collapse of the twin towers represented two events because two hijacked planes were crashed into them by Islamic militants. He said he is entitled to two insurance payouts totaling $7 billion. But the insurers, led by Swiss Re and Travelers Property Casualty Corp., argue the tragedy was worth one claim of $3.5 billion according to the 2001 policy.

 

[Mill]

They shouldn't have insured the buildings if they can't afford to pay out. It was two separate crashes and not one.

 

[Gand1]

I guess this will really all depend on how the insurance is written. I can see only one claim if the towers are considered one property. IE: if you have a house and a garage and a storm knocks down two trees, one on the house and one on the garage. You only get one claim. Then again if, the buildings are seperate insured properties, then two claims.

We shall see. Either way, it sucks not to have em any more. 🙁

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Gand1
I guess this will really all depend on how the insurance is written. I can see only one claim if the towers are considered one property. IE: if you have a house and a garage and a storm knocks down two trees, one on the house and one on the garage. You only get one claim. Then again if, the buildings are seperate insured properties, then two claims.

We shall see. Either way, it sucks not to have em any more. 🙁

Not a bad argument except that the buildings had their own address, 1 WTC and 2 WTC. If it was one property would have one address such as 1 WTC and then a sub address such as Tower 1 Floor 110 Suite 1 and Tower 2 Floor 110 Suite 1.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Travelers Property Casualty Corp is trying to get away with only paying for the Insurance on one building getting destroyed.

Without reading the policy it is impossible to say which is correct, but...

It could be that the Port Authority is trying to get away with two claims when they should only get one.

 

[miguel]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Travelers Property Casualty Corp is trying to get away with only paying for the Insurance on one building getting destroyed.

Without reading the policy it is impossible to say which is correct, but...

It could be that the Port Authority is trying to get away with two claims when they should only get one.

Yeah, but it's Dave posting. He always jumps to conclusions and wastes everyone's time trying to prove himself right despite overwhelming evidence. Even if it turns out Dave is right on this one, he still jumped the gun.

 

[heartsurgeon]

the lawyers will "figure it out" for everyone, after they have sucked their fill of blood from everyone.

they're like ticks (lawyers), they don't let go until their gorged, or the body is dead.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Gand1
I guess this will really all depend on how the insurance is written. I can see only one claim if the towers are considered one property. IE: if you have a house and a garage and a storm knocks down two trees, one on the house and one on the garage. You only get one claim. Then again if, the buildings are seperate insured properties, then two claims.

We shall see. Either way, it sucks not to have em any more. 🙁

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the attack(s) constitue one event or two. As I remember it, the insurance policy limits the maximum payout to $3.5 billion per claim. Silverstein contends that each plane counts as a separate event and has therefore filed two claims, each limited to $3.5B (i.e., $7 billion total). The insurers claim the two planes were part of one attack, and were therefore a single event subject to a single $3.5B cap.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Gand1
I guess this will really all depend on how the insurance is written. I can see only one claim if the towers are considered one property. IE: if you have a house and a garage and a storm knocks down two trees, one on the house and one on the garage. You only get one claim. Then again if, the buildings are seperate insured properties, then two claims.

We shall see. Either way, it sucks not to have em any more. 🙁

That's not the issue. The issue is whether the attack(s) constitue one event or two. As I remember it, the insurance policy limits the maximum payout to $3.5 billion per claim. Silverstein contends that each plane counts as a separate event and has therefore filed two claims, each limited to $3.5B (i.e., $7 billion total). The insurers claim the two planes were part of one attack, and were therefore a single event subject to a single $3.5B cap.

Based on that Logic there must have been only one plane and one of the Towers is still standing then. I must be blind I don't see the building, do you guys?

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon
the lawyers will "figure it out" for everyone, after they have sucked their fill of blood from everyone.

they're like ticks (lawyers), they don't let go until their gorged, or the body is dead.

Yeah, because surgeons charge fair rates.

 

[Jhhnn]

Leaving all the legal maneuvering aside, a fair settlement would provide for the full assessed value of both buildings combined. Whether that's $3.5B or $7B, I have no idea, but I doubt that either party would have knowingly agreed to any policy that didn't fully cover both structures...

I strongly suspect that the lower figure is correct... Insurance guys are very sharp, and had the structures been worth $7B, they'd have wanted to collect premiums reflecting that amount of coverage...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Leaving all the legal maneuvering aside, a fair settlement would provide for the full assessed value of both buildings combined. Whether that's $3.5B or $7B, I have no idea, but I doubt that either party would have knowingly agreed to any policy that didn't fully cover both structures...

I strongly suspect that the lower figure is correct... Insurance guys are very sharp, and had the structures been worth $7B, they'd have wanted to collect premiums reflecting that amount of coverage...

Not so. As I recall*, the actual loss is much higher than $7 billion. The insurance policy was not intended to cover the loss of the entire building. It was intended to cover any normal anticipated loss, e.g., fires, a truck bomb that damaged a few floors, etc. In return for substantially lower insurance premiums, Silverstein, et al, agreed to a cap on the total damages that would be paid in each claim.

You almost certainly have similar limits on your home and auto liability insurance, the "maximum xxxx dollars per accident clause", and may have similar limits on your property damage. Most people don't realize their auto insurance won't pay all the damages in a worst-case accident. Say, for example, you collide with an auto transport carrying eight new Mercedes, and that you cause all of the cars to be totaled. The total damage might be $500,000 or more. Your insurance might be limited to $300,000 per accident. Guess what, you're in deep you-know-what. The good news is that the auto carrier probably carries uninsured and under-insured motorist coverage to make up the difference. If you happen to have deep pockets, however, his insurance company might come after you personally to collect the balance.

(*Sorry to be vague, I no longer have materials I can reference. I read a lot about this in the months following 9/11, at least in part because my employer was headquartered in WTC 1 -- including one of our data centers -- and we had other offices in WTC 2. The New York Times had extensive detail about everything related to 9/11. If you are interested, it may still be on their site.)

 

[Jhhnn]

You may well be right, Bowfinger. Ought to be interesting.