This page automatically marks posts as read as you scroll.

9/11 case This page automatically marks posts as read as you scroll. Adjust automatic marking as read setting I agree with the ruling in the first case on this issue. The attack was one coordinated attack planned against four major buildings in two cities by one group of terrorists working as a sleeper cell under the blanket organization of Al Quaeda in an act of war against our country. Therefore, it was one incident and should have been treated as such by the courts and the insurers. If the two towers were insured as one unit, they should have been treated as one incident. HOWEVER, if Silverstein had insured the two properties as two separate units each with their own insurance then I think they could have been seen as two different attacks. The logic on Silverstein's side is that since two planes flew into two separate buildings, he should be allowed to file two claims, one for each building as two seperate plane crashes. There is also the question of which of two documents defines the "occurrence" in this case. One has very vague language and could be construed to fit his theory, The other is agreed by all the insurers to be the binding one and it has very specific language that backs up the insurer's theory. The more specific legal document should override the more vague document, in my opinion. The logic on the insurer side is as I stated in the first paragraph: one incident by one group with the weapon being two planes (four if you count the DC planes) plus the more specific document. I think the final ruling by the judge (that it is one incident) is ethical. Even though Silverstein suffered a great loss, he doesn't appear to have actually been holding enough insurance on the properties to start with. So that is one problem that is his fault. He also should have made sure that all the insurance documents used the same language. It is also ethical because you have to weight the hardship to Silverstein against the ripple effect against all the companies insuring his building (for not enough money it turns out). It was unfair that he could insure the building for half its worth and collect double damages against them. However, I also think that the federal government should have stepped in much sooner and paid some portion of his damages. Definitely not all he wanted but it was clearly a federal emergency and it would have been ethically the right thing to do given the situation at that time. They were already negotiating coverage for the victims so this would have been fair enough to add to that process.