Is there any information on the insurance claims for WTC buildings?

[atomic-fly]

I would think that the insurance company would want this
investigated more than anybody, unless there is some loop-hole
where the taxpayers pick up the bill for it.

[sabbat hunter]

1. the insurance companies

were in court for a long time with silverstein. its why the rebuilding has just begun. the insurance companies are paying.

[mirandapriestly]

2. actually silverstein is suing them again trying to get them to pay

I think it's all a big racket, anyway.

[greyl]

3. And if that's the case, the Ins co's would have a hell of motive

for proving Silverstein did it, right?

That's the point.

[mirandapriestly]

4. no, the insurance companies and risk management are

making huge profits on the new risk management policies for terrorism insurance. They have probably already made more than what they paid out and they will continue to enjoy huge benefits for years to come. That would all come to an end if it was known it was an inside job.

[greyl]

5. where's that money(profit) coming from? nt

[Jazz2006]

7. Of course they have a huge motive to prove Silverstein was involved

But they know that there is no merit to such a claim and that they're stuck with the facts.

That's why they paid out billions of dollars already. They certainly would not have done so without appealing the decision if they had any hope in hell of mounting a fraud investigation against Silverstein. By the way, they never even alleged fraud against him. The argument was only about which insurance companies were liable and whether the terrorist attacks were one event or two. Not one of the numerous insurers ever suggested, let alone litigated, anything approaching an allegation of fraud. And no, insurance companies do not willingly hand over billions of dollars if they think there's even the remotest possibility of avoiding it, or the tiniest scintilla of a whiff of fraud.

What does that tell you?

Moreover, *they* are not making "huge profits" on "new risk management policies for terrorism insurance" (the terminology is all wrong there, by the way, but I was simply quoting a post above). They have been providing coverage for the same risk for many years prior to this, at least for the past two decades, so it is hardly "new" and it is going to take them a long long time to make up in "terrorism" insurance premiums the amount they paid out after 9/11. They'll be lucky if they break even over the next ten to twenty years as it pertains to "terrorism" insurance premiums for what they paid out on two claims.


Edit paragraph two since it's early and nobody is likely to read it before my edit anyway :)

[Jazz2006]

6. .

ignore.

didn't notice the name of the poster my post was responding to at first.

delete. ignore. forget it.

[Sinti]

8. Dr. Debug has some pretty good info on this

You should read his stuff in the Demopedia. It's a very convoluted, same small group involved everything kind of world out there. His work is outstanding, and obviously a lot of sweat and time went into it. Check it out, it'll make your head spin like mine :silly:.

Link to insurance infos here:
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Who_Killed_John_O'Neill#WTC_building_insurance_and_ownership

[Ferry Fey]

9. Nine WTC insurers

That Demopedia link came up empty for me.

If you want to follow it up (and I think that it would be worthwhile to look into insurance issues), the 9 insurers of the WTC were Allianz Global Risks United States Insurance Company., a subsidiary of Allianz A.G.; Travelers Indemnity Company and Gulf Insurance Company, both now part of St. Paul Travelers Companies. Inc.; General Electric subsidiary Industrial Risk Insurers; Royal Indemnity Company, an affiliate of Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc; Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd.'s TIG Insurance Company; Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Company, a unit of Millea Holdings Inc.; Twin City Fire Insurance Company, a subsidiary of Hartford Financial Services Group Inc.; and Zurich American Insurance Company, a unit of Zurich Financial Services Group.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2004/12/09/48517.htm

[Sinti]

10. I'll look into the others - here's a bit of Dr. Debug's info

WTC building insurance and ownership
What were the 3 companies who insured the WTC?

AIG, Marsh and ACE. All run by Greenbergs at the time.

They then sold stakes of the original contract to their competition, a process called reinsuring. Once the towers came down, the reinsurers got caught holding the bag.

Who mortgaged the WTC? The Blackstone Group, headed by Peter J. Peterson, current head of the CFR. The Blackstone Group bought into Kroll in 1993 at the same time as AIG took majority control. Henry Kissinger sits on the board of the Blackstone Group.

On July 24, 2001, 6 weeks prior to 9/11 Silverstein took control of the lease of all the WTC buildings following the Port Authority decision on April 26. Silverstein owned all the buildings. Later he wanted to collect twice on $3.6 billion of policies because it were two seperate events. Only ACE, XL Reach - strategic partners of AIG and currently owned by AIG - included a WilProp in their clauses, so Silverstein "only" got $5 billion.

http://www.progressiveindependent.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=241

The link worked for me when I brought it up, maybe I have it in cache, sorry!

[Brainster]

11. Some corrections and a Good Link to Demopedia

Your prior link had a slash between O and 'Neill. Here's the http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Who_Killed_John_ONeill#WTC_building_insurance_and_ownership ">proper link.

Silverstein never "owned all the buildings"; he had a leasehold interest in WTC 1-6 and a fee interest (ownership) in WTC 7.

The mortgage on the WTC leasehold interest was held by GMAC (General Motors Acceptance Corp). Blackstone Group purchased the mortgage on WTC 7, but as far as I know had no interest in the rest of the WTC.