Actuarial News - News, Actuary Wiki, SOA & CAS exam study materials and more

A jury in the second phase of the WTC property insurance litigation decided Monday that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks should be treated as two insured events by nine of the program’s two dozen insurers. The nine insurers, representing $1.13 billion of the WTC’s $3.55 billion insurance program, are now liable for double their combined coverage limits.

Fifteen other insurers representing the other $2.42 billion in coverage were previously found to be liable for only one occurrence in an initial phase of the litigation or in prior court rulings or settlements.

Insurers found by the jury late Monday to be liable for two occurrences are: Allianz A.G. Holding of Germany; the Industrial Risk Insurers unit of GE Insurance Solutions; the Travelers Indemnity Co. unit of St. Paul Travelers Cos. Inc.; the Royal Specialty Underwriting Inc. unit of Royal & SunAlliance Insurance Group P.L.C.; Gulf Insurance Co., a Travelers affiliate; Zurich American Insurance Co.; TIG Insurance Co.; the Twin City Insurance Co. unit of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.; and Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co.

Insurers with the largest exposure are: Allianz, which wrote $354.7 million in limits as a fronting insurer for SCOR S.A. of Paris and $77.9 million on a direct basis; IRI, which wrote $237.2 million; Travelers, which wrote $210.6 million; and Royal, which wrote $127.8 million.

Some insurers criticized the verdict and indicated they will appeal.

SCOR, though not a party in the case, said it “considers the jury’s verdict to be contrary to the terms of the insurance coverage in force and to the intent of the parties. SCOR will fully support Allianz’s efforts to overturn the verdict.”

An Allianz spokeswoman said the insurer would pursue its legal remedies, including a possible appeal.

Other insurers said they have not yet decided whether to appeal.

Jury verdicts in the first phase of the case, decided last March and April, have been appealed to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but appellate action has been stayed. Any appeals of Monday’s verdicts are expected to be joined with those already pending.

The amount Silverstein actually recovers for the WTC’s destruction, meanwhile, will depend partly on an appraisal of the loss, insurers note. Under an arbitration process already under way, appraisers for several WTC insurers and Silverstein will assess the amount of damages, with disputes to be decided by a neutral umpire.

Insurers not participating in the arbitration process—including lead insurer Swiss Reinsurance Co.—may take disputes over the amount of the loss back to court for a third, damages phase of the WTC litigation.

Disputes seem likely: While Silverstein claimed earlier in the litigation that its damages exceed two policy limits, Allianz and Swiss Re contend the loss amounts to less than a single limit, insurer representatives say.

The WTC coverage dispute arose from the fact that no final policy for the WTC had been agreed to at the time of the terrorist attacks. The nine insurers in the second phase of the litigation issued policies or binders with varying definitions of occurrence or, in Travelers’ case, no definition at all.

Silverstein’s lawyers argued during the trial that each aircraft striking each of the WTC’s towers constituted a separate “direct physical loss” and, therefore, a separate occurrence under the program, which carried a $1 million per occurrence deductible.

Insurers argued that they intended the terms of their participations to mirror those in a policy form used during the placement process by Silverstein’s broker, Willis Group Holdings Ltd. The Willis form, known as Wilprop, had been ruled to treat the WTC attack as one occurrence.