There’s a misconception about the insurance of the towers, some people think that only one tower was insured, in reality both towers were, but on the same policy. After the attacks, the owners of the towers tried to claim damage on both towers as if both were destroyed independently. The judge sided with the insurance companies, that it was only one attack on both towers, so it counts as only one event to be claim.
Comment on A new angle
jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Third building wasn’t insured, that is why it is not mentioned.
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 1 month ago
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 month ago
That seems like it shouldn’t matter… Either two half size payouts or one full payout is what it seems like it should be. I’m sure there are some shenanigans that make it not that simple when it really should be.
driving_crooner@lemmy.eco.br 1 month ago
There’s a maximum liability limit in each policy. No matter what, that’s what that’s the maximum the insurance company is going to pay. Given that the full blow up of one tower already got to that limit, the towers owners claimed that each tower had a different claim, so the maximum liability of one, does not affect the other, but the judge disagree, said that both towers were affected by the same attack and share the same maximum liability.
FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I knew there was some way the insurance company was weaseling out of paying.
TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 month ago
It was their friends tower, they were just using it for that day.