Silverstein: round 2.

Asserting that the destruction of the World Trade Center was caused by two separate attacks, lawyers representing WTC owner Larry Silverstein reentered court on October 18 for a second lawsuit against WTC insurers, seeking double the $1.1 billion insurance payout.

The second suit comes on the heels of the first, whose $3.5 billion judgment, versus the $7 billion amount Silverstein was seeking, ruled in favor of the insurers. But while ten insurers involved in the fast trial were found to have used a Willis property form (Wilprop)--which essentially caps an insurer's liability, regardless of the amount of destructive "occurrences"--to underwrite their WTC policies, the current suit has been levied against nine insurers who used different policy documents. Depending on the terminology used in these individual policies, the absence of the Wilprop form opens up the possibility for a different, more favorable judgment for Silverstein.

Defense attorneys have already tried to tighten the somewhat loose definition of "occurrence" that is so essential to the outcome of the case, arguing in the suit's opening statements that the ambiguous terminology in the policy documents which define an occurrence have been customarily interpreted by the insurance industry to have an aggregate meaning.

Their claim has been the source of heated argument over whether the planes used in the 9/11 attack, which collided with different buildings at different times but were part of the same attack, qualify as one occurrence or two. Of the nine insurers in the trial, Royal Specialty, Zurich and Twin City were losers from the first lawsuit. The remaining six, Allianz, Travelers, IRI, Gulf, TIG and Tokio Marine did not participate in the first suit. Allianz, IRI and Travelers have the most at stake, owing $432.6 million, $237.8 million, and $210.6 million respectively per occurrence. A spokesperson at Allianz claimed that the firm is confident its case won't have to rely on the jury's interpretation of how many events define an occurrence. The spokesperson said that Allianz had documents very much like Wilprop in place and that the insurance firm most likely would be found responsible for only one payment. Because each firm used different documents, different rulings will be awarded for each, meaning that Silverstein could end collecting more than $1.1 billion but less than the $2.2 billion amount he is seeking.