WTC Loss Revisited: The Skinny From FC&S
Over two years have passed since the Sept. 11 attack on New Yorks World Trade Center. Much has been learned about the terrorist group that launched the attack. Much has been done to replace the fallen buildings. Much has been paid to the victims of the attack.
Yet the same basic insurance question of whether 9/11 was one occurrence or two remains.
In a Sept. 9, 2002, "FC&S On Lines" column in this magazine, I ventured the opinion that the Sept. 11 disaster was two occurrences. I based that on the observations that two separate planes hit two separate buildings at two separate times, and that the language of the binder describing an occurrence was open to various interpretations.
However, to the surprise of this FC&S editor (and of many in the insurance industry), judicial decisions to date have shown an inclination toward the one-occurrence stance.
Now, I havent read or seen anything to change my opinion that the WTC disaster was two occurrences. The federal courts in New York may decide otherwise.
However, with all due respect to the parties involved in this dispute, any clarification of policy language should be welcomed, especially by those of us who analyze insurance coverage forms and try to present them in understandable terms.
The answer to the one-occurrence vs. two-occurrences dispute will serve as a valuable guide in interpreting policy language in the future.
David D. Thamann is managing editor of the FC&S Bulletins, published by the National Underwriter Company in Erlanger, Ky.
Reproduced from National Underwriter Property & Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, February 6, 2004. Copyright 2004 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.