The Great World Trade Center Insurance Scam Firesale

Very Impressive Rates of Tennancy 

for a Construction Site, wouldn't you say..?

"And so I ask you - what does the Mafia do when they have a building and they can't sell it, and they can't tear it down, and they can't renovate it...? - Jim Marrs

Swiss Re To WTC: We'll Pay For One

10/23/2001 @ 8:58AM

Swiss financial institutions are famously secretive. But perhaps this trend towards reticence is because they tend to look callous or foolish when speaking aloud.

Yesterday, Swiss Re , regarded as the world’s second-largest reinsurance company, sued the World Trade Center–just six weeks after the most notorious act of violence in U.S. history demolished the buildings and killed roughly 5,000 tenants, firefighters, police and rescue workers. 

[NB : Whilst the WTC was Port Authority property, the NYPD had no jurisdiction over the World Trade Center Estate - law enforcement was the exclusive privilage of the Port Police.]

The suit was filed in Manhattan federal court. Swiss Re, part of a group of companies that wrote insurance policies for Silverstein WTC Properties , which leased the Trade Center complex [Who owns it? The Ports Authority still..?] said the insurers were prepared to pay $3.5 billion, the maximum payout for a single insurable incident. 

Larry Silverstein Larry Silverstein is the principal of Silverstein WTC Properties, which, through subsidiaries, signed a 99-year lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for the twin towers complex this spring. He has argued that two jumbo jets crashing into two buildings is two separate events–and that he and his partners are entitled to $7 billion. 

[Note : No mention of Building 7 - this looks like a piece of Three Card monte]

The lease was for roughly $3.2 billion. Swiss Re, through SR International , a U.S. subsidiary, is seeking a declaration as to what it owes and to whom. It wants the court to decide that the attack on the trade center is one unified insurance loss and not two.

[Actually 7 - The Twin Towers, the Millenium Hotel, the Customs House, WTC 5, 6 and 7]. 

[ 7 - It's the Magic Number ]

It also asked the court to decide whether it owed its share of the payments – $770 million – solely to the investor group or to other entities, including businesses harmed by the disaster. 

[Obvious conclusion of the outcome of the litigation - there were no businessmen in the complex harmed by the disaster]

If the policy is limited to $3.5 billion, Silverstein would be insufficiently insured to pay the projected $5 billion-plus necessary to replace the buildings and cover the group’s rental income losses after a catastrophic loss, Swiss Re said in court papers. 

It added that a failure to rebuild the complex would mean the Port Authority and Silverstein’s creditors would be the ones to collect any insurance proceeds and Silverstein would likely obtain only a fraction of the total insurance recovery.”

“The lessees instead bought insurance almost sufficient to rebuild without regard to any possible loss of rental income,” the complaint said. 

[because again - there is no rental income, except in some cases on paper, or as a money-laundering operation]

While Silverstein has not formally responded to the lawsuit, his spokesman denied he was underinsured [proves there were no tenants] and noted that Swiss Re is just one of 22 insurance companies involved in insuring Silverstein WTC’s interests. 

[Many of them "tenants" in the complex themselves - more money-laundering]

The lawsuit comes just as U.S. insurers are presenting themselves publicly as ready and able to pay World Trade Center-related claims [because there are so few] – as well as seeking federal assistance in the event of future terrorist attacks. They have asked – and the Bush Administration has agreed – that taxpayers should pay a substantial portion of any such insurance claims for at least the next three years. 

[They are not prepared to cover the cost and take the hit of Iraq War blowback, even after covering the cost - on paper - of a fraudulent event]

The insurers say federal relief is necessary because reinsurers – who provide insurance to insurance companies – have insisted on excluding terrorism-based claims from policies going forward.

Property and casualty insurers seemed poised to obtain relief in the event of the next attack – if there is another attack – because they have stepped up manfully to pay for this one. [Oh no they haven't...] Swiss Re’s position, though the company is a reinsurer rather than a direct insurer, may undermine its industry’s public position.