WTC Trial Jury: No Verdict Yet

WTC Trial Jury: No Verdict Yet

NU Online News Service, April 23, 4:14 p.m. EDT?The Manhattan federal court jury hearing the insurance dispute case that pits World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein against 13 of his insurers wrapped up its first week of deliberations without reaching a verdict.[@@]

With the court in recess today, deliberations are set to resume Monday at 9:30 a.m.

The jury must decide which insurance form controlled the coverage when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center?a Travelers form or a Willis' "Wilprop" form. Insurers contend they signed their binders on the basis of Wilprop, which would limit the WTC claim to one event worth $3.5 billion.

Mr. Silverstein, argues that prior to Sept. 11, 2001, the governing form was changed to the Travelers form, which leaves open the possibility that the WTC terrorist attack constitutes two covered events worth some $7 billion.

The following are the highlights from the first week of jury deliberations:

? On Thursday, Judge Michael Mukasey said in response to the jurors' inquiry that insurers could be bound by a policy form?Willis Group's "Wilprop" form in this case?even if they didn't have a copy of the form. This instruction by the judge may help some Lloyd's of London underwriters, because some of them had signed their binders without actually having read the Wilprop form, a form which defines the WTC terrorist attack as only one insured event.

"Does this mean that an insurer can agree to a form that exists and is available for review even if the form has not been received? The answer is yes," the judge said yesterday.

? In one set of notes sent out by the jury, the jurors asked for clarifications on facts concerning Lloyd's of London underwriters. In these notes, the jurors asked if either Munich Re or Swiss Re International constitutes part of Lloyd's.

"Is Munich Re part of the Lloyd's syndicates? Is Swiss Re International part of the Lloyd's syndicates?" the jury asked in its notes. The judge commented after getting the notes that "the answers to the questions?the specific requests about whether people are or are not part of things?I think are fairly easy." The jury also requested a second look at testimony concerning several Lloyd's syndicates.

? The jury also sent a note asking to see summations from both sides in their entirety, but the judge denied the request, explaining it would be difficult for jurors to review the entire summations, which are hundreds of pages long.

"Summations took two days. It is inconceivable that the jury could review those summations in their entirety in the jury room," Judge Mukasey said. He said there is no readily available way for jurors to find the parts that they may want, and "that leaves to chance what they might find and what they might not find."

? Earlier, in a note sent out on Monday, the jury asked the judge about an e-mail sent from Willis, Mr. Silverstein's broker for the WTC insurance placement, to an underwriter at Swiss Reinsurance, the carrier with the largest insured interest in dispute.

The e-mail in question, sent in July 2001, had an attachment containing a form from Travelers Property Casualty?a form which would help Mr. Silverstein's claim that the WTC attack constitutes two reimbursable events.

The jurors heard testimony that a Swiss Re underwriter had received this e-mail (which also had other attachments), but that the underwriter had not responded to it.

In the note, the jury asked, "Does just getting the form and remaining silent constitute an agreement to the form?" The jury explained in its note that it couldn't reach consensus on whether the Swiss Re underwriter, by not responding to the e-mail, could have agreed to a switch from Wilprop to the Travelers form. And the jury requested that Judge Mukasey clarify his instruction on legal requirements for finding an agreement to change forms.

In response, the judge explained to jurors that silence doesn't constitute a new agreement and that the earlier agreement continues to govern. But he also said there could be exceptional circumstances, such as when silence could mislead the party that asked to switch forms.