What's unusual is acts of war and terrorism are standard exclusions in insurance policies.
Silverstein had these exclusions written out (due to the 1991 atttack) and for the premiums 3.5 bil in coverage generates, the insurers were too greedy to walk away.
It's a contract and definition dispute.
The bombing example is very interesting. Multiple planes dispatched by one entity on one plan. But multiple strikes.
An angle to consider is that the single occurrence theory assumes that the two strikes must have been committed by the same group under the same conspiracy. I know, odds are a trillion to one that it was two and coincidental.
Silverstein had these exclusions written out (due to the 1991 atttack) and for the premiums 3.5 bil in coverage generates, the insurers were too greedy to walk away.
It's a contract and definition dispute.
The bombing example is very interesting. Multiple planes dispatched by one entity on one plan. But multiple strikes.
An angle to consider is that the single occurrence theory assumes that the two strikes must have been committed by the same group under the same conspiracy. I know, odds are a trillion to one that it was two and coincidental.