I'm Agglo, and I'm back after a long absence; I've been busy this past month with a new novel I'm writing. Note: Personally I hope Silvershort loses this second trial, for reasons I don't want to stress here :tongue2: .

2nd WTC Insurance Trial to Select Jurors

Mon Oct 11, 5:33 PM ET Business - AP

By KAREN MATTHEWS, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK - Jury selection starts Tuesday in the second round of World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein's attempt to increase his $3.5 billion insurance payout.

Silverstein suffered a blow in Manhattan federal court earlier this year when a jury ruled that the two planes hitting the twin towers on Sept. 11, 2001, constituted one event under contract language that affected 13 insurers.

If Silverstein's lawyers can convince jurors in the second trial that the attack was two occurrences, he will stand to collect $1.1 billion more from nine insurers involved in this phase. Opening statements are scheduled for next Monday.

Silverstein has vowed to rebuild 10 million square feet of office space at ground zero regardless of how much money he collects from insurers. He and redevelopment officials plan to construct the 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, other skyscrapers and cultural buildings within the next decade.

Silverstein — who holds a 99-year lease on the property — argued in the first trial that he should receive $7 billion, or twice the $3.5 billion insurance policy on the trade center, because the two jets that struck the towers 16 minutes apart represented two events.

The first trial, which ended in May, focused on whether 13 insurers that provided the bulk of the trade center's coverage were bound by a brokers contract, known as the Wilprop form. But the second trial may include more evidence about what actually occurred on Sept. 11.

In a Sept. 23 pretrial hearing before U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey, Silverstein's lawyers said they would call structural engineer Matthys Levy, co-author of the book "Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail," to testify about the sequence of events that caused the towers to fall.

Mukasey said Silverstein's lawyers would not be permitted to show the jurors any photos from Sept. 11 or to put on "a sound and light show" to try to influence them.

During a second hearing on Oct. 1, Katherine Colinvaux, an attorney for insurer Allianz Global Risk, indicated that lawyers for the insurers might put into evidence portions of the 9/11 Commission's report to show that the attack was part of a single plot.

Silverstein, who could not be reached for comment Monday because of the holiday, has said he plans to appeal the first verdict and is confident of victory in the second trial. Mukasey has instructed lawyers involved in the case not to talk with reporters.

The whole insurance thing is pretty silly; 9/11 was a single plot to destroy a single building complex, and the plot to erase any trace of the WTC would have failed if only one building was destroyed.

Anything Silverstein says to the contrary is an attempt to swindle money away from the insurers.

(BTW what's your novel about?)

It's because of Silverstein that we got the 70-floor limit Freedom Tower design. I'm glad that Swiss Re and all those other insurance companies stood up to Silverstein's greed and fear of heights. They'll forever get my respect and admiration.

Due to fear of plagiarists I can't go into many details about the novel, except to say it's a crime-conspiracy novel that occurs sometime after 9-11 and war in Iraq, and I will include some details about the screwed-up WTC rebuilding process in it. That's all I'll say.

Newsday

Silverstein renews bid to double WTC claim

BLOOMBERG NEWS

October 19, 2004

In a replay of the dispute that he has already lost once, Larry Silverstein's lawyers told a U.S. District Court jury that nine insurers, including Allianz AG and St. Paul Travelers Cos., should pay the World Trade Center's leaseholder twice the value of their $1.1 billion in policies because the terrorist assault was two separate events.

"These companies promised to pay up to $1.1 billion for each occurrence of property loss that the Silverstein parties suffered," Silverstein Properties lawyer Bernard Nussbaum said in opening arguments yesterday.

"You will see from the evidence that there were two distinct physical losses each resulting from a direct physical cause: separate planes each striking separate tower, at separate times, causing separate collapses."

The court is hearing Silverstein's second bid to collect more than the $3.55 billion of insurance he bought from a syndicate of 23 carriers two months before the trade center was destroyed.

In the first phase of the trial, which ended in May, another jury found that Swiss Reinsurance Co. and nine other insurers had policy language under which the attacks by two hijacked planes could be defined only as a single occurrence, preventing Silverstein from claiming an extra $2.1 billion.

None of the nine insurers in this phase had such restrictive language in their coverage agreements.

Attorney Harvey Kurzweil, representing Travelers, told the jury that a single terrorist plot destroyed the Twin Towers.

Kurzweil said that even without the explicit language used in the policies at issue in the first trial, Silverstein knew that a single plot would be treated as a single event, even if multiple weapons were used.

"They knew there could be more than one terrorist act. They knew what they were doing - this is their business ... A deal is a deal," said Kurzweil in his opening argument.

Any idea when this trial is going to be decided? This court battle is quite important, as it will determine whether or not Silverstein has enough money to build the Freedom Tower.

Does anyone know how much he is collecting in liberty bonds? I was under the impression that he IS building freedom tower with some of that money. and the insurence money was to help finance the other towers, and the cultral, performing arts, part of the reconstruction?? i think he's trying to apease to many people. ( i've said it before and i'll say it again, rebuild 12 million sq. ft. office space, reconstruct train infrastructure, 500,000 sq. ft. retail (underground) and memorial on footprints. anything else on this site is disrespectful and tacky!!! cultral, performing arts, museums, belong on another site. the original WTC was largely vacant for almost 8 years after completion, eventualy all the space built WILL be absorbed, whats he so afraid of, he's got plenty of money to get started, why dosen't he just start building, if people see towers going up they'll jump on the band wagon and he'll get his money anyway!!)

More insurance news, though not much more:

Jury Still Out on Second World Trade Center Trial

New York Lawyer
November 22, 2004

By Michael Bobelian
New York Law Journal

Jurors continued deliberations Friday in the month-long trial to determine whether the terror attack on the World Trade Center constituted one or two events for insurance purposes. At issue in the case before Southern District Judge Michael Mukasey is whether nine insurers will pay developer Larry Silverstein some $1.1 billion or $2.2 billion for the destruction of the twin towers.

Mr. Silverstein's legal team, led by Bernard Nussbaum of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, has argued that the use of two hijacked planes amounted to two separate attacks. The insurers called the coordinated attack one occurrence. Last week, jurors asked to see the cross-examination of Frank Teterus, an Industrial Risk Insurers executive.

During his testimony, Mr. Teterus acknowledged that the WilProp form occurrence definition and Industrial Risk's definition "could be interpreted differently." An earlier trial, also before Judge Mukasey, determined that the WilProp was in effect on Sept. 11, 2001. Under the WilProp, the attacks were deemed one occurrence.

Harvey Kurzweil of Dewey Ballantine, who represents Travelers, and other lawyers for the insurers in the current case have argued that although the WilProp does not apply to their clients, its terms are consistent with the unfinished contracts applicable in the case.

On Friday, jurors asked to see testimony from Mr. Silverstein's risk manager, Robert Strachan, a key negotiator of the insurance contracts.

Michael Barr, a partner at Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal representing Royal Indemnity Company, said he did not expect the jury to turn in a split verdict categorizing some policies as one occurrence and others as two, though he did not rule out the possibility.

the original WTC was largely vacant for almost 8 years after completion,

I've been reading a lot of NY Times articles from the period when the WTC was opened, and actually the WTC was over 75% occupied at completion. Not stellar for a development, but far from the vertical ghost town some have claimed.

Breaking news:

Trade Center Jury Says Insurers Liable on Two Attacks (Update3)
Trade Center Jury Says Insurers Liable on Two Attacks (Update3)
Dec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- A New York jury agreed with World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein that the attack on the twin towers by a pair of hijacked planes was two insurable events, requiring nine companies, including St. Paul Travelers Cos., to pay as much as double their policy limits.

The victory in U.S. District Court opens the door for Silverstein, 73, to get up to $1.1 billion more on top of a minimum payment of $3.55 billion. The developer said before the trial it would cost about $7.5 billion to replace all 10 million square feet of offices lost in the Sept. 11 attack.

``This is a win for all New Yorkers,'' said Silverstein in a statement released by his public relations firm, Howard Rubenstein Associates. ``Today's decision means an additional billion dollars of insurance proceeds will be available, which, together with Liberty Bonds, will ensure a timely and complete rebuild of the World Trade Center.'' Liberty Bonds are low- interest federal loans from a post-Sept. 11 recovery program.

Silverstein's exact recovery is to be decided in an arbitration that would set the value of the 110-story twin towers and two smaller buildings nearby at the time of their destruction, an effort that is under way already, according to Silverstein attorney Herbert Wachtell. A negotiated settlement is likely, said David Wood, a San Francisco attorney who represents corporate policyholders against insurers.

``If it's two occurrences instead of one, then he'' -- Silverstein -- ``controls the evaluation,'' Wood said before the verdict. The leaseholder's victory is ``a huge incentive for everybody to sit down and work this thing out.''

Options Weighed

The jury deliberated for 11 days over more than three weeks after more than four weeks of trial testimony.

Attorneys for the insurers, including Harvey Kurzweil who represented Travelers, declined to comment after the verdict. The layers for both sides, who numbered more than 30, exchanged quiet handshakes afterward. A few aides to the insurance lawyers were in tears, while the 13 attorneys who represented Silverstein exchanged hugs.

``We're taking a look at all of our options,'' Zurich Financial Services AG spokesman Keith Owens said by telephone. He said the company is adequately reserved, declining to comment further.

John Novaria, spokesman for General Electric Co.'s Employers Reinsurance Group, which includes Industrial Risk Insurers, said that company `` is convinced that the attack on the World Trade Center was one occurrence'' and ``We are examining our options.'' He declined to comment on whether the company is reserved.

Appeals

Silverstein lost to a separate group of insurers in an earlier phase of the case. Both sides might appeal the verdicts in which they were defeated and other decisions in the lawsuit, which was filed five weeks after the towers were destroyed.

Following his earlier setback, Silverstein's landlord, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sent a letter demanding a plan that shows he has the financial wherewithal to rebuild and insure the property.

Silverstein said before the trial that with $3.55 billion he could afford to build the first skyscraper, the $1.5 billion 1,776-foot Freedom Tower, and a second; then he would borrow against those buildings to pay for the last three.

``If the verdict holds, this is certainly a step forward for redevelopment of the World Trade Center site,'' said Kathryn Wylde, president of the New York City Partnership, a group of about 200 chief executives.

``If the insurance proceeds were to result in Silverstein being able to offer the building on more favorable terms, it will rent faster and go up faster,'' Wylde said.

Rent

In addition to funding the rebuilding, Silverstein also needs the money to keep paying his $109 million a year rent to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the 16- acre site.

In May, Silverstein lost a 10-week trial to Swiss Reinsurance Co., his largest carrier, and nine other insurers, denying him a chance for another $2.1 billion.

The jury in that phase found the parties had agreed to a preliminary insurance policy written by Silverstein's insurance agent, Willis Group Ltd., which defined the word occurrence in a way that could only mean the two-jet attack was a single total loss claim.

None of the nine insurers in this phase had agreed to that contract, known as the Wilprop form. Besides Travelers, the other insurers who lost are Allianz AG, Gulf Insurance Co., Industrial Risk Insurers, Royal Indemnity Co., Zurich American Insurance Co., TIG Insurance Co., Twin City Fire Insurance Co. and Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co. Ltd.

Arguments

The insurers, led by Kurzweil, argued that the definition of occurrence used in the Wilprop form was the industry's common understanding of the term. They said that when he was negotiating the contracts, Silverstein was looking for a single consistent insurance program, and therefore expected that Wilprop's definition would apply whether or not it was explicitly stated in each agreement.

Silverstein's attorney Bernard Nussbaum, told the nine- woman, two-man jury that the notion of a common meaning of occurrence was a myth. He said that when it suits their interests, such as when multiple events will trigger multiple deductibles for policyholders, insurers treat several similar events as separate occurrences.

Nussbaum cited as precedents a Contra Costa County, California, case involving four arson fires over 17 days at courthouses that Travelers treated as separate occurrences, even though the same arsonist set the blazes, and a Shreveport, Louisiana, hotel construction project that was struck by 17 rain and windstorms in less than a month.

The attorney argued that ``each separate physical strike was a separate occurrence.''

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aNb7G2W0igMc&refer=home

PR Newswire

Statement from Larry A. Silverstein Regarding Verdict in WTC Insurance Trial

NEW YORK, Dec. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- "I am thrilled with today's victory. But
this is a win for all New Yorkers. Today's decision means an additional
billion dollars of insurance proceeds will be available, which, together with
Liberty Bonds, will ensure a timely and complete rebuild of the World Trade
Center. I strongly felt, and the jury agreed, that the destruction of the
Twin Towers by two separate airplanes at two separate times was two separate
occurrences and that these insurers have an obligation to pay their fair share
to help make Lower Manhattan whole again.

"Everyone involved in the World Trade Center is determined to rebuild to
the highest possible standards, and we have made amazing progress over the
past three years. We topped out at 7 World Trade Center ahead of schedule and
will have a completed building by the beginning of 2006. We laid the
cornerstone of the Freedom Tower in a moving ceremony on July 4th, and nothing
will deter us from our important mission."

HALLELUJAH! With an extra billion, Silverstein will have less worries about building towers 2 and 3 as big and tall as necessary, and the whole reconstruction process will be sped up. :banana:

do you think it will affect the speed of construction also? i hope they fasten things up. can't wait to see how it will look like

Rebuilding completely aside, I think the jury made the wrong decision. 9/11 was one attack. One that advanced on two flanks, but still one attack.

I agree with you STR on this one, i.e. one 2 pronged attack. however, as i said; people will jump on the band wagon and he'll get (got) his money!!!!

As to the occupancy of the original towers, the documentery stated that the towers where not 100% occupied until 1981, as i'm sure your research in this area is more extensive than mine, "largely vacant" is a misprint on my part.

I made an misprint myself. Because the complex was so large, space came online in phases that lasted until 1974. The center was 75% leased at time of inauguration. I don't have occupancy rate at the time the original 5 office buildings were 100% done.

That is still remarkably high for a WTB in NYC. 40 Wall street was 40% leased when done. Chrysler started out 66% leased. ESB had only two tenants at inauguration, and that's for what was also the world's largest building.