Sr Intern. Business Ins. v. World Trade Center

Decision Date18 October 2006
Docket NumberDocket No. 05-3940-cv(CON).,Docket No. 05-3325-cv(CON).,Docket No. 05-3167-cv(L).,Docket No. 05-3170-cv(CON).,Docket No. 05-3169-cv(CON).,Docket No. 05-3168-cv(CON).,Docket No. 05-3942-cv(CON).,Docket No. 05-3204-cv(CON).,Docket No. 04-4500-cv(L).,Docket No. 05-6343-cv(CON).
PartiesSR INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS INSURANCE CO., LTD., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, Copenhagen Reinsurance Co. Ltd., Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Federal Insurance Co., Great Lakes Reinsurance PLC, Houston Casualty Co., Lexington Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London Insurers, QBE International Insurance Limited, and Württembergische Versicherung AG, Counter-Defendant-Appellees, v. WORLD TRADE CENTER PROPERTIES, LLC, Silverstein Properties, Inc., Silverstein WTC Management Co., LLC, 1 World Trade Center LLC, 2 World Trade Center LLC, 4 World Trade Center LLC, 5 World Trade Center LLC, The Port Authority NY/ NJ, Westfield WTC, LLC, Westfield Corporation, Inc., and Westfield America Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants, UBS Warburg Real Estate Investments, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., As Trustee for the registered holders of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001—WTC, and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, Gulf Insurance Company, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Swiss Reinsurance Co. UK Ltd., Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., Allianz Insurance Co., Royal Indemnity Co., TIG Insurance Co., Zurich American Insurance Co., Industrial Risk Insurers, The Travelers Indemnity Company, and Twin City Fire Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants. SR International Business Insurance Co., Ltd., Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant, Allianz Insurance Co., Gulf Insurance Company, Industrial Risk Insurers, Royal Indemnity Co., TIG Insurance Co., The Travelers Indemnity Company, Twin City Fire Insurance Co., and Zurich American Insurance Co., Counter-Defendants-Appellants, v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC, Silverstein Properties, Inc., Silverstein WTC Management Co., LLC, 1 World Trade Center LLC, 2 World Trade Center LLC, 4 World Trade Center LLC, 5 World Trade Center LLC, The Port Authority NY/NJ, Westfield WTC LLC, Westfield Corporation, Inc., and Westfield America, Inc., Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellees, UBS Warburg Real Estate Investments, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A., As Trustee for the registered holders of GMAC Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc., Mortgage-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2001—WTC, and GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, Defendants-Counter-Claimants, Copenhagen Reinsurance Co., Ltd., Employers Insurance Company of Wausau, Federal Insurance Co., Great Lakes Reinsurance PLC, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Houston Casualty Co., Lexington Insurance Company, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, QBE International Insurance Limited, Swiss Reinsurance Co. UK Ltd., Tokio Marine and Fire Insurance Co., and Württembergische Versicherung AG, Counter-Defendants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

Mound Cotton Wollan & Greengrass (Costantino P. Suriano, on the brief), New York, NY, for TIG Insurance Company.

Hogan & Hartson L.L.P. (William J. Bowman and Joshua D. Weinberg, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Twin City Fire Insurance Co.

O'Melveny & Myers LLP and Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP (Paul R. Koepff, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, New York, NY; Ira H. Raphaelson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, D.C.; M. Evan Corcoran, Wiley Rein & Fielding LLP, Washington, D.C., on the brief), for Zurich American Insurance Co.

Before WALKER, CABRANES and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

JOHN M. WALKER, JR., Circuit Judge.

These are appeals from judgments following two separate phases of a jury trial to adjudicate whether the coordinated terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001— whereby two jetliners separately crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center ("WTC"), destroying both buildings—constituted one or two "occurrences" under the terms of multiple insurance contracts. The parties are entities with varying property interests in the WTC (the "Silverstein Parties")1 and the insurance companies they retained to provide approximately $3.5 billion in multi-layered insurance on a "per occurrence" basis. At issue in the overall litigation is whether the Silverstein Parties can recover in the aggregate up to $3.5 billion, for one occurrence, or up to $7 billion, for two occurrences, under the terms of more than thirty separate insurance contracts that together provide the total coverage. The parties do not dispute that the destruction of the WTC resulted in a loss that greatly exceeds $3.5 billion.

The resolution of the broad question presented in these appeals—whether the coordinated attacks constituted one or two occurrences—is complicated by the fact that, as of September 11, 2001, the Silverstein Parties were still in the midst of negotiating final property insurance coverage for the WTC. Silverstein Properties had only recently entered into a long-term lease for the WTC and, with one exception, none of the many insurers that it had retained to provide property insurance coverage had issued a final insurance policy. Instead, these insurers had issued temporary binders or slips, which provide interim insurance coverage until a final policy is either issued or refused. Springer v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., 94 N.Y.2d 645, 649, 710 N.Y.S.2d 298, 731 N.E.2d 1106, 1108 (2000). These fully enforceable, interim insurance contracts or binders are a product of necessity: They serve as a "quick and informal device to record the giving of protection pending the execution and delivery of a more conventionally detailed policy of insurance." Employers Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 45 N.Y.2d 608, 613, 412 N.Y.S.2d 121, 384 N.E.2d 668, 670 (1978); see also Springer, 94 N.Y.2d at 650, 710 N.Y.S.2d 298, 731 N.E.2d 1106 (noting that a binder and a final policy are "two distinct agreements"). Because, in this case, the binders left the term "occurrence" undefined, the resolution of the broad question presented in these appeals required an individualized inquiry to determine what each pair of parties—the insured Silverstein Parties and each insurer—intended for the word "occurrence" to mean in each binder.

In a previous opinion in this matter, we explained our understanding of the nature of this individualized inquiry:

In deciding which terms are to be implied in a binder, reliance may be placed on the extrinsic evidence of the parties' pre-binder negotiations. In particular, we believe that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
146 cases
  • Turley v. Isg Lackawanna, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 17, 2014
    ... ... Ins. Co. v. World Trade Ctr. Properties, LLC, 467 ... ...
  • In re Young Broadcasting Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 19, 2010
    ... ... 2 ...          The Debtors' Business ...         YBI, a Delaware corporation ... as generally understood in the particular trade or business." JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 568 ... See Atl. Specialty Ins. Co. v. Gold Coast Devs., Inc., No. 05-CV-4863, ... Ins. Co. v. World Trade Ctr. Props., LLC, 467 F.3d 107, 134 ("To ... ...
  • Turley v. Isg Lackawanna, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • December 17, 2014
    ... ... Ins. Co. v. World Trade Ctr. Properties, LLC, 467 ... ...
  • World Trade Center Properties LLC v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Sept. 11 Litig.)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • September 17, 2015
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries
  • Lost in the Wind: Missing Endorsement Yields Policy Ambiguity
    • United States
    • LexBlog United States
    • June 30, 2023
    ...of insurance until an insurance policy can be issued.”). [2] See, e.g., SR Int’l Bus. Ins. Co., Ltd. v. World Trade Center Props., Inc., 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006) (multi-billion dollar insurance dispute over the terms of coverage after the 9/11 terrorist attack destroyed the World Trade C......
3 books & journal articles
  • Chapter 3
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Business Insurance
    • Invalid date
    ...Casualty Insurance Co., 674 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2012); SR International Business Insurance Co., Ltd. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC, 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006); RSUI Indemnity Co. v. RCG Group (USA), 2012 WL 3100636 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012); SCW West L.L.C. v. Westport Insurance Corp.......
  • Witness
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Trial Objections
    • May 5, 2022
    ...achieved simply by allowing officer to state that he was not suing for back pay . SR Intern. Business Ind. v. World Trade Center Prop., 467 F.3d 107, 126 (2d Cir. 2006). Allowing evidence as to insurer’s subjective intentions during binder negotiations to explain its actions did not prejudi......
  • CHAPTER 3 The Insurance Contract
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Insurance for Real Estate-Related Entities
    • Invalid date
    ...Casualty Insurance Co., 674 F.3d 125 (2d Cir. 2012); SR International Business Insurance Co., Ltd. v. World Trade Center Properties, LLC, 467 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2006); RSUI Indemnity Co. v. RCG Group (USA), 2012 WL 3100636 (S.D.N.Y. July 31, 2012); SCW West L.L.C. v. Westport Insurance Corp.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT