none of what i said was factually incorrect. the ownership lines were very blurry at the time of attack. for the first time (in 2001) there was private equity in the buildings.
Additionally, i'm not sure where you found that the policies were "still being worked out". there is no fvcking way this deal would have went through without every insurance policy in place. by all accounts i've seen within the industry, the policies were in place in June 2001. the only thing disputed was if each plane was a separate incident or not, which would make the payout nearly double.
Thirdly, in 2001, terrorism coverage was scarcely used. i mean, REALLY rare. very few carriers offered it, and almost no one took it. I'm not connecting any dots here. but terrorism and acts of war are excluded on just about every single property policy in the world, and always have been. its available by endorsement or another policy, never included. they possibly just had a solid consultant who told them to take it, to clarify, its not like they added terrorism the day before the event.
sidenote: to RAMTIN's point, there was a very handsome profit made when building 7 fell as well. not trying to argue with u xcel, but please let me know what i provided that was factually incorrect?
Last edited by wrighterjw10; 12-30-2012 at 11:15 AM.