1 1. A definition worth US$3.5 billion NEW YORK - An overflow crowd gathered at the...

Transcribed Image Text:

1 §1. A definition worth US$3.5 billion NEW YORK - An overflow crowd gathered at the normally sleepy Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an extended argument on the meaning of the word "occurrence." Interest in the question was intensified by the fact that $3.5 billion could be riding on the answer. The three-judge court sitting in Manhattan was hearing arguments in the World Trade Center insurance litigation in which Larry Silverstein, who holds a 99-year lease for the buildings that were destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, is claiming that he is entitled to recover $7.1 billion from the 22 insurers of the properties, twice the ostensible policy limit, on the ground that the attack of the center was two occurrences, not one. Otherwise, he would be stuck with the $3.55 face value of the policies. - 23 July 2003 [From Forbes, 07.23.03] NEW YORK-A federal appeals court in a ruling issued today, substantially affirmed the position taken by the insurance industry that Silverstein Properties, the leaseholder to the devastated World Trade Center, likely can claim no more than the $3.5 billion insurance policy limit. While the appeals court did allow for a jury trial concerning the interpretation of certain terms in the contracts with 22 insurers, the court largely upheld the insurers' claim that Silverstein itself advocated a definition that would preclude its theory that the attack on the buildings should be considered two "occurrences" allowing for two separate insurance claims. The decision leaves in doubt Silverstein's financial ability to rebuild the Ground Zero site. - 26 Sept 2003. While the appeals court did allow for a jury trial concerning the interpretation of certain terms in the contracts with 22 insurers, the court largely upheld the insurers' claim that Silverstein itself advocated a definition that would preclude its theory that the attack on the buildings should be considered two "occurrences" allowing for two separate insurance claims. The decision leaves in doubt Silverstein's financial ability to rebuild the Ground Zero site. - 26 Sept 2003. Instructions: In 200-300 words, answer the following prompt: Do you think the Second Circuit Court of Appeals made the right decision about the case? Why or why not? How should the word "occurrence" be defined, in light of your answer? Try and give a detailed reason in your answer. In your answer, also be sure to provide background by explaining the details of the legal debate. Also be sure to edit your paper and make sure that it is well-written! It should be clear, organized, and complete. **You will be submitting your paper via Turnitin. Turnitin checks for plagiarizing from other students; work and of online sources. You do not need to use outside sources, but if you do, be sure to cite them, by providing works cited and parenthetical references.** 1 §1. A definition worth US$3.5 billion NEW YORK - An overflow crowd gathered at the normally sleepy Second Circuit Court of Appeals to hear an extended argument on the meaning of the word "occurrence." Interest in the question was intensified by the fact that $3.5 billion could be riding on the answer. The three-judge court sitting in Manhattan was hearing arguments in the World Trade Center insurance litigation in which Larry Silverstein, who holds a 99-year lease for the buildings that were destroyed in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, is claiming that he is entitled to recover $7.1 billion from the 22 insurers of the properties, twice the ostensible policy limit, on the ground that the attack of the center was two occurrences, not one. Otherwise, he would be stuck with the $3.55 face value of the policies. - 23 July 2003 [From Forbes, 07.23.03] NEW YORK-A federal appeals court in a ruling issued today, substantially affirmed the position taken by the insurance industry that Silverstein Properties, the leaseholder to the devastated World Trade Center, likely can claim no more than the $3.5 billion insurance policy limit. While the appeals court did allow for a jury trial concerning the interpretation of certain terms in the contracts with 22 insurers, the court largely upheld the insurers' claim that Silverstein itself advocated a definition that would preclude its theory that the attack on the buildings should be considered two "occurrences" allowing for two separate insurance claims. The decision leaves in doubt Silverstein's financial ability to rebuild the Ground Zero site. - 26 Sept 2003. While the appeals court did allow for a jury trial concerning the interpretation of certain terms in the contracts with 22 insurers, the court largely upheld the insurers' claim that Silverstein itself advocated a definition that would preclude its theory that the attack on the buildings should be considered two "occurrences" allowing for two separate insurance claims. The decision leaves in doubt Silverstein's financial ability to rebuild the Ground Zero site. - 26 Sept 2003. Instructions: In 200-300 words, answer the following prompt: Do you think the Second Circuit Court of Appeals made the right decision about the case? Why or why not? How should the word "occurrence" be defined, in light of your answer? Try and give a detailed reason in your answer. In your answer, also be sure to provide background by explaining the details of the legal debate. Also be sure to edit your paper and make sure that it is well-written! It should be clear, organized, and complete. **You will be submitting your paper via Turnitin. Turnitin checks for plagiarizing from other students; work and of online sources. You do not need to use outside sources, but if you do, be sure to cite them, by providing works cited and parenthetical references.**

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The detailed answer for the above question is provided below The Second Circuit Court of Appeals made the right decision about the case Silverstein wa... View the full answer