Quote:
Originally posted by sycamore
Swiss Re ... are trying to argue that what happened to the towers was just one incident, not two.
... I wonder what the ruling will be. I say sorry to Swiss Re, but they should, and probably will, be paying out for two separate incidents.
|
None of us can pass judgement on what should or is not a just verdict. 'Fairness' has no place in the decision. The decision will be totally based upon legal nicities - and not upon fairness. At least that is how the decision should be made as the law works today. The decision will be made based upon the most minute details of insurance laws.
The difference is whether Silverstein gets $3.5 billion or $7billion. $3.5billion is not sufficient to rebuild. Silverstein from day 2 was courting everyone in power. He is not a Trump or a Vornado - the powerful real estate developers and management. In fact, it was considered 'bronze balls' that earned Silverstein his 99 year WTC lease. Silverstein is also missing his $100million per year income in tenent rental income. Silverstein is in an uphill fight because many don't consider his organization even big enough to rebuild - let alone take on Swiss Re. Just building WTC7 was considered an accomplishment for Silverstein.