ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 9/11 litigation , financial crime , insurance fraud , larry silverstein , silverstein , WTC insurance

Reply
Old 20th December 2006, 08:59 AM   #1
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Let's Talk about Insurance Fraud!

One of the many ridiculous things I've heard from the 9/11 "Truth" movement is that the attacks on 9/11 were somehow a huge case of insurance fraud on the part of Larry Silverstein, or the Illuminati, or someone.

I'd like to talk about that for a second.

The very idea shows that the people espousing this theory have a profound misunderstanding of the insurance business in general, and insurance fraud specifically. Let me explain:

Insurance is essentially a risk-balancing utility. Insurance companies take on the risks associated with their line of coverage in exchange for premium payments. The companies are able to make money because they spread the risk among many different kinds of insurance. Thus, money made through lower level risks takes some of the pressure off higher level risks. It is the job of actuaries to come up with acceptable mathematical formulas and calculations to deal with the distributed risks, and the job of underwriters to apply those formulas to specific cases, along with their personal experience and judgment. It is then the job of claims adjusters to negotiate payment of claims, and claims examiners and investigators to look for fraudulent or suspcious claims behavior and ensure that the company doesn't lose money on it.

Insurance business is intended to be renumerative, not profitable for the person receiving benefits. Commercial risks are insured for their actual values, and the insurance companies will become very suspicious if someone tries to take out more insurance than a property is worth. This is one area where insurance fraud enters the picture.

There are three main ways to commit insurance fraud, all of which piss the insurance companies off a great deal:
  1. Insure something, then make a false claim when the thing is not actually damaged, injured, lost, etc.
  2. Insure something for far more than its worth, then make a claim.
  3. In disability-type insurance, you can continue a claim beyond the end of the actual disability the insurance was supposed to cover.
The insurance business employs a great number of people whose jobs are to assess risk, evaluate claims, adjust payment, and investigate fraud. If a company did nothing to protect itself against fraud, it would very quickly become financially insolvent and go out of business.

Insurance on commercial risks is designed to help ease the financial burden of a loss. Insurance will not always cover the full cost of replacing an expensive commercial risk, and it will never make a profit for the person with the insurance, unless they do not intend to rebuild the original risk but instead pay off any loans (banks don't like being defrauded either, you know), pocket the difference, and leave.

In the insurance industry, we are always looking out for suspicious risks. If you try to take out five times what your risk is worth in insurance, the company will simply not issue you coverage. They aren't legally required to, and underwriters are paid to ensure that such risks don't get past the front door.

So, my dear conspiracy theorists, how exactly did the massive insurance fraud of the twin towers work?

The replacement tower will cost far more to build than the policy on the twin towers was worth. Not only that, but the owner had to pay off the existing mortgage on the towers. This leaves a pretty big dent which is not filled by any insurance. If Silverstein was simply paying the mortgage and pocketing the difference that might be suspicious.

However, as a quick review of the Wikipedia article on the site shows, even Silverstein's best case scenario (which he didn't get, and which the insurance companies fought him viciously over) would only get him 6.8 billion in insurance dollars. Subtract the remaining mortgage on the towers, as well as the 10 to 12 billion in rebuilding costs, and you're looking at a big chunk of change still lost. He would be at least 4 billion dollars in debt. That's more than the site originally cost.

Not only that, but the twin towers were quite profitable, and had fairly high occupancy rates.

So, Silverstein wanted the money-making towers destroyed so he could collect a net loss from insurance funds, not to mention the loss of rental income in the time (which will probably be a decade at least) it will take to build the Freedom Tower. That makes sense only in fantasy land.

If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever. I include those morons you see on the Maury show who are supposed to be on disability but can somehow lift a washing machine in that statement.

Yeah, you can quote me on that.

So, have at it. Any CTists here want to play the insurance game?
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:04 AM   #2
Kiwiwriter
Graduate Poster
 
Kiwiwriter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,110
Smile Great post!

I nominated it.

About time we had some expertise on what really goes on with insurance to derail these conspiracy theorists.

I get tired of argumentum incredulum and argumentum ignorantium. (My apologies if I got the words wrong)
__________________
"When you hate, the only one that suffers is you because most of the people you hate don't know it and the rest don't care." -- Medgar Evers
"My intensity is intense." -- Roger Clemens
Check out my writing at http://www.usswashington.com/dl_index.htm
and my blog at
http://davidhlippman.wildbillguarnere.com
Kiwiwriter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:06 AM   #3
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Kiwiwriter View Post
I get tired of argumentum incredulum and argumentum ignorantium. (My apologies if I got the words wrong)
It gets old, doesn't it?

I guess they live in a magical world where insurance companies don't give a hoot about making a dollar, as long as the NWO somehow profits some kind of way from it.

Too bad the rest of us live in the real world.

Back to Star Wars beams and invisible planes, fellows, the financial industry is no place for you.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:22 AM   #4
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,482
once i asked why the insurance comapnies arent pursuing fraud charges, i twas told because all the insurance companies are owned by the same guy and they are all in on it too

naturally the followup was "then arent the NWO just defrauding themselves?"

i was expecting a claim of money laundering for the 2.3 trillion "stolen" from the pentagon, but i guess the CTers arent thinking that far ahead, he just changed the subject
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:38 AM   #5
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 23,759
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
naturally the followup was "then arent the NWO just defrauding themselves?"
Quote:
Thus, money made through lower level risks takes some of the pressure off higher level risks.
Don't you see, man? They're taking the money from Aunt Millie's fire insurance, and using it to pay off the WTC insurance!


Just ignore the fact that they already have the money from Aunt Millie, and are obligated to pay out if she has a fire, okay? Otherwise you're being left-brained! And then my argument won't work! [/28th Kingdom]
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:43 AM   #6
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
once i asked why the insurance comapnies arent pursuing fraud charges, i twas told because all the insurance companies are owned by the same guy and they are all in on it too
So, I must be wasting my time trying to develop competitive rates on the cases I underwrite, since all the premium money's going to the same place anyway.

Maybe I should ask the Illuminati for a substantial pay raise.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:49 AM   #7
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5,001
I would like to play! I don't believe any of this of course, but in my dealing with CTers, I've gotten some really laughable responses to my poor rendition of your excellent post above. I'll share my favorite one with you.

To wit, the anthrax attacks. My CT guy says that the insurers, rather than do an extensive examination of the Silverstein claim, realized that further anthrax attacks could completely devastate their industry, so in a fit of patriotic fervor they let Silverstein have their money and said, "Government, go get those bad guys!"

My first response was to laugh for a while. My second response was to express that laughter in a post and then say that if the CTer actually thought insurance companies just paid out without sniffing all around for fraud and the like, the CTer wasn't operating in the real world. I was then accused of minimizing the importance of the anthrax attacks.

I never really nailed this person down as to who they thought was pulling off the anthrax attacks, and my two suggestions as to anthrax "protection" money was rejected. So the objection seemed to be just as I stated above - the insurance companies felt the risk of terrorists attacking their insured buildings with anthrax to be so great that they didn't interfere with Silverstein's claim.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:00 AM   #8
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
To wit, the anthrax attacks. My CT guy says that the insurers, rather than do an extensive examination of the Silverstein claim, realized that further anthrax attacks could completely devastate their industry, so in a fit of patriotic fervor they let Silverstein have their money and said, "Government, go get those bad guys!"

My first response was to laugh for a while. My second response was to express that laughter in a post and then say that if the CTer actually thought insurance companies just paid out without sniffing all around for fraud and the like, the CTer wasn't operating in the real world. I was then accused of minimizing the importance of the anthrax attacks.
Yes, they do seem to believe that the world works like that. If the companies really believed that Silverstein was somehow using the anthrax attacks to bully them into paying, they would have their lawyers on him faster than you can say "star wars beam weapon".

Also, that would imply that the anthrax would cause significant life or disability claims (3 billion dollars isn't chump change), and that the insurance companies were the same ones that insured the towers (oh wait, they're all owned by the same people... silly me), and that nothing could be done to stop the anthrax, despite this theory being predicated upon Larry Silverstein being behind the anthrax.

Oh wait, I'm working in "real world" again, not crazy Illuminati moon man world. Silly me.

Besides, they didn't even pay his full claim. Silverstein wanted 6.8 billion, and he ended up getting a total award of about half that.

Oh well, I guess if you can convince yourself the one world government blew up the towers, you can convince yourself of anything.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:07 AM   #9
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
 
TriangleMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,283
Originally Posted by boloboffin View Post
My CT guy says that the insurers, rather than do an extensive examination of the Silverstein claim, realized that further anthrax attacks could completely devastate their industry, so in a fit of patriotic fervor they let Silverstein have their money and said, "Government, go get those bad guys!"
As you suspect this is wrong on many levels:

1) Anthrax attacks might devastate life insurance companies. These companies are in most cases, not the same ones that insure buildings for damage. Anthrax would not damage the building.

2) Much, I'll daresay more than 50% (but I can't back it up), of the insurance money was provided by non-US companies. In the end Lloyds, and reinsurers based in the EU and Bermuda, paid a substantial chunk of the claim. 'patriotic fervor' doesn't really add up.

3) after 9/11 many insurance companies stopped selling terrorism coverage, or specifially excluded it from their policies. Further attacks would have little impact on their capital base and would certainly not cause massive disruptions in the industry. In response a number of speciality lines reinsurers were incorporated to take advantage of the lack of coverage being sold because they could charge big premium for the coverage. But most of those were separate companies not owned by the original older companies so even if there were more attacks it would only impact these new specialty reinsurers.
TriangleMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:22 AM   #10
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by TriangleMan View Post
As you suspect this is wrong on many levels:

1) Anthrax attacks might devastate life insurance companies. These companies are in most cases, not the same ones that insure buildings for damage. Anthrax would not damage the building.

2) Much, I'll daresay more than 50% (but I can't back it up), of the insurance money was provided by non-US companies. In the end Lloyds, and reinsurers based in the EU and Bermuda, paid a substantial chunk of the claim. 'patriotic fervor' doesn't really add up.

3) after 9/11 many insurance companies stopped selling terrorism coverage, or specifially excluded it from their policies. Further attacks would have little impact on their capital base and would certainly not cause massive disruptions in the industry. In response a number of speciality lines reinsurers were incorporated to take advantage of the lack of coverage being sold because they could charge big premium for the coverage. But most of those were separate companies not owned by the original older companies so even if there were more attacks it would only impact these new specialty reinsurers.
#2 is a good point for the US-centric CTists. With high risks, or very large risks, you often find multiple companies jointly insuring the risk in order to spread it out. That's exactly what happened with the WTC towers. I believe there were something like four or six different insurers, not all based in the US.

I'd have to look up numbers for specialty coverage (I don't work with those lines of coverage, so I don't have firsthand knowledge of numbers), but I would think there might be some reluctance to insure certain higher risk segments of that specialty market. That kind of coverage, IIRC, is often sold to people working in areas where it presents a real risk. Depending on where they are and what they do, it might be considered a very high risk (for example, if you're a contractor in one of the worse parts of Iraq, the coverage might be denied or issued only at a ridiculous rate).

Many disability insurance and other such policies, as well as some life insurance policies, will not cover injury (or death) resulting from terrorist acts. The company can always decide to stop issuing new coverage that covers terrorism-related injury/death if their analysts feel that the risk is too great.

And, lo and behold, there have not been masses of anthrax-related deaths and Larry Silverstein didn't get 6.8 billion dollars. Weird how that fits in better with the "not insurance fraud" explanation than with the "was insurance fraud" explanation.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:35 AM   #11
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,482
Quote:
3) after 9/11 many insurance companies stopped selling terrorism coverage, or specifially excluded it from their policies. Further attacks would have little impact on their capital base and would certainly not cause massive disruptions in the industry. In response a number of speciality lines reinsurers were incorporated to take advantage of the lack of coverage being sold because they could charge big premium for the coverage. But most of those were separate companies not owned by the original older companies so even if there were more attacks it would only impact these new specialty reinsurers.
ive been tryign to find out the specifics of silverteins "terrorism" coverage but im not finding much outside of CT site, maybe you could help

was it a specific terrorism policy, or was it just explicitly stated in the standard policy?

from what i understand terrorist acts were an implied coverage in a standard policy, but after 1993 its udnerstandable they would want it explicitly covered at the WTC
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:45 AM   #12
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
ive been tryign to find out the specifics of silverteins "terrorism" coverage but im not finding much outside of CT site, maybe you could help

was it a specific terrorism policy, or was it just explicitly stated in the standard policy?

from what i understand terrorist acts were an implied coverage in a standard policy, but after 1993 its udnerstandable they would want it explicitly covered at the WTC
Insurance policies issued for property generally list what they won't cover rather than what they specifically will cover (for example, many home insurance policies specifically exclude flood damage, hence the need for specialty flood insurance). In the case of the WTC towers, one of the big issues was that "acts of war" are excluded from coverage (as they are with most insurance policies). The insurance companies apparently did not try to use this to avoid paying, so this has been a non-issue.

So, it seems from the information available that the policy probably didn't specifically mention terrorism, but obviously didn't include a terrorism exclusion (or else the companies wouldn't have been liable for anything).

Given the infrequency of terrorist acts in the US, I don't see why Silverstein would have required specific terrorist acts coverage. I would think that would be highly unusual outside of areas where it is a major enough risk to warrant specialty coverage.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:51 AM   #13
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,482
im pretty much just looking for the kernel of truth that may or may not be at the heart of the CT claims

Quote:
Given the infrequency of terrorist acts in the US, I don't see why Silverstein would have required specific terrorist acts coverage. I would think that would be highly unusual outside of areas where it is a major enough risk to warrant specialty coverage.
like i said, given that the towers had been a target in 1993 it wouldnt surprise me if someone had wanted the policy to explicitly state terrorism was not excluded

although i guess short of getting a copy of the actual policy and reading it we'll never know
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:58 AM   #14
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
like i said, given that the towers had been a target in 1993 it wouldnt surprise me if someone had wanted the policy to explicitly state terrorism was not excluded

although i guess short of getting a copy of the actual policy and reading it we'll never know
I had thought of that as well, but I'm not sure that it would make much difference from an actuarial point of view.

You're right, of course. If the policy didn't contain an exclusion and the event was within the parameters of coverage, then it can be assumed to be covered. If the insurers were concerned about another terrorist attack, they would have either excluded those acts from coverage (which they didn't, because they are willing to pay the claims), or charge higher premiums (which I don't know).

Even if we did have a copy of the policy, I'm sure the CT response would be something about it being fake, altered, or whatever. It actually contained a clause about faking terrorist attacks in order to steal the billions in gold from under the towers!
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:04 AM   #15
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
 
TriangleMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,283
Originally Posted by defaultdotxbe View Post
ive been tryign to find out the specifics of silverteins "terrorism" coverage but im not finding much outside of CT site, maybe you could help
There was an old thread a while back where someone asked that question and while I had some knowledge of it a poster named LashL searched and found the details. The thread is here.
TriangleMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:05 AM   #16
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 13,623
All I know is that when my jeep was "totalled," the check we got from the insurance company was for an equivalent replacement, not for a new jeep. The idea that the insurance company will buy you a new car if you wreck the old one is laughable. You get more than standard trade-in value, but that's about it.
__________________
"Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay."

(Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:09 AM   #17
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
 
TriangleMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,283
Originally Posted by JonnyFive View Post
I had thought of that as well, but I'm not sure that it would make much difference from an actuarial point of view.

You're right, of course. If the policy didn't contain an exclusion and the event was within the parameters of coverage, then it can be assumed to be covered. If the insurers were concerned about another terrorist attack, they would have either excluded those acts from coverage (which they didn't, because they are willing to pay the claims), or charge higher premiums (which I don't know).
I'm pretty sure (sadly that's the best I can do right now) after 1993 the policies were not reworded to exclude terrorism. I don't think the insurance & reinsurance companies seriously considered the destruction of the towers to be a realistic scenario so had no problem covering it. They lost a lot of money, despite one group of insurers winning the court case and paying half what Silverstein wanted. I know that for its 3Q2001 SEC filing ACE Reinsurance (a Bermudian reinsurer) upped its loss reserves by US$560m due to 9/11. Other reinsurers lost even more. No way the premium paid covered that.
TriangleMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:09 AM   #18
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
All I know is that when my jeep was "totalled," the check we got from the insurance company was for an equivalent replacement, not for a new jeep. The idea that the insurance company will buy you a new car if you wreck the old one is laughable. You get more than standard trade-in value, but that's about it.
Yep, they'll depreciate the policy to the current value of the vehicle. As the vehicle gets older and is worth less, the policy premium should also decrease.

It cost me a lot less to insure my old '93 Cadillac than my '06 Hyundai, for example.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:12 AM   #19
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
 
TriangleMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,283
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
All I know is that when my jeep was "totalled," the check we got from the insurance company was for an equivalent replacement, not for a new jeep. The idea that the insurance company will buy you a new car if you wreck the old one is laughable. You get more than standard trade-in value, but that's about it.
For big property insurance the policies almost always state the maximum amount payable rather than 'replacement value' or other ambigous terms. The major court case with one group of reinsurers was that the policy stated something like $3.5b per occurence, and the argument was whether two planes hitting two towers was one occurence ($3.5b payout) or two ($7b payout). Courts ruled that due to the wording of the contract it was a $3.5b payout.
TriangleMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:15 AM   #20
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by TriangleMan View Post
I'm pretty sure (sadly that's the best I can do right now) after 1993 the policies were not reworded to exclude terrorism. I don't think the insurance & reinsurance companies seriously considered the destruction of the towers to be a realistic scenario so had no problem covering it. They lost a lot of money, despite one group of insurers winning the court case and paying half what Silverstein wanted. I know that for its 3Q2001 SEC filing ACE Reinsurance (a Bermudian reinsurer) upped its loss reserves by US$560m due to 9/11. Other reinsurers lost even more. No way the premium paid covered that.
Again, unless we can find the policy we'll never be 100% sure, but I agree with you based on the actions of the companies, as well as from a risk-analysis standpoint.

I wouldn't have considered the destruction of the towers to be a likely risk either. If the companies thought there was a high probability of it happening, they surely would have included an exclusion clause in the policy.

With massive claims like this, the companies always lose money. It's distributed by other policies where the loss isn't as much (or doesn't exist), and by investments made with the premium money.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:17 AM   #21
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
 
TriangleMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,283
Originally Posted by JonnyFive View Post
Again, unless we can find the policy we'll never be 100% sure.
This may help, but it's not a word-by-word content of the policies: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings...ion_060806.pdf
TriangleMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:33 AM   #22
Minadin
Hiding his Head in the Sane
 
Minadin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,473
Originally Posted by JonnyFive
If that was insurance fraud, it was the single stupidest insurance fraud in the history of ever.
I loved that line so I stole it for my sig (I get a sig now, woowoo!). "History of ever" made me laugh out loud.
__________________
Do not seek the truth, only cease to cherish your opinions.
If you understand, things are just as they are; if you do not understand, things are just as they are.


Support the democratic freedom of the people of Iran.
Minadin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 12:01 PM   #23
JonnyFive
Insurance Underwriter of Doom
 
JonnyFive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by TriangleMan View Post
This may help, but it's not a word-by-word content of the policies: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/rulings/03cv0332_opinion_060806.pdf
Thanks, that's very helpful.

It looks like the big issue was whether or not the main policy would cover defense costs. Sounds like it was an umbrella general liability policy, and as they didn't contest the claims (only the number of occurrences), I would assume that there was no rider excluding coverage for terrorist acts.

The excess coverage layers are typical of such a large risk. It looks like they had at least 17 different carriers providing the total coverage on the property. Then again, in CT world they are all the same carrier.


Originally Posted by Minadin View Post
I loved that line so I stole it for my sig (I get a sig now, woowoo!). "History of ever" made me laugh out loud.
Thanks, I'm honored.
__________________
"If you drink virus water ,i must say ‘don't drink it,it is trap’." -Emre_1974tr

Ex-defendant in Simpson v. Randi, et al.
JonnyFive is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 05:04 PM   #24
JamesB
Master Poster
 
JamesB's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,151
Given that these are some of the same people who are claiming they stole $1 trillion in gold from the WTC, the Illuminati made billions shorting stock, the dollar is going to soon be replaced by the "Amero", and Leo Wanta is the trustee for a $70 trillion fund, I don't place much faith in their finance knowledge.
__________________
I said lots of things in NPH that I would not say today and that I did not repeat in NPHR, where I specifically corrected at least some of the errors I had made in that earlier book, written 5 years ago.
-David Ray Griffin-
JamesB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 05:10 PM   #25
Big Les
Not so much a medium as a large
 
Big Les's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,005
Wot, no CTs?

*nothing but the drip, drip, drip of drool upon soiled keyboard*
__________________
"Feeling you’ve done something is not quite the same as the empirical scientific proof."
-Stephen Fry

The BS Historian
Big Les is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 05:28 PM   #26
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by TriangleMan View Post
For big property insurance the policies almost always state the maximum amount payable rather than 'replacement value' or other ambigous terms. The major court case with one group of reinsurers was that the policy stated something like $3.5b per occurence, and the argument was whether two planes hitting two towers was one occurence ($3.5b payout) or two ($7b payout). Courts ruled that due to the wording of the contract it was a $3.5b payout.
The Silverstein WTC insurance policies and claims were very complicated, involving about 23 insurance companies and many policies. Some of the wording in those policies had not even been finalized at the time of the attacks, which made the court decisions more difficult. The courts decided that some of the insurance clauses DID allow for a double payout under the circumstances. Therefore, although Silverstein's insured amount was about $3.5 billion, he was finally awarded about 4.6 billion.

The $861 million claim on building 7, which was owned, not leased, by Silverstein properties, was promptly paid by Industrial Risk Insurers. What? Hadn't they heard that Silverstein ordered the building to be blown up? Barton Keyes would have sniffed that out in a second!
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 06:45 PM   #27
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,989
Good stuff, Jonny! I did a post a number of months back on the "two occurences" bit that a lot of the Deniers find so baffling. I can't locate it right now but I thought I'd throw the points into this thread.

Commercial property owners have a strong incentive to keep their insurance coverage as low as possible, since any money saved flows directly to the bottom line, and in fact usually commercial property coverage is mandated by the lender and not by the property owner. The Lender typically wants their loan amount in coverage, but they will often let borrowers insure for less than that based on aspects of the property. For example, on garden apartment loans, it is not uncommon for a lender to allow the borrower to purchase insurance that covers (effectively) just one building per occurence, on the rationale that only one building is likely to burn down in a fire. Of course they will look hard at other factors--how far apart the buildings are, whether they have clay tile or cedar shake roofs, etc. Note however, that this does cover the lender in the event of two separate fires in two separate buildings on the same day because those are different occurences. Hence Silverstein's claim that the terrorist attacks constituted two separate occurences is not as far-fetched as it sounds. Of course, he was hosed by the language in one of the binders for insurance coverage (IIRC called the Wilprop policy) which specified a maximum payout.

This is of course, a layman's version and a lender's version; the actual issues involved in the WTC coverage were quite a bit more complex.

ETA: My 911th post! It must be part of the conspiracy!
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 20th December 2006 at 06:47 PM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 06:50 PM   #28
ConspiRaider
Writer of Nothingnesses
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 11,169
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
The $861 million claim on building 7, which was owned, not leased, by Silverstein properties, was promptly paid by Industrial Risk Insurers. What? Hadn't they heard that Silverstein ordered the building to be blown up? Barton Keyes would have sniffed that out in a second!
Oh but Gravy -

Lookit how they connect up to Nwoo Woorld Oorder:

Industrial
Risk
Insurers

Illuminati
Rothschilds
Freemasons

Okay, 2 out of 3, but STILL...
ConspiRaider is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 06:54 PM   #29
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,137
Originally Posted by ConspiRaider View Post
Oh but Gravy -

Okay, 2 out of 3, but STILL...
In CT land, 2 out of 3 is more than enough. In fact, zero out of three is more than enough. You win!
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 07:05 PM   #30
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,658
Originally Posted by Gravy View Post
The Silverstein WTC insurance policies and claims were very complicated, involving about 23 insurance companies and many policies. Some of the wording in those policies had not even been finalized at the time of the attacks, which made the court decisions more difficult. The courts decided that some of the insurance clauses DID allow for a double payout under the circumstances. Therefore, although Silverstein's insured amount was about $3.5 billion, he was finally awarded about 4.6 billion.

The $861 million claim on building 7, which was owned, not leased, by Silverstein properties, was promptly paid by Industrial Risk Insurers. What? Hadn't they heard that Silverstein ordered the building to be blown up? Barton Keyes would have sniffed that out in a second!

Yes, that's all correct, Gravy. As set out here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...89&postcount=8

The $3.5 billion coverage was for all four of the buildings under the July 2001 lease (buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5).

The coverage was procured through 23-24 insurance companies.

Two companies - ACE Bermuda and XL Insurance, Ltd. - settled in Feb. 2002, paying a total of $365 million ($298 million by ACE and $67 by XL)

Three companies - Hartford, Royal Indemnity, and St. Paul Fire - brought motions for summary judgment seeking a declaration that they were subject to the "WilProp" language (which would mean that the terrorist attacks were one occurrence and not two) rather than the Travelers language. They were successful and the decision was upheld on appeal by the Circuit Court in September 2003. These three were subject, therefore, to a maximum liability of $112 million.

The remaining insurers were split into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether they were subject to the "one occurrence" or "two occurrence" language.

The first trial resulted in a verdict that 10 of those insurers whose liability totalled $1.9 billion, were subject to the WilProp language and thus their total liability was limited to $1.9 billion (three of the 13 insurers in this group were found to be liable to the "two occurrence" language so were added to the second trial group).

The second trial resulted in a verdict that the remaining insurers were indeed subject to the double occurrence language, so their $1.1 billion in coverage resulted in these insurers being liable for a maximum of $2.2 billion

Total potential payout, therefore, is capped at $4,577,000,000 for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

See also here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7&postcount=13


First jury trial
Verdict April 29, 2004 (no decision re Swiss Reinsurance)
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1082923373947
http://www.realestatejournal.com/reg...-starkman.html

Swiss Re verdict May 3, 2004:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news...c&refer=europe

Second jury trial – December 6, 2004 - these insurers subject to double payment re 2 occurrences
http://insuranceletter.com/archives/...sg00007.html#1

In October, TriangleMan posted a link showing the results of Silverstein's appeal of the SwissRe verdict here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...6&postcount=14

(Silverstein lost on appeal, thus the total potential payout remains as set out above at $4.577 billion.)

EDIT TO ADD: that does not mean that he has actually been paid the total as yet. He has not been. The parties are currently going through a process to assess his actual losses, as he cannot, of course, collect more than his actual losses. (In this case, however, I am certain that he will ultimately collect the total as it is next to inconceivable that his damages on buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 could be less than his maximum payout)

Last edited by LashL; 20th December 2006 at 07:08 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 07:48 PM   #31
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,989
Anybody have any idea on the duration of the loss of rents coverage? I can't imagine it going for five years out. I remember that once it became obvious to the insurance companies that Silverstein was going to claim two occurences, the insurerers held out on paying the rent loss policy, because they knew they'd just be funding his lawsuit.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 08:25 PM   #32
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,658
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Anybody have any idea on the duration of the loss of rents coverage? I can't imagine it going for five years out. I remember that once it became obvious to the insurance companies that Silverstein was going to claim two occurences, the insurerers held out on paying the rent loss policy, because they knew they'd just be funding his lawsuit.
I don't recall anything specific about business interruption insurance (which would typically include loss of rent) on the WTC buildings, and I don't recall anything specific about them having such coverage, but it would make sense. The length of business interruption coverage would depend upon the specific language in the policies. Given that nobody would have predicted or anticipated the total collapse of the buildings, though, I would doubt that a prescribed period would be more than a year or two at most, subject to contingencies such as debris removal, access being denied due to safety issues or civil authorities, etc. (And I vaguely recall some issue about a prescribed time period in some of the policies relating to the WTC buildings but, again, I don't recall the details). However, if the language was such that it includes business interruption losses until the premises can be repaired or replaced, for instance, who knows how long it could go on? Obviously, the policyholder and the insurer will have differing views on this.

Another research project, it seems, for someone willing and able to take it on.

JonnyFive? This seems to be up your alley. What do you say?


(As an aside, there were probably thousands of business interruption claims by tenants in all of the WTC buildings as well - surely billions of dollars involved there, as well, for the tenants. When all is said and done, the WTC terrorist attacks probably rank among the top 10 incidents of all time for impact upon the insurance industry - and probably the largest insured loss of all time - but insurance professionals can correct me on this, of course, if I'm wrong.)

Last edited by LashL; 20th December 2006 at 08:48 PM.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:35 PM   #33
Bell
beautiful freak
 
Bell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,335
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Anybody have any idea on the duration of the loss of rents coverage? I can't imagine it going for five years out. I remember that once it became obvious to the insurance companies that Silverstein was going to claim two occurences, the insurerers held out on paying the rent loss policy, because they knew they'd just be funding his lawsuit.
Sorry for the slight derail. Yesterday I saw an item on CNN International about the first beams being placed for the Freedom Tower. The new WTC7 is still about half empty. I wonder who'll Siverstein get to occupy the Freedom Tower. I can't imagine him ever getting full rent.
__________________
Every single day of my life has been worse than the day before it. So that means that every single day that you see me, that's on the worst day of my life.

INY
You gotta love cops.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 09:52 PM   #34
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
 
TriangleMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,283
Originally Posted by LashL View Post
I don't recall anything specific about business interruption insurance (which would typically include loss of rent) on the WTC buildings, and I don't recall anything specific about them having such coverage, but it would make sense.
Good to see that you joined the thread LashL, you have a better knack for digging up the specifics than I do.

I agree on the Business Interruption (BI) insurance, given the shutdown of the buildings after the 1993 attacks most if not all of the tenants, as well as Silverstein, should have purchased BI cover after that. I don't know much about BI and the limits to the time of interruption but JonnyFive is an underwriter, maybe he has some idea?
TriangleMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:32 PM   #35
Wizentub
New Blood
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7
Red face Some reasons why it could be insurance fraud.

Once the 9-11 event happened all insurance companies changed rules slightly.
Example in my business as a private contractor requiring liability insurance suddenly all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism from the destruction of my equipment and damage to property to being beaten upon the job of which there is a good chance being a cleaning contract in a casino hotel.

Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.

cheers.
Wizentub is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:37 PM   #36
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,989
Originally Posted by Wizentub View Post
Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
Yes, and I hear they had to say "clunkety clunk" every time they removed a brick. Fortunately, this did not take them long.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:50 PM   #37
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,658
Originally Posted by Wizentub View Post
Once the 9-11 event happened all insurance companies changed rules slightly.
First, welcome, Wizentub.

Second, your post appears to be nonsensical on its face, with perhaps the exception of the first sentence - but even that sentence lacks any specificity, so you'll have to elaborate on that one as well.

Third, in this forum, if you are going to make such claims, you're going to have to bring some evidence to support your assertions.

Quote:
Example in my business as a private contractor requiring liability insurance suddenly all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism from the destruction of my equipment and damage to property to being beaten upon the job of which there is a good chance being a cleaning contract in a casino hotel.
Please provide evidence that "all types of claims were now considered acts of terrorism". I find this assertion preposterous.

Quote:
Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.
I find these assertions equally preposterous.

Frankly, I find all of the assertions you've made in your post outlandish and extraordinary.

And, as I'm sure you know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Please get started.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 10:56 PM   #38
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
Administrator
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 33,658
Originally Posted by TriangleMan View Post
I don't know much about BI and the limits to the time of interruption but JonnyFive is an underwriter, maybe he has some idea?
Yes, that's what I was thinking too, that JonnyFive might have some very good insight on the topic given his underwriting experience. It will be excellent to have his input, perspective, and knowledge to add to the great resources here.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:41 PM   #39
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,137
Hi Wizentub!

Hi!

(Your post was a joke, wasn't it?)
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th December 2006, 11:48 PM   #40
uk_dave
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by Wizentub View Post

Also It is widely understood that the Trade center was in a highly unstable condition and that it was to be emptied of tenants and demolision begun by 2007. This could not be achieved by implosion but had to be done manually brick by brick.
The cost fo the scaffolding alone was apparently going to cost more to erect than the building was worth.
As a small business owner these changes has all but destryed any claims I may have but I still hae to pay the premiums.

cheers.
Definately satire...and did make I laugh ('specially to 110 storey scaffold )
uk_dave is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.