Any Update on Silverstein's Lawsuit?

[Oystein]

The main point behind an insurance contract is that you cannot "win" from it. Amount received must be equal to a correct estimate of the loss: market value of the building, replacement cost or actualized expected income for example. And you must pay the corresponding premium for this. Non-Life insurance contract only have a risk transfer aspect.

So, if Silverstein properties replacement cost = 1 dollar in 2001, before the 9/11. He will receive 1 dollar (adjusted for inflation, of course). Nothing less. Nothing more.

RedIbis's claims are absurd.

Good point.
At least, not making out like a bandit from insurance payouts is the norm, the rule, the null hypothesis, the ordinary.
A claim to the contrary would be extraordinary and would require extraordinary evidence.
We are going easy on RedIbis, and only ask for ordinary evidence.
RedIbis has been failing for about year now to come up with that evidence.
Everybody in this forum knows this.

 

[dtugg]

It isn't even possible to come out of an insurance claim better than you started unless you commit fraud. And this would undoubtedly be the biggest case of insurance fraud EVER.

 

[Oystein]

It isn't even possible to come out of an insurance claim better than you started unless you commit fraud. And this would undoubtedly be the biggest case of insurance fraud EVER.

RedIbis could make out like a bandit Robin Hood if he showed his evidence to the insurance companies. Guess a reward of 1%, or 46 million, would be worth saving them 99%, eh?

 

[RedIbis]

Unless my information is outdated buildings 2 & 3 are not going to be built as of this time. They are currently building their foundations because the PATH hub is dependent on them structurally. So those buildings are going to be built to street level and any construction upwards from there will be dependent on financing. Now, note, that even what they are doing now is not cheap. Just bringing these two buildings to street level has cost billions itself.

Correct. And unless I'm mistaken the PA is footing the bill for this infrastructure.

 

[funk de fino]

Correct. And unless I'm mistaken the PA is footing the bill for this infrastructure.

Why do you run from the posts that catch you out?

 

[Oystein]

Correct. And unless I'm mistaken the PA is footing the bill for this infrastructure.

Now all you need to do is provide sources for this information.
And sources that show Silverstein is in fact cashing in the ful 4.55 billion.
And deduct loss of business.
And... well, a few more numbers for completeness.
And do the sums.

Easy, eh? Why are you still dodging, ducking, avoiding and evading, like you have done for so many months?

Oh, I know - you don't have the numbers and sources, you made your accusation up and pulled the libel out of your arse.

 

[LashL]

Thank goodness for semantics, huh Lash?

Larry A. Silverstein, who has won nearly $4.6 billion in insurance payments to cover his losses and help him rebuild at the World Trade Center site, is seeking $12.3 billion in damages from airlines and airport security companies for the 9/11 attack.

What are you talking about? It's not my fault if you do not understand how to read a judicial decision or understand what it means.

I do not care that a journalist used an incorrect word in an article. The reality is that Mr. Silverstein was not "awarded" $4.55 billion as you claimed and he did not "win" $4.55 billion as your quote above claims. The court held that the multiple insurers were liable up to a maximum of $4.55 billion, subject to proper evidence and proof of insured losses in accordance with the terms of the insurance policies. Again, this does not mean that the insurers all got out their chequebooks and paid their policy limits. That isn't how it works, as the terms of the policies set out pre-conditions and require evidence of actual insured losses and the happening of various events.

What Mr. Silverstein "won" was a legal argument about whether the two airplane crashes into the two towers constituted one occurrence or multiple occurrences for purposes of the interpretation of the language used in the insurance policies. He won that argument with respect to some of the policies and lost that argument with respect to some of the policies (there were two different wordings used among the policies).

Moreover, as I've already posted, the $12.3 billion lawsuit against the aviation defendants to which you refer was limited to a maximum of $2.805 billion, subject to possible future set-off, etc. by the aviation defendants, depending on how much the insurers actually pay out in the end.

I have seen no evidence that Mr. Silverstein "made out like a bandit". Will you be providing evidence of your claim any time soon?

 

[RedIbis]

Now all you need to do is provide sources for this information.
And sources that show Silverstein is in fact cashing in the ful 4.55 billion.
And deduct loss of business.
And... well, a few more numbers for completeness.
And do the sums.

Easy, eh? Why are you still dodging, ducking, avoiding and evading, like you have done for so many months?

Oh, I know - you don't have the numbers and sources, you made your accusation up and pulled the libel out of your arse.

Do you still stand by this statement:

You: The new WTC1 won't open before 2013, so Silverstein has this loss for a period of 12 years. 12 * 150 million = 1.8 billion.

 

[RedIbis]

I have seen no evidence that Mr. Silverstein "made out like a bandit". Will you be providing evidence of your claim any time soon?

I've provided a great deal of evidence that proves LS has little personal investment in the WTC site, does not own 1 and 5 WTC, did not finance 4 WTC, and did not finance the infrastructure that has been built for 2 and 3WTC, for which no bldgs will actually be built unless a real estate market improves that he helped saturate.

At least have the integrity to correct your comrades here when they falsely assert that LS is financially responsible for rebuilding the WTC out of the insurance proceeds.

 

[Thunder]

Do you still stand by this statement:

please provide your financial calculations to justify your claim that Silverstein has made out like a bandit, including: present-day insurance pay-outs, continued losses from the original WTC, continued payments for leasing the WTC area, present construction costs, predicted future construction costs.

if not, please retract your claim.

 

[000063]

You do realize that's quite early in the timeline and those agreements have changed.

Tone down your rhetoric. Stop asking me for calculations that I've already provided, especially since you refuse to admit you were wrong for suggesting LS was on the hook for rebuilding 1WTC.

Now re-read what I've posted and learn something about how LS has run the city and people of New York around in circles, sitting on a pile of cash and a paid for new WTC 7.

Holy crap, do you even bother clicking a link?

Ahh, now I understand why you're having such trouble with links.

And it's a triple-play of question-dodging and misunderstanding from "Red" ibis! He's been pretty consistent this season, Jerry, and there's a good chance he'll do the same in the finals.

Indeed there is Mike, and the weirdest thing is, he thinks he's winning.

 

[000063]

Why do you run from the posts that catch you out?

It's my theory that Truthers are incapable of noticing such points. They will see it, sure, but their brain skips right over it once they realize it's a point against them.

 

[DGM]

I've provided a great deal of evidence that proves LS has little personal investment in the WTC site, does not own 1 and 5 WTC, did not finance 4 WTC, and did not finance the infrastructure that has been built for 2 and 3WTC, for which no bldgs will actually be built unless a real estate market improves that he helped saturate.

At least have the integrity to correct your comrades here when they falsely assert that LS is financially responsible for rebuilding the WTC out of the insurance proceeds.

This is stupid. He will still be financial responsible for the buildings even if they are never built. Do you think the Port Authority is just going to say "That's OK Larry. Keep the money you got for our buildings". He leased the buildings, He's has to compensate the owner regardless if they are replaced.

Why do you think the Port Authority forced him to up his coverage limits before he could sign the lease?

Got any evidence he "made out like a bandit"?

 

[RedIbis]

This is stupid. He will still be financial responsible for the buildings even if they are never built. Do you think the Port Authority is just going to say "That's OK Larry. Keep the money you got for our buildings". He leased the buildings, He's has to compensate the owner regardless if they are replaced.

Shocking I know, but LS appears to have no inclination to build 2 and 3, nor did he have to finance 4. He has paid 1 billion toward 1WTC and does not own it.

This has is illustrated quite clearly in the links I provided. Please read them or show some indication that you have.

 

[DGM]

Shocking I know, but LS appears to have no inclination to build 2 and 3, nor did he have to finance 4. He has paid 1 billion toward 1WTC and does not own it.

This has is illustrated quite clearly in the links I provided. Please read them or show some indication that you have.

I have read them. No where do they say the actual amounts paid out.

Seriously. Do you think the Port Authority (or their auditors) would allow him to pocket the money for their asset? You need to show this to be true before you can make the claim he "made out like a bandit". So far, nothing I have seen comes even close.

 

[Arus808]

I recall posting about this quite a while back when the aviation defendants brought a partial motion for summary judgment, to ask the judge to limit Mr. Silverstein's claims against them to the market value of Mr. Silverstein's leasehold interests in 1WTC, 2WTC, 4WTC and 5WTC, rather than the replacement cost of those buildings. The judge granted that motion and held that the aviation defendants could only be held liable for $2.805 billion back in December 2008 and they later addressed the future possibility of set-off etc., some time around September 2009, since other courts had determined that the multiple insurers were liable up to $4.55 billion.

I can't remember whether the December 2008 and September 2009 decisions were appealed or anything, but I thought that the litigation had since settled. I'm not entirely sure, though, so I'll look into it further.

Thank you for bringing this back to the topic. If there is an online court ruling, or a judgement that so far is publicly available, that would be helpful.

 

[Oystein]

Do you still stand by this statement:

Yes and no.
Yes in the sense that a rough tallying of Silverstein's expenses to rebuild and loss of business vs. insurance claims and payouts will certainly result in a net loss.

No in the sense that my figures were not current as of the time I wrote this.


Do you still stand by this statement:

Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit

If so, evidence please. For the onehundredandninth time.
Stop the dodging, ducking, evading and avoiding.

Learn from me: I am able and prepared to either own up to my claims or retract.
You are clearly not.
I win.
You lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
And lose.
...
(repeat 109 times - one time for each time you failed to back up your libellous claim with evidence, or retract)

 

[Oystein]

I've provided a great deal of evidence that proves LS has little personal investment in the WTC site, does not own 1 and 5 WTC, did not finance 4 WTC, and did not finance the infrastructure that has been built for 2 and 3WTC, for which no bldgs will actually be built unless a real estate market improves that he helped saturate.

At least have the integrity to correct your comrades here when they falsely assert that LS is financially responsible for rebuilding the WTC out of the insurance proceeds.

You have not tallied his total losses and revenues following the events of 9/11.
You never provide good sources.
You fail.

 

[Oystein]

Shocking I know, but LS appears to have no inclination to build 2 and 3, nor did he have to finance 4. He has paid 1 billion toward 1WTC and does not own it.

This has is illustrated quite clearly in the links I provided. Please read them or show some indication that you have.

Did he cash in the 4.55 billion without any obligation against that payout?
Sources, please.
You never tallied his loss of business due to not having rentable space and rent paying tenants.
Etc.

You failed.

 

[DGM]

Did he cash in the 4.55 billion without any obligation against that payout?
Sources, please.
You never tallied his loss of business due to not having rentable space and rent paying tenants.
Etc.

You failed.

It's worse than that. He assumes Mr Silverstein can collect and keep the money for buildings he didn't own. Just because he's "off the hook" for rebuilding does not mean he doesn't have to pay the owner for his (it's) loss.