Testimony Ends
In WTC Insurance Case
NEW YORK -- Testimony concluded Tuesday in the first phase of World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein's lawsuit seeking a larger settlement from his insurers to rebuild the property, which was destroyed by terrorists in 2001.
U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey will hold a conference with attorneys in the case Tuesday afternoon to determine what instructions will be given to the jury.
Lawyers are expected to give their closing arguments beginning Wednesday morning, with the jury likely to start deliberations next week.
"If it pleases the court, the insureds rest," said Herbert Wachtell, lead counsel for Silverstein.
In the first phase of the case, a jury must decide if a WilProp form - a policy form normally used by the property's broker, Willis Group Holdings Ltd. - was in effect when the Trade Center's twin towers collapsed on Sept. 11 or if the form had been switched to a different one. The decision ultimately will determine how much insurance money Silverstein can collect to rebuild at Ground Zero.
Silverstein contends the New York attacks were two events, entitling him to collect two payments of $3.55 billion. His insurers argue it was a single event, which would limit his payout to only one payment.
The WilProp form specifically defines the word "occurrence" and considers the terrorist attacks a single event for insurance purposes. A form used by Travelers Property Casualty Corp. doesn't specifically define what constitutes an occurrence.
On Tuesday, Nick Dunlop, director of global markets at Willis, testified that Daniel Bollier, an underwriter with Swiss Re, told him in an Oct. 3, 2001, telephone conversation that he was "surprised" by the lack of an occurrence definition in the Travelers form.
Barry Ostrager, an attorney for Swiss Re, contended Tuesday that the only policy form the insurer ever saw when it agreed to write the coverage was the WilProp form.
"Do you recall telling Mr. Wachtell last Thursday that Mr. Bollier told you that there was an occurrence definition in the original manuscript wording that Willis had sent him?," asked Ostrager.
"Yes," Dunlop said.
Last week, Dunlop testified that Timothy Boyd, a Willis broker, told him in July 2001 and again in September 2001 that the insurance program wasn't tied to the WilProp form, but instead was bound to the Travelers form.
However, Boyd previously testified that he told insurers the policy form was being switched, but never formally documented that in writing.
Meanwhile, attorneys for both sides in the case asked Judge Mukasey to issue a directed ruling in their favor, essentially taking the decision out of the hands of the jury. The judge reserved the right to do so Tuesday.
Email your comments to rjeditor@dowjones.com.