| [images added by
this website]  Happier
times. A Dec 6, 1999 party at the Skyscrapers
Museum, for the Owners and Developers of the
biggest New York
skyscrapers.
Front row: 1. Joe
Moinian (17 Battery Place) 2. Larry
Silverstein (120 Broadway, 7 World Trade
Center) 3. Leona Helmsley (Empire State
Building) 4. Susan Uris Halpern (55
Water Street) 5. Jonathan Green (1221
Ave. of the Americas) 6. Davar Rad (61
Broadway) Back row: 7. Adam
Hochfelder (230 Park Ave.) 8. Steven
Roth (One Penn Plaza) 9. Jeff
Marconi (200 Park Ave., One Madison Ave., 11
Madison Ave.) 10. Ric Clark (One
Liberty Plaza, World Financial Center)
11. Steve Witkoff (233 Broadway, 80
Maiden Lane)
New York, Friday, September 26,
2003 Trade Center
Developer Suffers Setback in Insurance
Dispute By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
 NEW
YORK (AP) -- In a setback for World
Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein,
a federal appeals court Friday refused to find that
the two-plane attack on the World Trade Center
means he can collect insurance twice, saying a jury
can decide.
And the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld
the findings of a judge who decided that contracts
for three of 22 companies insuring the trade center
complex make it clear that the terrorism
represented one occurrence for them, not two. For the rest of the companies, a jury will have
to decide the issue after hearing evidence about
the legal documents each signed with Silverstein
Properties, and what was understood at the
time. "In any event, we are not called upon here to
decide whether there was one occurrence or two in
this case," the court wrote. "To be sure, a jury could find two occurrences
in this case ... or it could find that the
terrorist attack, although manifested in two
separate airplane crashes, was a single,
continuous, planned event causing a continuum of
damage that resulted in the total destruction of
the WTC, and thus, was a single occurrence," it
added. The ruling ended
Silverstein's quest for a quick legal victory by
getting the appeals court to declare that state
law required the terrorism to be viewed as two
occurrences, thus letting it collect $7 billion
rather than $3.5 billion. Silverstein Properties estimates its losses
related to the terrorism at $8.2 billion. The total
includes $5.7 billion for the twin 110-story
skyscrapers, retail property at the site and
buildings 4 and 5, which were destroyed. The court said Judge John S. Martin last
year was correct to conclude that the term
"occurrence" is sufficiently ambiguous under New
York law to permit a jury to view evidence on a
case-by-case basis. The question of whether the terrorism
represented one or two events for insurance
purposes was complicated by the fact that only one
of the 22 insurers had issued a final policy as of
Sept. 11, 2001. Swiss Reinsurance Ltd., the company responsible
for 22 percent of the coverage under the trade
center's multilayer policy, will be among those
going to trial. It asserts that Silverstein cannot
recover more than $3.5 billion because it considers
the terrorism one event. Barry Ostrager, a lawyer for Swiss Re,
called the appeals ruling a "huge, huge win for the
insurers" and said the appeals court's legal
findings were so favorable that it might ask the
trial judge to conclude it is entitled to victory
even before trial. Howard J. Rubenstein, a spokesman for
Silverstein, acknowledged in a statement that
Silverstein had hoped the appeals court would rule
that there were two occurrences. He added, "We are fully confident that a jury
hearing all of the evidence will reject the
insurers' attempts to avoid paying for the cost of
rebuilding the World Trade Center."  In
his ruling, Martin had addressed the contracts with
Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Royal Indemnity Co.
and St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co. The
appeals ruling settles the question of occurrences
entirely for two of the three companies, upholding
Martin's findings that each company had contracts
making it clear that the terrorism represented one
occurrence rather than two.
Silverstein Properties had said the three
insurance companies accounted for only $112 million
of coverage. Royal Indemnity lawyer Michael Barr said
the ruling settles the case for a $50 million
contract but that a separate contract the company
had for an additional $125 million must go to
trial. "We're enormously pleased. It really could not
have been a better decision," Barr said of the
appeals court findings. As to the Royal Indemnity case that must proceed
to trial, he said, "We think that the evidence is
powerful and overwhelming and are prepared to
present that case at trial." John Heintz, a Washington lawyer who has
represented businesses in the past against the
insurance industry, said he would not discount
Silverstein's prospects before a jury. "While Silverstein may not have been able to get
a short circuit result, getting to a jury
ultimately on an issue like this is a win," he
said. "To be sure, now he's got a more lengthy and
costly job ahead of him." No trial date has been set. 
Washington
Post: "Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC
Attack"-
Dilemma
assicurativo da 7 miliardi di $ sull'attacco al
WTC
(Italian)-
Property
magnate Larry Silverstein had just signed $3.2
billion deal on WTC towers
-
Ugly
squabble over who picks up World Trade Center
insurance tab
-
Allianz
is also suing WTC leaseholder
-
While
Silverstein insured his 99-year WTC lease
against terrorism, one of Israel's biggest
companies pulled out of the north tower just
days before Sept. 11
-
Were
Israelis warned not to go to the WTC on
9-11?
-
Israeli
death toll on Sept. 11, 2001 rises to five,
including plane passengers (5)
-
Israeli
WTC firm Odigo confirms: two of its employees
received warnings via "instant messages" two
hours before the attacks
| ![[]](../../std/dings/list.gif){kind=small}
write to David
Irving