Larry Silversteins insurance

Gravy said:
Hey, you try posting 231 times a day, and posting at other forums. Dude, he barely has time to brush his teeth, much less read stuff.
Click to expand...

I've seen no evidence that he brushes his teeth. :D

I have, however, seen lots of evidence that he doesn't read much.
 
Loss Leader said:
So, what do you think lawyers do all day?

Basically, we argue about differing interpretations of the law based on disputed or undisputed facts. And we don't just meet in a parking lot to do it. Other lawyers who have no vested interest in the outcome must be convinced by our arguments. They're called judges. Then a whole panel of impartial lawyers has to agree that the first one got it right. And then a panel of the most respected and accomplished lawyers in the state or even the country has to agree that the first panel was right.

You really think you're qualified to determine that "there is no way it can be called 2 events"? I would disagree. Dozens of judges have presided over the issue of insurance of the WTC buildings at nearly every level the judiciary has - state and federal. They have presided over motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and entire jury trials.

This, to me, says that the issue of insurance is, at the very least, extremely complicated and in no way obvious on its face.

Of course, they're just legal experts. Why would you trust experts in the field of law when you don't trust experts in the fields of engineering or law enforcement?

But, then, you're just asking questions.
Click to expand...

Stop pretending to be a lawyer.
 
Docker said:
I never mentioned conspiracy
Click to expand...
Then why post a topic in the Conspiracy Theories forum? Is the whole topic just to say that although Silverstein wasn't involved in the events of 9/11 you think it's a bit slimy of him to try and squeeze a bit more money out of his insurance claim?
 
Docker said:
By the way lawyers certainly do not use the word basically.
Click to expand...

Au contraire. We most certainly do. (Especially when we're trying to explain simple concepts to simpletons like you who blindly refuse to see).

And rather than trying to dodge yet another of your own stupid threads that you've started without any basis in reality, when are you going to read the facts and evidence about the insurance policies and the court decisions related to them? The summary has been provided to you repeatedly above.
 
Last edited:
Docker said:
A question:

If Larry Silverstein is such a poor innocent victim of 9/11, could someone explain why he is using 9/11 as an excuse to scam his insurance company and claim that 9/11 was 2 separate events because it was 2 planes, and therefore claim double the money?

He really is exploiting the tragedy. There is no way it can be called 2 events.
Click to expand...

This is actually a common sense argument, but there is a specific issue here with regard to property insurance that you may not be aware of.

First, commercial property owners have a strong incentive to get as little insurance on their properties as possible, because any money saved goes directly to the bottom line (i.e., profit). IIRC Silverstein tried to get $1.5 billion in coverage, but his lenders insisted on $2.3 billion (just talking about the leasehold properties here, not WTC 7).

It is actually common for commercial lenders to require the full amount of their loan in coverage on the property. However, they may be convinced to reduce that requirement based on specific facts related to the property. For example, many lenders will allow a borrower to insure a multi-building property for less than the full amount of the loan per occurence on the common sense notion that even if one building catches fire, that does not mean that the others will, at least not as part of the same occurence.

That seems to me to be the deal Silverstein and his lenders came to; that the buildings could be insured for substantially less than it would cost to rebuild them, on the basis that even if one buiding were heavily damaged it was unlikely that the other would in the same occurence. Whether the insurers underwrote the risk that way, is, of course, another matter.

Now do you see why Silverstein has at least an arguable claim that the terrorist attacks were two separate occurences? I tend to agree that it's a bit tenuous, but it's not as unreasonable as it might sound at first.
 
Brainster said:
This is actually a common sense argument, but there is a specific issue here with regard to property insurance that you may not be aware of.

First, commercial property owners have a strong incentive to get as little insurance on their properties as possible, because any money saved goes directly to the bottom line (i.e., profit). IIRC Silverstein tried to get $1.5 billion in coverage, but his lenders insisted on $2.3 billion (just talking about the leasehold properties here, not WTC 7).

It is actually common for commercial lenders to require the full amount of their loan in coverage on the property. However, they may be convinced to reduce that requirement based on specific facts related to the property. For example, many lenders will allow a borrower to insure a multi-building property for less than the full amount of the loan per occurence on the common sense notion that even if one building catches fire, that does not mean that the others will, at least not as part of the same occurence.

That seems to me to be the deal Silverstein and his lenders came to; that the buildings could be insured for substantially less than it would cost to rebuild them, on the basis that even if one buiding were heavily damaged it was unlikely that the other would in the same occurence. Whether the insurers underwrote the risk that way, is, of course, another matter.

Now do you see why Silverstein has at least an arguable claim that the terrorist attacks were two separate occurences? I tend to agree that it's a bit tenuous, but it's not as unreasonable as it might sound at first.
Click to expand...

Ok I see your point. I got the impression he was doubling the whole claim on his entire property. If my wife died in the towers though, i'd think he was seriously taking the piss, more than any CT.
 
Docker said:
I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.
Click to expand...

Translation: Docker: "I've been proven wrong yet again, I haven't any clue what I'm talking about, and I'm sure not going to actually read anything that includes facts or evidence or science or, heck, even law for that matter. I'll just stick to writing more nonsensical posts, as it appears that posting in excess of 200 unsubstantiated posts lacking any facts or evidence or even rational thought per day isn't enough."
 
Last edited:
Docker said:
Ok I see your point. I got the impression he was doubling the whole claim on his entire property. If my wife died in the towers though, i'd think he was seriously taking the piss, more than any CT.
Click to expand...
If you had read the information people provided for you, these 95 posts correcting your foolish accusation wouldn't have been necessary.

Is any of this sinking in?
 
Docker said:
I don't expect to find the truth in JREF aka shilltown.
Click to expand...

Can I call you names now or will you report me?

Having read this thread Dicker, I feel for you, the pain of being so stupid and having to constantly back peddle from your claims as you are smacked down time and time again by facts must be unbearable. It borders on the point of embarrassing to read your replies.

Do carry on, I'll eat some more popcorn.
 
Gravy said:
If you had read the information people provided for you, these 95 posts correcting your foolish accusation wouldn't have been necessary.

Is any of this sinking in?
Click to expand...


Quoted because Docker put Gravy on ignore.

-Gumboot
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom