View Single Post
Old 12-30-2012, 06:59 PM   #203
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
I don't find anything blurry about Port Authority owning WTC and Silverstein signing a lease in July about 6 weeks before the attack occured.

I cited my source for the insurance info. It states:

Quote:
In most disaster insurance, “occurrence” is carefully defined. Earthquake coverage typically treats all shaking during a four-day period as one event, says Robert Hartwig of the Insurance Information Institute. The dispute over the World Trade Centre arose because Mr Silverstein—who leased it in the summer of 2001—was still finalising his insurance policy when the buildings were destroyed.
Reading this, I'm assuming that there was no "terrorism" insurance, but the attack was considered a "disaster".

Quote:
The muddle over forms is hard to credit. Such a litigious business, you might think, would have everything signed and sealed before a policy goes into place. Not so. One reason is that on a big policy such as that covering the World Trade Centre lots of insurers will share the risk. Bringing them all together is tricky enough for a broker, so details—such as making sure they all sign the same form—are often sorted out later. Sometimes “you do the best you can, and revisit it later when the market settles down,” explains one London broker—although he adds that things have been tightened up in recent years.
Based on the above, it sure sounds like the insurance wasn't finalized, which certainly casts doubt on the allegation that the insured increased his coverage RIGHT before the attacks happened.

This is the first I've heard of this insurance allegation. I've only read a little about it, so I'm open to more info from credible sources.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Stuff for sale in SoCal:

- Bestop briefcase

----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is online now   Reply With Quote