A few days
after the 9/11 attacks, I remember watching an insurance company executive tell CNN's Lou Dobbs that he doubted any insurance company would try to use legal technicalities (such as an 'act of war' exception) to evade paying off claims to WTC policy holders. I thought of that interview when I saw this article
in the Times
describing how one of the major WTC insurers, Swiss Re
, is now trying to do just that.
Well, maybe not. The surprise, if you read the article, is that the insurance company seems to have a pretty damn good case.
According to the Times article, the policy held by the folks with the lease on the WTC stated that every insurable incident would be covered up to $3.5 billion. But Larry A. Silverstein, whose company holds the lease to the WTC complex, wants $7 billion. His argument -- as the math indicates -- is that the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers wasn't one incident, but rather two separate incidents, one for each plane.
Doesn't that seem like a bit of a stretch?