World Trade Center Issues

Careers | Training | Adjusters Vendors | Marketplace

Author Message mark (Olderthendirt) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 11:38 am:    It seems to me that the insurers need to prove that the attacks were coordinated and planed together while Mr Silverstein needs to prove seperate acts, more then a few lawyers will retire on this issue. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 10:45 am:    Kile, it is my understanding that both buildings were in fact covered under the same policy. In fact, all of the buildings in the World Trade Center complex (7 in all as I recall) were covered. The problem is, as I understand it, that the total replacement cost of rebuilding all of the buildings was undervalued and underinsured under this particular policy. Even under the most severe worst case scenarios ever envisioned during the risk management/risk finance process, no one ever anticipated any causation or event(s) which would have caused the simultaneous or near simultaneous total destruction of both twin towers as well as addtional buildings within the WTC complex. There are some arguments being made by carriers and reinsurers, that some of the tenant (or lessee) policies also provide some indirect building coverages (tenant improvements, upfitting, fixtures, coverings, etc.) which should not be paid in duplication by this master policy. Even some of the carriers and reinsurers are making arguments on both sides of the argument at the same time, for intricate technical reasons involving conflicts between the underlying policy language and conflicts therein with the language of the reinsurance agreements. Remember, that techincally speaking, the owner (Mr. Silverstein) is actually both a lessor and lessee. His ownership interest is leasehold rather than fee simple. The building is actually owned by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Mr. Silverstein's group has a 99 year lease (executed in 2001) on the building, which it then subleased to the building occupants and tenants. This was and is a complex leasehold ownership situation with highly technical insurance coverage, valuation, and loss settlement provisions and issues. I'm rather glad the courts have the burden of deciding the myriad of issues on this case. It's well past the abilities and experience of most of the rest of us; save and except for a couple of egomaniacal one peril adjusters who have been adjusting for six months to a year and no doubt certified by Leonards. Kile Anderson (Kileanderson) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 10:01 am:    Jim, I don't see any ambiguity in the statement, "all losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes." The one cause was a terrorist attack, the series of similar causes was the 1st, then the 2nd plane hitting the buildings. What if there had been a rocket attack instead of a plane attack and the terrorists had used RPG's. I know, not quite the same as a transatlantic jetliner full of fuel. But for the sake of argument lets say they fired 5 RPGs at each tower each 1 minute apart, would there then be 10 seperate claims, one for each rocket? If the leaseholder wanted both buildings covered, he should have purchased enough insurance to cover them both. Kile Anderson (Kileanderson) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 9:54 am:    Tom, I am just speculating here but since there is so much space between the WTC and the Pentagon, at least 3 states worth, then the Pentagon, if owned by the same owner, would probably be insured under a seperate policy and so would be covered as a seperate incident. Maybe not. Who knows? When Lawyers get involved even O.J. is innocent. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 9:11 am:    The World Trade Center's insurance policy defined occurrence as "all losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes." (Dave is correct that the policy is a manuscript policy, with Travelers as the lead insurance carrier and Swiss Re as the lead reinsurer under a consortium) Therein lies the rub. There is strong legal support for the arguments of both sides. This decision will be more appropriately made by the courts. Now here's a question for Bill Cook: Bill, if the vandal you mention bought a dozen eggs and then drove around one insured risk in a vehicle, and threw each egg, hitting and destroying a separate pane of glass with each egg, would there thus and then be 12 separate occurrences of vandalism each subject to a separate deductible? What if there were 12 buildings listed on a blanket policy on a college campus with glass damage to each from the 12 eggs? Would your answer to the previous question be modified by that unique circumstance? For the elucidation of CADO readers, generally speaking, how would occurrences be treated differently under a scheduled policy versus a blanket policy? R.D. Hood (Dave) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 8:40 am:    We can offer opinon's and conjecture till hell freezes over. The policy, and the inturpetation thereof, is the only answer. (as was said, it will be answered in court) It, most likely, is a manuscript policy. So these questions come to the forefront. 1) How are the buildings listed? 2) Do they have separte addresses? 3) Is an "incident" clearly defined and is there any time differencial posted. 4) Is there a concurrect cause? 5) Is it the same cause of loss? (i.e. falling object, collapse, etc,) We could all learn something from our National Tradgety in NY and DC and PA. Lesson Number 1, "YOU MUST HAVE THE POLICY". William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 8:36 am:    Please recall my posting of Sept 18th wherein I suggested that this loss should be defined as acts of vandalism in accordance with policy language. Had the culprits driven down the street in seperate cars throwing eggs at each building that they came to, then insurers would define them as seperate events with a deductible applying to each building if an owner had two buildings that were blocks apart then they would likely apply more than one deductible. William S Cook Public Adjuster TomS Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 6:13 am:    OOps, sorry Kile, I said Alan, and meant you, I agreed with Alan the other day also, that was what amazed me again. ha aha TomS Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 6:11 am:    Alan, I again am amazed as I somewhat agree with you,must be getting too lax these days. yes, a conspriacy apparently existed and was in effect that sad day. But,and only a question. If the policy is going to be somewhat circumvented, would we not have 2 seperate incidents and that some time between them ( 30 minutes, maybe) that this would be to seperate causes of loss. O.K. you do the research and I will abide by the rules, I think the insured would be entitled to the 7 million under the two seperate attack deals. Now for a further debate, what "IF" the policyholder owned the 3rd building, the Pentagon? Would we have 1-2-3 incidents or are all considered one. Kile Anderson (Kileanderson) Posted on Friday, January 04, 2002 - 12:10 am:    Not that my legal oppinion is worth anything more than silicone wafers it's remembered on, but it seems to me that the attacks were the result of a conspiracy between the hijackers in both planes. Since they conspired together and planned to pull of the attack together the second plane hitting was just a continuation of the conspiracy put into action by the first plane and therefore part of the same incident. But then again, common sense has no place in the legal arena. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Thursday, January 03, 2002 - 11:01 pm:    Was the World Trade Center brought down by one attack or two? The answer is worth $3.55 billion BY KAREN MATTHEWS Associated Press Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- It's the $3.55 billion question: Was there one attack on the World Trade Center or two? Experts are divided over whether the holder of the lease should get one insurance payment for that amount, or two, for the destruction of the twin towers. Larry Silverstein, who signed a 99-year lease at the trade center in July, claims that the towers were felled by two separate attacks and that he is entitled to $7.1 billion under his insurance policy. The insurers disagree. The Swiss Reinsurance Co., the lead insurer, sued Silverstein on Oct. 22, asking a federal court to declare that the Sept. 11 attacks -- in which the 110-story towers were struck by hijacked a For the article hit http://www0.mercurycenter.com/breaking/docs/081896.htm ToddSummers Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2001 - 5:45 pm:    Jim and Claude, thanks for your kind comments and for your offer, Jim. I'll definitely be taking you up on it. And I would just like to agree with your comments regarding Claude. I can't speak highly enough of him. And now he is a celebrity in his hometown ! What's next ...CNN ? Can I have your autograph Claude ? hehehe Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Sunday, October 07, 2001 - 10:47 am:    Todd, thanks for your post and for bringing correction to my earlier post. One of the great benefits of CADO is the ability to share a lot of real time information from adjusters from every corner of our country with one another. If only more adjusters would share what they know, we would all benefit. You and Claude Wilson have brought new information to each of us which is timely and important for all readers. You are correct, that 5 cat adjusters are currently working for one vendor in NYC and yes, there may be others. If anyone is aware of others, please post here and share that information. Also when adjusters do take assignments, it would help everyone if they would post those assignments on the CADO On The Road Page. Todd, by the way, Claude Wilson speaks very highly of you as an 'up and coming' cat adjuster who will be teaching a few of us old dogs a few new tricks. Welcome to the fold and please let me know if I can help in your journey in any way. Claude is a damned fine cat adjuster, a personal friend, an excellent knowledgeable trainer, and on top of all that, he hails from one of my favorite towns in America: San Angelo, Texas. ToddSummers Posted on Saturday, October 06, 2001 - 3:40 pm:    I am aware of five independent catastrophe adjusters that are currently working condo owners, apt. tenants, commercial and BI claims on a daily rate. The carrier has even put them up in a hotel downtown so they could work the claims faster. I am not at liberty to name them or their employer. To my knowledge, none of them are GA's or EGA's. A couple have been sent home. But the rest are handling their claims. If I know of five then could there be others ? ...Maybe soon. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2001 - 10:56 pm:    GB, according to my sources, State Farm has not called out an IA's from any of the vendors. I have no news on Big Blue one way or the other. The word I am getting from the local NYC adjusters and carrier staff on the scene up there, is that no cat adjusters have been called in by anyone (from checking the CADO On The Road Page, it would appear that Crawford may have an adjuster or more up there on branch assist. Perhaps someone from Crawford has much better information than I do). Some carriers in fact have announced within their organizations that they will be handling this event with staff only and not calling in outside adjusters. If anyone has any information which is more current, please post it here to correct the information posted here. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2001 - 9:29 pm:    Ghost I did today read 4000 families are still shut out of their homes. I guess many are apartments. The article was not insurance related so your question was not addressed. Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Thursday, October 04, 2001 - 8:54 pm:    I'd like to tap the grapevine here, please. What is the word on the residential loss side of the house. Did Big Red and Big Blue have that many claims? What's the story, boys? Are they using their own kids? Jim Lakes Posted on Friday, September 28, 2001 - 12:21 pm:    Clayton, I will attempt to try and answer some of your questions from a vendor’s point of view. 1) Jim Flynt and I have discussed this catastrophe (terrorist attack) and have posted many times on the need to be very experienced in handling these claims when the time comes and calls are put out for help. 2) I am not sure what you mean when you say how are vendor’s “lining up” with the their carriers? We are attempting to obtain as much work as possible, however, I do not know of any carriers that have called in adjusters at this point to handle commercial claims. The FBI is not allowing anyone into the area yet and nothing can be done until the area is opened up, which will not take place for several weeks. Think about it, there is a five-block area where they are still looking for people. I do know that many carriers will use their own GA's to handle as many as possible. 3) As far as compensation is concerned, that depends on the vendor and carrier that you are working for. I feel that these type claims are not the norm and will require the best of adjusters and will require much better compensation and I am speaking of the commercial claims, not the condo or auto claims. Nothing is comparable to this loss ever before. The only thing similar is the Northridge Earthquake and this is much more severe in a much more concentrated area. 4) When you come, if you do, be prepared to pay plenty if you are planning on staying downtown. If you plan on staying across the river in NJ, you still will pay 2-3 times the normal rate due to the circumstances. I hope this answers some of your questions. I think it will be some time before we are allowed into the area. Jim Lakes RPA National Catastrophe Director RAC Adjustments, Inc. 866.241.6574 William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Wednesday, September 26, 2001 - 4:03 pm:    Can the insurers maintain a position under the New York statutes that allow them to deny a claim for failing to meet the time limitations for filing a proof of or notice of loss? Most of the insurers have heard about the WTC incident so timely notice should not be an issue. They have prevailed in the past if it is one day over the 30 or sixty day limit. This is without regard to the impact the lateness may have on the merits of the claim. William S Cook Public Adjuster Clayton Carr Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 3:20 pm:    Folks, I'm going to post on a new thread, something along the lines of; "We are not "GA's", but we have done BI, lets review". This current thread has value, but seems centered on "issues" not specifically related to us discussing BI claims. But there are still issues relative to this thread that I would like to hear more about from my learned associates. (1) What is the word on the street re how the vendors are lining up with their carriers; notwithstanding the information elsewhere on this web site re GAB and Crawford? (2) what's the word re "compensation programs" (fee schedules, t&e rates, day rates, per diems)? (3) Who can share some insight into accommodations (availability, locale, cost)? The news is reporting large vacancy rates in NYC, but are these the type or locale that would serve well for an "office" or "launching point" for a cat adjusters efforts? (4) Still interested in hearing the saga of someone sent home; aside from the obvious issues Jim keeps making clear, there must be something of value to us in the experience gained by someone so unfortunately affected? Is one of these gentlemen "CLAIMSRANGER", as per his Bulletin post? Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 11:53 am:    But seriously... Good point, Older than Dirt, in their rush to put on a good face, the vendors love to rush warm bodies to a CAT. This brings to mind two thoughts. First, is the realization that TRULY Qualified Cat adjusters are in limited quantities. There just ain't that many of us. And when the stuff hits the fan, it's us'ens that pull the carriers and the vendors fat outta the fire. You'd think that we would be a whole lot better appreciated than we are, wouldn't ya? Second, is the concept of certain vendors to have more regard for their ex-fraternity brothers, extended family relations, and other assorted tire kickers, cotton pickers and bag boys than the experienced adjusters that are still hanging on to pick up some crumbs. Office politics is one thing, but our little industry really needs to get a reality check-up as to the true reason they exist. And that is to put a professional warhorse on the ground and solving other peoples problems with just a phone call to some storm trooper living several states away. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 11:15 am:    Mark, as I said in my earlier post, those adjusters who know what they are doing, don't need a refresher course nor to peruse a BIC and leasehold interest article. Those adjusters who don't know what they are doing, would gain no benefit from my posting a refresher course which would mostly be a detailed outline with research in advanced problems with BIC and leasehold issues well beyond their understanding and comprehension. I can only assume you are one of those who know what they are doing, in which case you would own or have access to the same business interruption tomes and leasehold interest reference materials which I have anyway. Clayton, I have no problem with anything you have said in your most recent post. Clearly from your comments, you are possessed of the skills and experience necessary to handle advanced coverage issues and business interruption claims. I would further suggest to you that no one, myself included, will be able to reach an agreed value settlement in New York City with insureds on property commercial losses (residential either) without the direct involvement of a contractor, due to several factors which influence and dictate repair costs up there. Costs and prices for NYC are best determined by contractor agreement and/or cost data from a service such as R.S. Means, as opposed to the traditional software estimating program data bases used by most cat adjusters. The DDS type programs are going to be skewed unimaginably low for commercial as well as residential losses there. I would rather suggest, that in many if not most cases, the contractors are going to be the ones writing the estimates in New York City with adjusters checking for duplication, "like kind" cost comparisons, as well as verifying coverage for individual repair items. And this will be true for GA's as well as regular staff or cat adjusters. Finally, Clayton, I do understand the urgency and anxiety which many feel at this point in time since a hurricane event has not materialized to help financially carry most cat adjusters through the winter. I realize that in a year of poor cash flows, adjusters might opt to take chances by reaching beyond their abilities, which could prove to be a grave costly mistake. I simply refuse to be a party in abetting such foolishness and folly, by assisting them in undertaking such self destructive insanely suicidal actions. Not only do they lose, but depleted yet wiser carriers lose, very hurting insureds lose, reputation conscious vendors lose, and we all lose in terms of tainting the reputation and expected standards of excellence of a profession so many of us love so dearly. That notwithstanding, my initial and ongoing intent was and is to try and save adjusters with only a modicum of experience in handling business interruption and leasehold interest claims from squandering scarce monetary resources in search of an assignment, which for many at least, is beyond their capability and ultimately will prove to be a costly and painful mistake. Perhaps what is needed is for the carriers to insist on being able to give a rather exhaustive and comprehensive BIC and commercial policy forms and endorsements 'test' to each and every cat and staff adjuster when they arrive in New York City before handing them claims, and then to send home those who fail. I imagine many of the less than timid would stay at home if that were to be the case. But I suggest to you, that in service to their sophisticated and New York savvy commercial customers as well as an understanding of the high standards demanded by the New York Insurance Commissioner's Office, that will be the de facto case through more surreptitious and covert means of knowledge and experience assessment in BIC and leasehold claims handling. The end result will still be the same: the naive and uninitiated both in terms of knowledge and experience are going to get a real quick one way trip home to lick their wounds and smart over their painful mistake. Having posted warnings sufficient for those realistic enough to honestly appraise their own abilities to heed, I will say no more on this topic in warning. Never has there been a more appropriate time to KNOW BEFORE YOU GO. And never say you weren't warned. Clayton Carr Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 11:05 am:    Linda has eluded to a very important point concerning our own individual involvement (or not) in the NYC mess. I'd glady pay any fine levied against her - because she made the issue clear in a non-confrontational tone, nor was she imtimidating to anyone; generally some of the good qualities that women adjusters bring to the table. As I pondered that I see Jim has responded with another bullet, if what he is relating is either all vendor and /or all carrier mandated, then fine - it is clear I will not be invited. But, I'm going to carry on with my response to Linda's post anyway. I can very personally relate to her comments about our own specific competency. I will always be grateful to Mike Scheper, Greg Roth, and Phill Hess; for their patience and help to me during past efforts at a storm site. I'll take the opportunity again to put my tail feathers at risk to illustrate through example Linda's point. Like many of you can say, I am a career adjuster. I came up through the company ranks from 1969 to 1987, the last 5 years of that period spent as a Regional Claims Manager for a major US insurer with a heavy commercial property book; and the last 14 years as an independant contractor doing mostly CP claims from varied roles and risk management work. So, most of those 30 years allowed me to become an ardent student of CP/BI wordings. All I know about auto is that my name is spelt with 2R's. My weakness, in the US cat environment is computer estimating residential building damage; I would not even want to attempt that exercise with a commercial structure. I can scope fine, but it was those three gentlemen who greatly helped me with the computer estimating part of the exercise, that elevated my proficiency and speed levels. Therefore, if someone said we would like you to adjust some strip plaza commercial buidling losses; I would quickly say thanks but I'm not your man for that (but I would try and get the CP element of the loss). However, to deal with CP and BI (notwithstanding what specifically may be encountered in NYC) I believe I have a comfort level and a sufficient competency to help; and hence my entry into this fray a couple of days ago with my thoughts on BI issues. Maybe I can give back a little of what those three men gave to me when I needed help. So, look at your strengths and backgrounds; what brought you to this dance of insurance claims? If you have never done a BI claim, if you have only done a couple small ones - the issue should be clear. If you are currently doing BI claims, or have done them with some regularity over the past years - you must consider your honest comfort level with the wordings and the adjustment techniques involved. Then mix all that in with the uniqueness of the NYC environment, the speed of that society; and as each day goes by that someone's claim has not been assigned - the anxiety level mixed with the effects of trauma that the insured will bring to each claim. Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 10:46 am:    Well...now that we've settled that, what's left? Howza 'bout on the residential property side of the house? Is anything of interest going on there? I used to do cars but quit that when Detroit went to front wheel drive. (My wife says I'm such an ol' fogey.) mark (Olderthendirt) Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 10:41 am:    I can guess the vendor who sent people home. Some vendors have become so used to sending warm bodies they just call and dispatch, without thinking about their clients needs. I have been put on standbye for this, without being asked if I even know what BI means. Jim I wish you would post the article, I will be studing and reading everthing I can get my hands on, their is no danger of being to prepared for this one. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 9:40 am:    It really is simple: if you are not a General Adjuster or 'GA level adjuster' or higher, then you do not have the necessary education, skills and experience to handle these highly unique COMPLEX LARGE business interruption claims (BIC). The GA's and EGA's have studied BIC formally in classes for weeks if not months while some unintiated are trying to learn here informally in days. Folks let's be real honest here; it just "ain't" going to work. That is the word from the carrier staff and from the 'locals' up in New York City that I am getting. BTW, they are going to be the ones who will not hesitate to send the naive and uninitiated home. And as they say: 'in a New York minute.' Merely calling one's self a GA does not a GA make. For anyone other than 'GA level adjusters' to delude themselves about their abilities to handle complex BIC claims is unrealistic, imprudent, insane and sad. I had originally planned on posting a lengthy article here on CADO as a 'refresher course' dealing with BIC and leasehold interests, but decided against doing so, in that it might give false hope, courage and confidence to those who would then mistakenly use it as part of a road map to travel on a trip they would best be advised not to take. (Those who know what they are doing don't need it anyway.) Handling business interruption claims in the hundreds of thousands and millions of dollars range is beyond the capability and experience of most of us, and frankly, it is an accounting process more than an adjusting process. The insurance part of BIC is relatively easy, the accounting portion is not. This is not a DDS cat event. It is one best served by understanding GAAP, spreadsheets and financial statements. Understanding advanced accounting concepts as well as the unique business culture that is only New York's doesn't hurt either. Linda Asberry (Linda) Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 8:48 am:    EXCELLENT idea! Notwithstanding that everyone has to go on their first storm but this isn't it. I think we have to first ask ourselves why a vendor would deploy someone to this disaster with the knowledge the adjuster either hasn't the education or the experience to adjust BI claims. It is seldom "Joe Adjuster" even has an opportunity to be assigned a BI claim so it should be knowledge the vendor has in hand whether an adjuster is qualified before deployment. Some of the vendors will have their own E&O shirttail flapping in the breeze in this fray. So, again, why would they risk it? If I were in their shoes I would make very certain I was sending the qualified person for the assignment. In this case, they stumped their toes and sent the "unqualified" with the knowledge they really were "unqualified". IMHO the vendor needs to pick up the expenses. What I am trying to say, and yes, it is taking too many words, is that we are all more competent in some arenas than others and the responsibility should rest on the shoulders of both the vendor and "Joe" to make that call. This statement isn't intended to take anything away from very competent adjusters, but rather some of us are much more competent in some areas of adjusting than others and we should use common sense and not the balance in our checking accounts to make this decision. We must remember the Insureds in this catastrophe are the most traumatized any of us will ever encounter and they certainly don't need more trauma attempting to deal with a learning curve. So fine me 2 cents a word. (smile) Clayton Carr Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 12:08 am:    Jim, your post this afternoon regarding the 5 cat adjusters sent home has caught my attention. Maybe there is an opportunity for all of us to gain from their story. Could you convince that person to relate in some detail their story from arrival to departure? Likely an anonymous post from "Gone Home" or similar handle would be best. I would commend, appreciate and thank that person for their honest portrayal of their saga. Clayton Carr Posted on Saturday, September 22, 2001 - 12:02 am:    To G/Buster, Mark & Linda; and to those that sent me emails at home; and to the person that called and left kind words on my voice mail today - to all thank you, I am humbled by it and certainly didn't expect it. I'm just a normal "Joe" from the north, claims is all I've done for over 30 years and I love dealing with people. Jim, 35 or so years ago I had - or tried to convince any 16 year old girl that would listen - a cougar like body; but today and for the past too many years, all that is left of that southbound silhouette is a leather like exterior; but with broad shoulders. My ST feathers have their sheen back and I respectfully accept your apology. I had a chance after supper tonight to do some more study and reflection on BI issues of concern. Tomorrow I'll take the time to relate some thoughts. However, I do look to others for commentary and discussion of these BI issues, and of their experiences related to extracting data relevant to the wordings. Linda Asberry (Linda) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 6:17 pm:    Jim, Mark, Clayton and all: I would like to tell you all that even though there is no possiblity of me going to New York, I feel that this forum is being utilized for it's intended purpose. Yes, it may take some of us a few more words to feel we have gotten our point across and that's is okay! at least the point and it's accompanying information is being posted! You all have a wealth of knowledge to impart so keep it up and guys, please put the egos in the back pocket. Jim, I noticed the time you made your post--obviously, you aren't sleeping any better than a lot of the rest of us. Not only has our country been attacked but our world as we have known it in most of our lifetimes will forever be changed. We can all be thankful we are still alive and well to carry out some of the tasks we have before us. God bless, keep sharing your knowledge and please stay safe. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 5:16 pm:    Maybe. Maybe Not Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 1:01 pm:    I just received word from an experienced adjuster (10+ years), one of 5 core cat adjusters sent to NYC by one of the major vendors, that all 5 cat adjusters were sent home either yesterday or today. The reason was given that they did not have the knowledge and experience to handle the complex business interruption claims coming in up there. They were further advised, according to my ground source, that only 'General Adjuster's' or 'GA level adjusters' were going to be brought in to handle these claims. Again, I urge every adjuster to exercise great caution in considering this assignment and the huge costs which could be personally incurred with unreimbursable front end travel, lodging and other expenses. Anyone seriously considering deploying for this assignment should take a long hard look in the mirror and be completely honest and realistic about their ability to handle BIC claims before jumping into this uniquely complex claims environment. This is just not the time nor place for anyone to believe that they can either BS their way past a lack of knowledge and understanding nor the time and place where they can learn complex BIC claims handling, computations, accounting and reporting. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 10:54 am:    Clayton, please accept my apology for the inappropriate wording of my last post. Unfortunately at the time of reading your post, I had let my good friend Samuel Adams influence my posting rather than FC&S or some other more authoritative reference. (How's that for candor Ghost?) I do commend your most recent post for saying in concise language what you had earlier tried to say in the more lengthy post, and I found your brevity both clear and understandable. I agree with the points you make in this last post with regard to Business Interruption. Ghost, perhaps you could suggest a more appropriate initiation for new pledges in the Scorched Tail Feathers Fraternity? After all, we are all birds sharing the same flock; whether we be Canadian Geese, sunbirds or dead ducks. I need to remember that as well as others sometimes. Please come on back Clayton, we all need your words and wisdom here. Myself included. Mea culpa. mark (Olderthendirt) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 10:15 am:    Clayton, please continue your thoughts, they are helpfull, even though some find them wordy, as I sit here re-reading my well worn books, I find all comments helpful. Most of us need to get up to speed on BI, (the standby calls continue) discussions like this help me think!! Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 9:42 am:    Awww now, Boys! Let's not get our skivvies twisted in the crack! Clayton, welcome to the scorched tail feathers club. You have now been truly well and properly initiated. If you want to be a little wordy, that's OK. What we'uns got here is some international cultural differences. We are two nations sharing the same language with neither comprehending the others nuances and style. And, as for you Mr Flynt, the paradigm of prolific prose and denizen of Dixie, could you be so kind as to edit BS into perhaps the polite and palatable expression, Bovine Excrement? Thank you. (Gee whiz! These delicate male egos are a pain to deal with. It's a miracle that the female gender puts up with it.) Clayton Carr Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 8:50 am:    Jim, I am unclear as to the intent of your BS comment; however I am capable of understanding your suggestion of just asking for the light and not the history of fire. Considering both those comments, I certainly will not burden this forum again. I, with respect, certainly do not agree with your 100 words or less notion regarding the "why" or "what" of a report recommendation. Contrary to the inference of your post, I do believe in concise reporting. However, overall it is clear in my mind that BI reporting is more lengthy than structural damage reporting. In approximately 75 words, the following is "what I really said or meant" in my last post. (1) Only the insured or his representative can provide the neccesary BI documentation to prove their loss. We can not create an "estimate". (2) Some policy terminology and definitions may differ from those used by accountants. (3) I feel the "expense" components of a BI claim are the most difficult to get a good handle on; relative to the financial aspects of a BI claim. (4)A difficult aspect of the "Measure of Recovery" is the consideration of, ".... probable earnings thereafter ....". Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 3:05 am:    Clayton, in 25 words or less, can you please tell us what it is you REALLY said or meant in your last post? Remember what I said earlier in this thread about adjusters not being able to BS their way past a lack of knowledge or experience in complex business interruption and commercial claims? As the old saying goes, I just asked for a light, not the history of fire. The carriers expect us to be able to explain the why as well as the what in our report recommendations. And it can always be done in one hundred words or less, even in a business interruption loss. alan jackson (Ajackson) Posted on Friday, September 21, 2001 - 12:01 am:    Food for thought. Just remember that most NY courts, state and federal are going to bend over backwards to help the insureds. Your jury pool and judges are all going to be leaning towards those affected by this tragedy. Clayton Carr Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 7:18 pm:    Well, as this thread does to me and should do for us all, is make it clear we must know our BI wordings, so we can acquire the proper and sufficient amount of information to calculate the claim. My humble entry into the discussion has captured my interest to say more. Again, that was the beneficial core of what Jim was creating with the start of this thread. Coming off my "Indemnity Period" (IP) commentary, ".... it is within this IP that the policy will pay the insured their loss of earnings less any expenses which do not neccesarily continue ...."; that I offer more for thought and discussion. When different terms are used - in this forum, by our peers, or other professionals such as lawyers and accountants; we need several types of "dictionaries" attached to our hip, where once we carried tape measures and cameras. It is important to stress that all BI policies are based on the principal of indemnity. It is not the intention of any BI policy to pay any "loss of income" that the insured has not suffered. As in any insurance loss, the insured must prove their loss. However, in very basic terms, when dealing with a roof removed during a hurricane; once we have effectively dealt with cause and coverage - it is us that in essence "proves the loss of the insured". That is, we prepare and create a building damage estimate. That simplicity will not be available on a BI loss, truly it is the insured who must prove their loss - i.e. supply all required data and information (financial and legal) to support their claim and the calculation of it. It is in this instance, we must realize that we have to coach, educate and encourage the insured on clearly what type of "paper" we must have in order to - properly assist them, properly do our determinations, and properly report our findings, interpretations and recommendations to the carrier. Recognize the different real world concept regarding "prove the Loss". It is akin in a small way to a typical condo association loss; but by and large condo management people are much easier to deal with, and they need to supply much less "paper" than what will be encountered in NYC mercantile losses. If I was called upon to work BI claims in NYC, one of the first things that would come with me off my desk is my college "Principals of Accounting" textbook; which has a great glossary. It is important to note, and it surely has been my experience, that some of the terminology and definitions found in policies may differ from those used by accountants. We have to make sure that whomever we are communicating with (insured, accountant, carrier, adjuster) that we always make sure we are talking about the same banana, and each understands it is the Chiquita brand. The former paragraph must not be underestimated, or the result will be that the numbers just won't crunch. Consider this thought - a roof is a roof, is a roof; whether it be a hip, mansard or gable. A composite asphalt shingle roof covering, is called or known by how many other "names" that we may all relate to and acknowledge? Not so in trying to blend accounting financial terminology with policy wording terms. I've found the Columbo approach helpful - keeping asking the "little questions" and get all the clarifications required to make sure the numbers you are getting that have a "name / term tag" attached to them can be placed in the proper column of your eventual claims calculations. The three essential components that make up the financial side of a BI claim are revenue, expenses, profit (loss). It is the expense components that will give us the greatest test of our experience, will and patience. Study up on operating costs, continuing expenses, and noncontinuing expenses; fixed, variable and semivariable costs. Get as basic accounting text from your local library or read some old BI files that you know are credible. This is not to say that revenue or profit (loss) are less important criteria in a BI claim, only that they are easier to find or see on a financial statement; and the correct determination of the latter is a direct result of a good understanding and application of your adjusting skills in identifying "expense factors". Co-insurance is another wording component that we will have to be completely in tune with for any calculations. It is important to remember when considering the Co-Ins clause that it applies at the time of loss, not when the policy was written; but that is more of an issue during times of inflation, and we may be lucky and avoid this if we encounter No Co-Ins Earnings forms. Some BI Earnings forms that I have encountered, actually more common with mercantile risks; have a major Advil moment when pondering a certain component of the "Measure of Loss" as follows - "In determining the loss, due consideration shall be given to; .... the earnings of the business before the date of damage or destruction and to the probable earnings thereafter, had no loss occurred ...." It is this latter, ".... probable earnings thereafter ....", when you want to reach for the Advil. In other words, you the adjuster, will endeavour to determine what the business would have earned had the loss not occurred. This means recognizing and taking into account any trade trends or unusual activities; relative to the specific nature of the insured business. Quite a different experience than discussing your clear and quantitative water damage estimate with an insured following a more common covered peril. Well, thats enough on some more basic BI issues that I'd though I would share from my BI experiences and as I review all my BI data. "Know before you go", means so much more now; given the probable nature of the NYC claims. I do look forward to hearing from others with their thoughts, experiences and opinions. I'll be watching and listening closely to your Commander in Chief tonight, as he brings you up to date, as well as the rest of the world. Clayton Carr Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 6:02 pm:    Jim, I got the urge to do another post and find your latest note. Man O man, you have hit the nail right on the head with some real issue questions that are very difficult to answer; regardless of one's profession. The only one I'll try to venture an opinion on, one which unfortunately I've encountered too many times and found difficult and gut wrenching; is the first - "landlord decides not to rebuild and the tenant is hung out". In simple terms I suggest his loss is limited, subject to all the BI calculations etc, to a fair determination of the tenant Indemnity Period. I'm stuck on the others, without lengthy review of the applicable wording to see where relief may be available or interpretative for such issues. I would tend to lay all the cards on the table via a report in as much detail as possible regarding this to the carrier and seek guidance. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 4:26 pm:    Thanks Tom and Clayton. I have no argument with any of the ideas you fellows posted. Tom I especially appreciate your candor about how this tragedy has affected you personally, and I find myself having some of the same difficulty in concentrating as well. Now to make the dialogue more interesting, what happens when a tenant insured's landlord decides not to rebuild? What further happens when the tenant discovers that replacement rental space is unavailable in New York City? (It's a 'tight' real estate market up there for commercial space right now). What happens if it is essential that the tenant must be located in NYC (Manhattan) for business or market reasons, as opposed to Brooklyn or New Jersey with the two prior combined factors? Clayton Carr Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 4:11 pm:    Mark, I don't want you or others to get misdirected regarding Indemnity Period (IP). When it starts, given cause and coverage, is immediately following the loss. I will venture my opinion that no insurer will state otherwise due to inaccessability. When IP ends, is why adjusters are needed that are experienced in BI; many factors and information has to be developed, understood, presented in reporting relative to the wording with recomendation to the carriers. mark (Olderthendirt) Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 1:05 pm:    Clayton, well stated.. It would seem to me that the IP would be a reasonable time from when access is granted. Insurers trying to say elsewise wold face public, government pressures let alone the courts. For some companies I winder if all copies of their lease (including the landlords) might have been destroyed, that could create another challenge for us. When the call comes we need to be ready, I havemy books out and wold love to hear others thoughs and cover. Tom Toll (Tom) Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 12:46 pm:    Thank you Clayton Carr. Now we are speaking in terms of relevency. Indenmity, the key word. Time to replace or repair, will be ambiguous to its extent. This, by far, will be one of the toughest assignments for staff and IA's. Policy defintions will require strict adherence and absolution. Jim is very right. We are expected to know policy coverages, definitions, and must know how to make correct recommendations, key word, (RECOMMENDATIONS). I just saw some statistics on a poll taken by CNN. 1 out of 2 Americans are depressed and cannot concentrate well as a result of the WTC event. As much as I hate to admit it, I am included. My soul has been breached by an entity set out to destroy our way of life. They obviously are not happy with their lives, so they are encroaching ours. Give these statistics some thought. I am finding it hard to concentrate, as my thoughts and love go to the people directly involved in the event. If I had lost a loved one in the WTC, I do not know how I would have handled it. I am mad, angry, and somewhat disappointed in the command that did not see this coming. We, as professional adjusters must be certain, beyond any doubt, that we can physiologically and phsychologically handle this situation. Tragedy such as this plays games with your head and body. If you do go to help, weigh the known as much as possible and then pray you will make it through this abcess created by the scum and cowards of the world. Clayton Carr Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 11:54 am:    Given that I chose to comment on this thread and suggest that it "stay its' course" but with different material, allow me to introduce for thought and discussion a key principal of any BI form or wording. Please bear in mind that my thoughts and experience with BI is driven from Canadian wordings. That may cause some of the nomenclature to differ, but the intent of these wordings are consistent throughout North America and Britain. No different than your HO# policies by name are no different in context from the Canuck "Standard, Broad Form or Comprehensive"; etc. One key issue that will be faced by anyone handling a BI loss is the "INDEMNITY PERIOD", that is the duration or length of time for which indemnity will be provided. It is not dependant on the policy period. We have several forms of that here in "Maple Leaf Valley", but the American form has a period of indemnity which is from the date of loss until the day that repairs are completed or should have been completed, had due diligence and dispatch been exercised. The "IP" is not dependant upon the policy being in force. Obviously, the policy must be in force at the time the loss first occurs, but the IP will continue until it "expires" (more on that later) even though the subject policy may no longer be in force. It is within this IP that the policy will pay the insured their loss of earnings, less any expenses which do not neccesarily continue. Those last 8 words themselves could fill a thread. In very general terms, I have found (for mercantile type insured's) two distinct scenarios that greatly impact upon the ease or difficulty in determining and applying the IP to a given loss; that is building owners and tenants. A mercantile tenant occupancy can be severely impacted by an otherwise fairly determined IP. Building repairs or rebuilding are the concern of the landlord (owner) and often those concerns are compounded by the lack of due diligence, or insufficient insurance or co-insurance issues; just to mention the two most predominant factors that I have encountered in the past. It is imperative when dealing with a BI claim of a tenant occupancy that you obtain into your possession and carefully review, all lease material and rental agreements. What I have commented on so far should raise many issues within the context of IP for further discussion or consideration; primary among them the essence of this issue; ".... from the date of loss until the day that repairs are or should have been completed ...." The above is where "adjusting" must rise to the surface. Is it not obvious that the IP includes the period of inaccessability to the site area? We may create or be given credible repair or reconstruction estimates, but by what measure of expertise or consistent approach will we (mostly strangers to NYC usual periods for "XYZ" construction periods) determine or recommend to the insurers be used as a "number of weeks / months" to complete said repairs? "Due diligence and dispatch" I'm sure is a beloved term for American lawyers as it is here in the soon to be cold north. Again, we may look to some carriers for lieniency on the issue, but we must be able to inform our carriers of issues that are adversely affecting that matter as we see and encounter them in the field. Perhaps in an effort to avoid someone getting sidetracked on the essence of IP, I will point out that "up here" one of the major BI wordings is called "Gross Earnings Form" that the IP I spoke of equates to. We also have a "more deluxe" version called the "Profits Form" and a key component of it is that it clearly states the IP, and the premium is predicated on the length of IP "purchased by the ins'd" whether it be 12, 18 or 36 months or whatever. This profits form has a different measure of loss, but I point out these two forms only to illustrate the two types of IP. Perhaps I will stop here with these basic thoughts and issues related to "Indemnity Period". As we have seen in this thread and other related threads, yes; spreadsheets, accountants and lawyers will play a larger role in BI claims than a roof removed in a hurricane. However, it is those people in the field dealing with the affected insureds that must be familiar with the applicable wording so they can extract, interpret, and present the critical information required with appropriate recommendations; long before the spreadsheets are used. Clayton Carr Posted on Thursday, September 20, 2001 - 9:52 am:    Ladies and gentlemen, I have followed this thread and others; and have been a keen observer of the information and knowledge base that exists here for those of us in the cat claims business. It has been with some disgust that over the past few years in quieter times that we all have witnessed some "head bashing" on this web site that I'm sure we could all agree does little to further the beneficial nature of this site. I have followed Jim's discussions closely on this thread, but not with the intensity that I have absorbed many of his other comments on many other issues. Tom makes a good point, specifically with regards to the issue of cause versus coverage. It will not be our call. But also Jim's efforts in evolving this thread has merit in that I agree it should clearly get us all reading our wordings, old class notes, old BI claim reports and texts that we may not have used perhaps in months. In an effort to perhaps steer this valuable thread away from an impending turn to a negative discussion, why don't we broaden it and start discussing real time issues such as; definitions and adjuster methods and applications of such things as "earnings / income", extra expenses to reduce loss, ordinary payroll; issues to consider regarding consequential/ contingent BI claims. From my many years in another life, as a "company" claims person before venturing out as an independant contractor; I know the companies will be looking to us to explain and substantiate the "reasons why" for many of the issues I have raised here; which are only a small number of the critical factors in such claims. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 - 11:08 pm:    While I yield to no one in my respect and appreciation for Tom Toll and his vast knowledge and broad based experience, I do feel that perhaps he missed the relevance, intent and benefits of the present war exclusion discussion. Very few adjusters, staff or independents, could ever begin to bring Tom's wide ranging knowledge and professional stature to New York City for this catastrophe. However, I do feel that the discussion about 'war exclusions' was and is appropriate for several reasons: (1) The war exclusions are part and parcel of those very same policies which Tom suggests we should all be reading up on. (2) Any spirited discussion about complex policy issues only serves to educate us about the process of policy interpretation and often yields tangential knowledge of policy aspects not originally intended. (3) Perhaps it is only at such a specific time and in a specific situation such as the World Trade Center disaster, with warlike acts causing damage, that would trigger a discussion about an exclusion within the policy which would otherwise be rarely discussed, thus largely misunderstood beyond some cursory awareness of the policy wording. Only in such a present instance would any of us, myself including, be researching FC&S and case law for more a detailed explanation of such an arcane provision. (4) It would seem to me that those very same 'cognitive and educated staff' who Tom mentions will ultimately will make the coverage decisions, had at one time or another to have undergone the same intellectual exercise we are now undertaking here in order to have acquired the knowledge which would allow them to be cognitive and educated. (5) That the war exclusion topic and discussion is timely is evidenced by it's preeminence in other discussions and articles on the websites and media of FC&S, Best, ISO and in many of the other more erudite informational resources for insurance professionals. (6) Finally, to take Tom's argument that some coverage decisions are not ours to make to it's logical end, would suggest that no coverage decisions are ours to make. And if one truly makes that allowance, then it erroneously subrogates policy knowledge, practical application and an in-depth understanding of coverage issues to others while it abrogates any individual requirement and personal responsibility for a higher standard of knowledge that each of us should possess. I do agree with Tom that we all need to be doing our homework right now before we leave. No adjuster can ever know too much, and every adjuster should do all within their power to constantly increase their knowledge and understanding of policy and coverage questions. Refreshing our memory by reading the more complex commercial policies and forms as well as the many endorsements which can change the coverage is de rigeur at this time. Reading and/or having access to current FC&S can only enhance the chances for adjusters to succeed in what will be the arduous and challenging task ahead. David P Bennett (Whitey) Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 - 10:39 pm:    Tom, you are correct, we will not be making the call and no you haven't missed anything. But the analysis and studies have opened some eyes, I hope to the complexity of the situation and of course we all should be aware of the issues so as not to inadvertantly make a statement which could be held as a waiver. Jim, if the policy exclusion reads only exclude war by a sovereign entity, nation or governement then there definitely is a basis for accepting coverage. As I pointed out, the current exclusions do not require that the act of war be by a sovereign entity as was the requirement in the two policies of the cases you have cited. Some policies will be manuscript and some standard. Those of us who are called to work in the field will be directed, others of us who are called to work in the home offices of the companies overseeing the I.A.'s and those Cat Adjusters who have the experience to handle such a catastrophe, will be working with the company legal counsel and outside counsel to review all language and the final position the company will take. Either way, the damages, BI losses, extra expenses etc will need to be ascertained no matter which way the carrier goes. Good luck to those who are called to work in the damage areas. Lots of photos, books & records from the accounting firms, tax records from the government and oh yes T&E Billings unless on a day rate with expenses paid. As for the P.A., we allready know your position, its the same no matter what the cause. Tom Toll (Tom) Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 - 7:21 pm:    I wonder why all the coverage issues are being discussed. It is not our decision to make and feel confident that the companies have cognitive and educated staff to make coverage decisions. It seems frugal that some are quoting and researching different scenarios, but to what end?? We should be reading up on all applicable policies and FC&S to familiarize ourselves with what will be expected of us. We should be on the ready if called, or am I missing something here. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 - 6:56 pm:    The issues with adjusting at the WTC are many but the uninsured damages caused by the terrorist just never stop adding up it seems. Mark you can see why they would have been looking at selling short to capture some of that nearly $1 trillion loss in our markets this week. At least the 250 point recovery off the low of today could indicate the bungee cord has found an near term bottom with all of the lay offs and missed projections being in the press today. At least the boards have a bad man to blame the bad numbers on this time. Based on this article we must becoming a poor nation or was very wealth New Years 2000. “Investors have yanked a total of $7.8 billion out of mutual funds so far this week, according to market research firm Trimtabs.com. About $873 billion in investor wealth has evaporated since Monday, Sept. 10, as measured by a 9.3 percent drop in the very broad Wilshire 5000 index (^TMW - news). Some $6.3 trillion in investor wealth has been wiped out since the Wilshire index hit a peak in March 2000.” http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010919/bs/markets_stocks_dc_45.html Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Wednesday, September 19, 2001 - 3:10 pm:    The following article, taken from the FC&S Bulletins, may provide some clarification on how the war exclusion should apply as we explain various court interpretations of the exclusion. While no court decisions involving the exact language of the war exclusion clause in the current commercial property forms have arisen at this time, there are decisions involving other, past war exclusion clauses that do permit some reliable conclusions to be drawn. American courts, following British precedent, seem to adhere to a strict doctrine of what constitutes war, allowing the exclusion to be applied only in situations involving damage arising from a genuine warlike act between sovereign entities. The two following cases best sum up this idea that for there to be a war, a sovereign or quasi-sovereign must engage in hostilities. In Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, 505 F.2d 989 (2d Circuit 1974), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that where members of a political activist group from Jordan hijacked an aircraft over London and destroyed the aircraft on the ground while in Egypt, the resulting loss to the aircraft was not due to war within the meaning of the term as used in the exclusionary clauses of the "all risks" policies covering the aircraft. The court, citing legal history, stated that "cases have established that war is a course of hostility engaged in by entities that have at least significant attributes of sovereignty; under international law, war is waged by states or state-like entities… and includes only hostilities carried on by entities that constitute governments at least de facto in character." The court reasoned that since the activist group had never claimed to be a state, it could not be acting on behalf of any of the states in which it existed when the plane was hijacked, especially since those states uniformly and publicly opposed hijacking. The hijackers were agents of a radical political group and not a sovereign government. The court concluded that a guerrilla group or radical political group must have at least some incidence of sovereignty before its activities can properly be defined as war. In Holiday Inns, Inc. v. Aetna Insurance Company, 571 F. Supp. 1460 (S.D.N.Y. 1983), the U.S. District Court in New York, quoting extensively and approvingly from the Pan American case cited above, declined to apply the war risks exclusion to a claim for damage to a hotel that was shelled during the battles in Beirut, Lebanon. The insurer argued that the conflict in Lebanon involved three clearly defined independent entities, each having the attributes of sovereignty or, at the least, quasi-sovereignty, and that therefore, the war exclusion could be applied to deny coverage. The court focused on the faction occupying the Holiday Inn at the time of the fighting and concluded that it was not a sovereign entity. The court further stated that even if the group could be argued to possess the necessary sovereignty, it was not fighting with another sovereign government at the time of the damage, and therefore, the war exclusion clause could not be invoked by the insurer. William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 - 9:22 pm:    Being somewhat of a novice at policy language and going by the wording of most policies and by the true meaning of words the proximate cause of the WTC losses appear to be vandalism. Perhaps others may wish to comment. William S Cook Public Adjuster William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 - 9:09 pm:    The issues here should be reviewed in detail prior to stepping into the toxic quagmire of the XWTC site. Your families will thank me for this one. www.nycosh.org William S Cook Public Adjusters William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 - 8:46 pm:    Adjusters needing a risk photo for WTC claims can look here. Be sure to zoom in. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/wtc.zoom.html William S Cook Public Adjuster David P Bennett (Whitey) Posted on Tuesday, September 18, 2001 - 7:52 pm:    Jim, not an analysis based on definitional vagaries. I read the PAN AM analysis and I concur. If this had been one action and not four or five I would agree that terrorism could be found to be as an arsonist therefor extending coverage. I am aware of statements made by some carriers and am certain there have been legal briefs completed or in the process. I haven't heard from the reinsurers or seen any statements by them as of yet. As we know the auto, health and life do not have the war exclusion. I am waiting to see what the reinsurers have to say. The underlying carriers can make a decision, but that decision doesn't bind the reinsurer and a quick erroneous decision could lead to bankruptcy for some insurers. The building damages of course are set but the real exposure is the extra expense and bi claims, not to mention if they do this now, they will have no choice but to pay on any further attacks and we know there will be additional attacks. This is why the government set up a war reparations account in wwII and there is allready talk about the same type account being set up for this act of war. By the way War definition # 2 Websters any fight or struggle # 3 the work or science of fighting a war to carry on a war and of course #1 fighting with weapons between countries or parts of a country. Seems this act falls within the definitions as set out by webster. Lets hope the industry makes the right decisions according to the policy or there will be less of them around before this is all over. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 10:53 pm:    David socialism is alive and well in our society and has spilled over into every aspect of our lives I am afraid. I was reading of a very wealth businessman in Finland just today that was fined over $31K for running a light that had just turned red at an ice covered intersection because of his high income. He loss his case. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 9:49 pm:    David I appreciate your thoughtful analysis and understand how one might arrive at your conclusion through the definitional vagaries of policy language. However from all of my own research, I find disparate views on this topic as well as the very definition of war within the confines of the intended meanings within the policies. Elsewhere on the CADO Forum, I have posted an excerpt dealing with this very specific question which comes from the legal proceedings into the Pan Am matter where the definition of war and warlike actions was also at question. I would remind readers that the World Trade Towers suffered a bomb blast by a similar group of terrorists in 1993. Interestingly enough the carriers underwriting this risk, could have elected to change policy language after that event to remedy definitional problems related to distinction between war and terrorist acts. The very same carriers (a consortium of carriers due to the extremely large risk exposure) could also have elected not to renew the policy given that 1993 bombing event with rational consideration given to forecasting future similar events. According to news reports and insurance media on the Internet they chose to do neither. Therefore, by acceptance of the risk for causes of loss identical to the 1993 loss, and further through the acceptance of premiums, it seems doubtful that invoking a war clause at this late date would meet with much legal merit. I further note that to date, most if not all of the carriers who have made public announcements regarding invocation of the war exclusion have taken the position that they do not believe the exclusion to be applicable in the present instance, and that they therefore will consider the claims made as being covered causes of loss. David P Bennett (Whitey) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 9:23 pm:    First, my prayers are with those effected by this act. Now, I don't understand the thinking that the insurance industry and companies should pay irrespective of their policies. Here we go again with the liberal attitude that everything should be covered and ignore the wording. Now that thats off my chest. Lets look at the CP1030 language which is generally found in every policy and most manuscript policies: f. War and Military Action 1. War, Including undeclared or civil war; 2. Warlike action by a military force, including action in hindering or defending against an actual or expected attack, by any government, sovereign or other authority using military personnel or other agents; or 3. Insurrection, rebellion, ...... 1 and 2 are the ones to review as 3 is not applicable in this situation. In 1993 bin laden declared war on the US. He is recognized as a leader and one in authority. His people go through training and are highly skilled at their designated assignments. (Sounds military to me) This has been recognized as an act of war (in fact the news media questioned the presidents chief correspondent on this matter today) against the US. Now one incident, terrorism no doubt, but four as has been stated is a well thought out deliberate attack. One logically sees this as a warlike action by a military force. The remainder of this exclusion refers to action in hindering or defending against (those damages caused by say the US in their defense or action to hinder further attacks) from an actual or expected attack, by any government, sovereign or other authority ........ This actually is a two part exclusion in that it excludes damages from a warlike action perpetrated by a military force. Terrorist are trained as military, have a command tier in place and this action is a warlike action. Now open discussion and analysis are welcome. But lets get off the kick that the insurance industry should pay, irrespective. We hear this on depreciation, we here this on wear and tear, on maintenance issues, on sinkholes, in flooding and on and on. We as professionals must and should recognize that not all events are covered and the policy dictates these issues. Now if the companies want to make business decisions and have the backing all the way through the reinsurers, then great for everyone. But these decisions are executive decisions and the long lasting impacts of arbitrarily extending coverage when faced with an exclusion can lead to no exclusions whatsoever and no need for adjusters and no insurance as no one could afford the premiums. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 7:12 pm:    Here is an article about the reinsurers perhaps having been sold short just before 11 Sept 01. http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/cgi-free/getstory_ssf.cgi?a0756_BC_Attacks-SuspiciousTra&&news&newsflash-international J.P. Theriot (Jpt) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 6:08 pm:    Mark, Short selling a stock: A owns stock. B makes an agreement with A and takes the stock from A for a pre-determined fee (Say $.50/share). B agrees to return the stock to A at a future date. Now the fun begins. B sells the stock, say 100 shares for $15 a share and sits on the $1500. Now B watches the market and hopes that the stocks price falls. Assume the price falls to $13. B buys 100 shares of the stock, paying $1300, gives them back to A on the date agreed, and pockets $150. ($200 less the $50 predetermined fee.) On the otherhand, if the stock value rises to $16, B must pay $1600 for the shares plus the $50 fee and hence loses money. That is the basics of short selling. In this case, A has no risk. He will get the same number of shares back with the fee. B on the otherhand, has the risk of riding the market. Kile Anderson (Kileanderson) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 1:02 pm:    Shorting a stock is selling a stock you don't yet own. Say you think GM is going down in the next couple of days. You sell it even if you don't own the stock. There is a three day settlement period before the transaction is completed. So you sell short (you are short of the stock) someone agrees to buy the stock at todays price in three days. If it goes down, you can buy it at the lower price and you already have a buyer who agrees to buy it at the higher price. You can "put" it too him at the higher price. A put is the other side of a call (future). Sometimes the price goes up and the guy buying the future wins, sometimes it goes down and the buy buying the put wins. I hope this clears things up. mark (Olderthendirt) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 12:15 pm:    So shorting a stock is a way of betting on failure. I do not see what good it does. But I have seen stocks destroyed by shorting. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 12:06 pm:    Mark, shorting a stock is called “ hedging “ if you own the stock. Shorting stocks that you own is like a homeowner buying a HO policy, he as hedged his asset. As in any ownership there risk and people do not like risk so the insurance industry was born. There would not be much interest in the stock market if someone did not provide liquidity. There would not be any commodity market because there is a long and short position on contracts. Your money market funds may have been heavy into short selling to protect their holdings. As for the terrorist the risk was not that high since they planned to take the physical action to drive down the value of the reinsures’ stock. Options and Puts are a way of doing business. Stocks almost always fall faster then they can rise. The Bears have been in the position to make more money in the last 18 months than the Bulls have in the past 10 years. Naked short selling is not for the fain of heart or poor. I know the issues being brought to light because of the WTC attack is teaching me a lot of things I had just never thought about. mark (Olderthendirt) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 11:20 am:    I would love to know what good shorting a stock does. It seems to me to be high level gambling, and now it seems it can be used by evil to make money. It produces nothing, but allows insiders to destroy others hard work. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 10:07 am:    CIGNA Taking Special Steps to Help Customers; Determines War Exclusions Not Applicable for Events of September 11 - Events Not Expected to Have a Material Adverse Impact on Company - PHILADELPHIA, Sept. 17 /PRNewswire/ -- CIGNA Corporation (NYSE: CI) said today, that while the company is still gathering information, the tragic events of September 11 are not expected to have a material adverse effect on the company's full year 2001 consolidated results of operations or its liquidity or financial condition. CIGNA has determined that policy language excluding coverage for acts of war does not apply to Tuesday's events. This means that no claims for the tragic events of September 11 will be refused on the basis of policy language relative to a war exclusion. "We are committed to helping our customers and their employees in this most devastating of tragedies," said H. Edward Hanway, Chairman & CEO of CIGNA Corporation. "CIGNA is fully operational, determined to meet all customer needs and open for business." Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 5:20 am:    Gale, you are so right. The insured losses from last week's events may be in the $5 to $50 billion dollar range, but the economic losses will be staggering. Economic losses will be measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. And those economic losses will be borne by all of us as consumers and taxpayers, as they are and were largely uninsurable. And for an economy already on the brink of a recession, these events no doubt will serve to only make things worse. 'These are the times that try men's souls.' Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Monday, September 17, 2001 - 2:29 am:    As the weeks moves ahead more issues are bound to arise out of the WTC/DC attacks. NAMIC (Mutual Carriers) convention was to be a week from today in DC but no more. Like other adjusting software vendors we spent a few thousand dollars directly and indirectly because of the event that can’t be recovered. In the scheme of things that is not an issue and is not my main point. It would seem that most all events in NY and DC scheduled in this time frame have been canceled without much thought but due to no air / limited air service I am sure many meetings/conventions were canceled. Just think of the negative impact on the whole tourist industry worldwide. Most of last week’s payroll nation wide, even worldwide was of limited value to the firms profits. Whole industries just shut down that supported the travel industry. Other than for military use jet fuel usage dropped to about zero. The point is that after I think about it the 20 billion or whatever the numbers turn out to be will be a drop in the bucket to what the terrorist current actions will cost US businesses and these two figures will only be a drop in the bucket what the “WAR” will cost. The loss of human life this past week and what will be lost in the years of war that lie ahead is hard to conceive in my mind. The fact that much of the first phase of ground fighting will be in a country that has been ripped apart for the past 20 years by Russia or civil wars will without doubt make a bad way of life even worse. I for one am just beginning at this point in my life to somewhat understand terrorism in both its cost and effectiveness. We were only able to win our freedom from the British in the beginning because we had learned to fight more like the Indians while the British were still using field tactics from their successful wars in Europe. If we are to win this new war it will because we learn on the fly to fight like the terrorist instead of the way we fought Desert Storm. We stopped aggression but did little if anything to stop terrorism. I for one am becoming angry that these groups have bases to work from and the money to finance their goals. It now appears they sold short the reinsurance firms stocks so they could make a quick killing in the stock market as these firms shares were sure to drop fast which meant they could buy Puts with only a few weeks of time before expiration very cheaply. Perhaps that adds a new twist to the meaning of “inside trading”. It is kind of like we over eat, drink and a ton of other things but it takes a major heart attack or cancer for us to see the fact strong enough so we will active change our views/actions. Maybe being able to see 1350 foot buildings being hit at full speed by planes loaded with people just like us and seeing the buildings coming down filled with people just like us (trying to make a living) several hundred times in just a few days has driven us to begin to really see this is not a problem that is going a way and that Americans will have to fight and die if we are to maintain any degree of freedom for ourselves or for the generations to come. It has been pointed out that it is not really our past actions that brought about the action of the terrorist but because of what we stand for makes it hard for them to maintain their control over followers of their faith. Freedom is a powerful force that all humans will seek once they know it exist. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2001 - 6:44 am:    I agree with Jim Lakes and here is one more reason why: "A famous case applying the noscitur a sociis is Pan American World Airways v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.29 This case arose out of the hijacking of a Boeing 747 by two men purporting to act on behalf of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. The court interpreted the following exclusion: To claims caused by War, invasion, acts of foreign enemies, hostilities (whether war be declared or not), civil war, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, martial law, military or usurped power or attempts at usurpation of power. The court concluded that the war risks exclusion did not apply: The hijackers did not wear insignia. They did not openly carry arms. Their acts had criminal rather the military overtones. They were agents of a radical group, rather than a sovereign government." (Reprinted from How To Draft And Interpret Insurance Policies by Kenneth S. Wolner, J.D.) Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Saturday, September 15, 2001 - 5:59 am:    Concerning the many technical questions that insurance analysts must now ask in relation to the terrorist acts, the most significant are considered to be as follows: Even if primary insurers in the U.S. do not usually exclude terrorism from their covers, did the reinsurance protection obtained by affected U.S. insurers exclude terrorism, as is common practice among European reinsurers? Will the crashes and subsequent building collapses be considered a single event or multiple events? This is an important consideration for the industry as definition of the losses either as a catastrophic single event or as a series of separate large claims will have a major bearing on which insurers and reinsurers eventually prove liable for the losses. Will the events further exacerbate the already ongoing slide in equity asset values, both generally across all markets and specifically in respect of the share values of individual insurers and reinsurers? If so, how will this affect those individual insurers and reinsurers whose capitalization already appeared aggressive, and what will be the effect on those companies that were already well-advanced with new capital-raising exercises? What impact will this tragedy have on reinsurance pricing? Reinsurance pricing could substantially firm in the wake of this catastrophe. After Hurricane Andrew struck in 1992, the reinsurance industry enjoyed substantial pricing flexibility over the two years that followed as the industry benefited from the hardest reinsurance market in memory. This much-needed pricing increase will help the reinsurance industry, which is only starting to see rate improvements after several years of underpricing. (Reprinted from a S&P (Standard and Poors) Report from the Lloyd's of London Website) Jim Lakes Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 11:02 pm:    To All, Maybe I can clarify some of this for you. I have, in the last two days spoken to two large carriers and commercial writers and both have agreed that they will cover these losses even if everyone declares that it was an “act of war.” The reason given was, “that the attacks took place prior to any declaration of war and therefore could not be excluded.” Any further damage that takes place after it has been declared a war would be excluded. I am not giving my opinion, just telling you all what I was told by these carriers. I do not know if it was done because they feel they would be doomed if they attempted to deny these claims or if they truly felt that is what the policy meant to cover. In either case, it is good news for many of us. I do agree with most of you. This is not an assignment for the normal Cat adjuster. If you are called and have not or do not know how to handle these type claims, this is not the place to attempt to learn. Good Luck To All, Jim Lakes RPA National Catastrophe Director RAC Adjustments, Inc. 866.241.6574 Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 10:43 pm:    But, back to the issue at hand, the Act of War exclusion. Let me throw out some information and then arrange it for a conclusion. Then, yawl can take some potshots at it. Ready, Apuente, FUEGO! Our enemy is Mr bin Laden. He don't like us, says we are despicable, and smell bad, and ain't the right religion. He ups and declares WAR on the U.S. in August 1996. He wants to set up a government of a Caliphate. (That's from the root, Caliph. If you can recall the story of Ali Baba & the 40 Thieves, it's along those lines.) He says that any attack on all us great Satans is a good thing. So, he does. And in a whole bunch of places, including Somalia, the USS Cole, and now on our own dirt. These are his ACTS of WAR. He is a religous revolutionary! He seeks to establish a Government of his own liking! He is a political force exercising a military option! Terrorism is just a weapon that he uses, not an ends, but rather a means to achieve his goals. Now for my sordid conclusion. To review: 1) A political group has declared War on this nation. 2) Attacks by his organization have killed our citizens and soldiers, and destroyed our property. 3) These attacks have occurred on foriegn and now domestic soils. 4) Our government is going on a war footing. Conclusion: This New York attack is an Act of War. And, we'uns have an exclusion out there that has been superbly quoted. Whether the carriers and Lloyds boys want to spend the Big Buck$ is entirely their call. More than once I've paid an excluded loss based on the 'Blue Hair' factor or some such other contrived political rationale, but never with this much money at stake. Kiddies, this is more than just serious money we're talking about here. Is it in the public good for our industry to gut itself on an excluded cause of loss? Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 9:19 pm:    Lots of money on this table, Jim. No formal declaration of war, yet. But, the drums are beating. Radios are playing patriotic music, the Congress is talking of war bonds, the reserves are being called up, and flags are sprouting like wild flowers. I've seen this all before. I know what is to happen next, and I am increasingly nauseated. Sargeant Kyle, you and I both know the horrific reality that is out there. It is no place for man or beast to be. I wish this had never happened. But, even with my limited hindsight, I can see no other way out of the box. Our sons and daughters will be in harms way, and it makes me sick. Many Americans think that painless and clean air strikes can do the job. They are wrong. These ragheads live like rats in a hole. Take a look at a map of Afghanistan, it's mostly desolate mountains and ravines with more places for deep caves than than we've got viagra pills. This will be the worst of all infantry jobs. Nothing high tech here, just bullets, grenades, and flame throwers. Remember, the Russians tried this game in 1979. Maybe they would like to send some army groups in there with us, so they can tie up some loose ends. I know I'm rambling here, folks. I'm really scared for us all, here and the world over. Right now some devine intervention would come in handy. I'd even settle for a space alien intervention. If only.....If only... Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 8:50 pm:    (Reprinted from the New York Times) September 14, 2001 THE ARCHITECTS Watching a Creation From Infancy to Rubble By DANNY HAKIM DETROIT, Sept. 13 — Forty years ago, when Minoru Yamasaki received a letter from the Port Authority about a potential project in Lower Manhattan, he held it up to his staff as an example of careless writing. Clearly, there was an extra decimal point in the budget. "He didn't really believe it was anything other than a mistake," said Henry Guthard, 70, one of Mr. Yamasaki's original partners. Mr. Yamasaki, the lead architect of the World Trade Center, died in 1986. But Mr. Guthard, an engineer who worked as a project manager and traveled hundreds of times to New York during the development of the twin towers, lived to watch them come down. "The buildings are like our children," said Mr. Guthard, clutching two rulers in his right hand as he spoke. "To see that happen to one of our most beloved creations, before our eyes, it was a devastating, emotional experience for us." Mr. Guthard and Modris Pudists, a 68-year-old designer who worked on the towers arrived at work Tuesday at Minoru Yamasaki & Associates in Rochester Hills, a Detroit suburb, and watched with co-workers as the firm's legacy was reduced to rubble. To help design and construct one of the world's modern wonders was one of their lives' defining events. The two men drank Champagne with Mr. Yamasaki on the roof of one of the towers after the World Trade Center was completed. Mr. Pudists remembers seeing airplanes in the distance. "Looking down on the planes," he said, "it was an extraordinary feeling." And to watch the towers pierced, to watch them crumble one after the other, was agonizing. "We watched it stand and hoped it would stand," Mr. Guthard said. "To see the dreadful climax, it was just devastating." The Port Authority commissioned the buildings from Mr. Yamasaki in 1962; they were completed in 1976. Mr. Guthard said the firm, as well as some of the project's original engineering firms, had consulted with the Port Authority after the 1993 bombing of the towers. Tuesday's attack, he said, was something no structure of its size could have been designed to withstand. "To hit the building; to disappear inside the building; to have pieces come out the other side; it was amazing the building stood," said Mr. Guthard, as he recalled watching the image of the second plane smashing into the second tower. "To defend against 5,000 gallons of ignited fuel in a building of 1,350 feet is not possible." Perhaps, he suggested, buildings of 1,350 feet do not make sense anymore. "This was designed in a period when that kind of terrorist activity was not anticipated by civilized designers," Mr. Guthard said. "Surely, there'll be a rethinking about what target a building exhibits." That first letter from the Port Authority, written when John F. Kennedy was president and Wall Street a much smaller place, projected a budget for the new trade center of about $800 million, as Mr. Guthard recalled — magnitudes bigger than any of Mr. Yamakasi's previous projects. A watercolor in the conference room at the firm depicts the "tub" that was excavated to contain the buildings' voluminous roots. Elaborate walls were constructed to hold back the Hudson River; the PATH subway was suspended over the pit on wooden beams. Mr. Yamasaki once wrote that the towers "could symbolize the importance of world trade to this country," and "become a physical expression of the universal effort of men to seek and achieve world peace." His intent was to create an internal metropolis where businesspeople were brought directly to work by subways and trains, and where space saved by height could be used for outdoor plazas. The project — requiring 200,000 tons of steel and 43,600 windows — was controversial, both for its unadorned profile and, during the Vietnam War, as a looming emblem of capitalism. "It's the building everybody loved to hate and hated to love," said Robert A. M. Stern, the dean of Yale University's architecture school. From afar, Mr. Stern said he was taken by the way the towers played against each other, the "small sliver of sky" peaking between them. But up close, he and others felt the building lacked intimacy. "Nevertheless," he said, "they are powerful symbols of America and modern life. If architecture functions in the realm of symbols, they were tremendously successful, as successful as the pyramids. And, boy, do we miss them." Only the pyramids remain of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The Colossus of Rhodes tumbled into the Aegean Sea. The tomb of Mausolus was felled by earthquake. The hanging gardens of Babylon are known only by descriptions. Mr. Guthard said he hoped the World Trade Center would not be lost forever. "We hope that it would be rebuilt to show the strength of America and what it stands for," he said. "We hope it doesn't remain as an empty space and a testimony to terrorism." He flew over the building last Friday, early in the morning. Looking out the plane's window, he saw, one final time, the marvel that he had stood next to in its infancy, its adolescence, and toasted, decades ago. "It was just bathed in that warm sun that came up in the morning," he said, raising his arms, quietly. "It is the memory we would prefer to stay with us." Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 8:08 pm:    The following insurers and reinsurers have acknowledged exposure to claims related to the destruction of the World Trade Center, and their early estimates for the the amount they expect to pay out, where applicable. Company Country Estimated Losses 1. Munich Re Germany $900 mln 2. Swiss Re Switzerland $730 mln 3. Berkshire Hathaway U.S. 3-5 percent of industry losses 4. Lloyd's Britain substantial involvement 5. XL Capital Bermuda $600 mln-$700 mln 6. Employers Re U.S. $600 mln 7. Allianz Germany $630 mln 8. AIG U.S. $500 mln 9. Generali Italy $450 mln 10. ACE Ltd. Bermuda $400 mln 11. PartnerRe Bermuda $350 mln-$400 mln 12. Axa France $300 mln-$400 mln 13. Zurich Financial Switzerland under $400 mln 14. Hannover Re Germany $365 mln 15. CNA Financial U.S. $200 mln-$350 mln 16. Royal Sun Alliance Britain $220 mln 17. SCOR France $150 mln-$200 mln 18. OneBeacon U.S. up to $175 mln 19. Chubb U.S. $100 mln-$200 mln 20. Fairfax Financial Canada $100 mln-$125 mln 21. Markel U.S. up to $75 mln 22. CGNU Britain up to $51 mln Source: Moody’s Investors Service, Reuters William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 12:22 pm:    Those poor people working at WTC site are probably going to be hit with torrential rains from Gabrielle on or about Tuesday. Probably the basements will fill with water. It is possible that someone that has hung onto life through all of the events could be victims of high water. The big demolition machines production will slow as the depth of the hole extends beyond their operational reach. William S Cook Public Adjuster R.D. Hood (Dave) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 12:09 pm:    I wonder how much repeat, or new, business the carriers that may choose to invoke the "act of war" provision will get? The emotional statements of anyone, should not be construed to be the absolute fact. We all say things under stress that may have not been exactly what we meant. Was it an attack on the United States of America, the entire free world, the belief and concept of Democracy ? WITHOUT QUESTION. Was it an "act of war", as defined by most of the policies, against the United States of America? IMHO, NO. The Insurance Industry will be severely affected by this vile attack and will suffer to a degree, but I have to believe that they will act in good faith and that the policy holders will be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner. Have faith in the system, our country, and the unreleting resolve to ferret out the rapeists of democracy that have contributed to this Attack on America. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 11:58 am:    Mark I was not thinking global and am certain you are correct. William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 11:43 am:    "Act of war" or terrorism? Answer could decide insurance payments By Brendan McKenna (Link Remove By Request from Link Owner) At 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, shortly after learning about the crash of a second airplane into the World Trade Center in New York City, President George W. Bush called the events an "apparent act of terrorism." A typical act-of-war exclusion Standard property/casualty insurance contract forms provided to the industry by the Insurance Services Office contain clauses excluding "war, including undeclared or civil war" and "warlike action by a military force, including action in hindering or defending against an actual or expected attack, by any government, sovereign, or other authority using military personnel or other agents." Just over a day later, Bush said that "the deliberate and deadly attacks which were carried out yesterday against our country were more than acts of terror. They were acts of war." While the President's words have unequivocally stated the position of the United States, they may have muddied the waters concerning the insurance issues around the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Many property/casualty insurance policies are written to exclude coverage for acts of war, but not for acts of terrorism. If the act-of-war exclusion clause of the insurance contracts is invoked, insurance companies can refuse to pay the benefits on the policies, including payments on businesses, homes, and cars that were damaged or destroyed. "Every time I hear the President or Colin Powell saying we're in a war, I wince," says J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. "There are probably discussions going on in every [insurance] company about whether or not to deny claims based on act-of-war exclusions." Insurance industry representatives were unwilling to speculate on whether or not the attacks of Sept. 11 would constitute an act of war, or on whether or not insurers would pay out on policies — saying that it would be up to each insurer to examine the language of its policies and make a decision. Jack Dolan, a spokesperson for the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), is quick to offer what reassurance he can. While life insurance policies have included act-of-war exclusions in the past, it hasn't been a standard part of any life insurance policy since the end of the Vietnam War. The ACLI says, "We are unaware of any suggestions from any quarter of the industry that such exclusions are applicable in this instance. All claims prompted by the Sept. 11 tragedy will be treated in a normal manner: Companies will promptly pay death benefits to beneficiaries of the victims with life insurance coverage." Further, according to the ACLI, "Life insurance policies typically do not contain 'terrorism exclusions.' It is highly unlikely that many, if any, victims of the tragedy had a policy with an exclusion that covered the attacks. Terrorism exclusions generally are written into contracts of those who travel to places where terrorist acts are common. They typically do not apply when the insured is in the United States." Insurance policies that do usually have act-of-war exclusions: Auto Home or renters Workers compensation Business interruption Commercial property Business auto Commercial crime Insurance policies that do not usually have act-of-war exclusions Individual life Group life Key person Accidental death and dismemberment Health Individual life insurance policies and "key person" policies — a life insurance policy that names a corporation as a beneficiary if a person vital to the business' success dies — generally do not carry act-of-war exclusions. Accidental death and dismemberment (AD&D) policies and riders for individual life policies are also safe from act-of-war exclusions. Some group life insurance policies may have exclusions for war and terrorism on their AD&D riders, but according to Dolan, "We don't have any indication that those exclusions will be invoked." Losses to property may be another story, says Donald Griffin, a spokesperson for the National Association of Independent Insurers (NAII). According to Griffin, almost every type of business insurance policy, as well as home, renters, and auto insurance policies, has an act-of-war exclusion written into the contract. Griffin stresses that it is up to each individual insurer to determine whether these clauses, or those like them in other insurance contracts, could be invoked to avoid paying insurance claims. At least one insurer has already proclaimed it will not invoke any act-of-war clauses. The Chubb Corp. announced that it has determined that the acts-of-war exclusion does not apply to Sept. 11's events. This should calm fears generated by a report in the The Wall Street Journal that Chubb could invoke the clause. "We'd be sued by our shareholders if we paid and no one else did," said an unnamed Chubb source quoted by the Journal. Hunter believes that the companies most likely to deny claims based on act-of-war exclusions, if any actually do so, are those with commercial insurance policies and reinsurers — insurers that sell policies to help traditional insurers spread the risk of their policies. The public outcry against these denials would be far less than if life or personal auto insurance claims were denied, says Hunter. Insurers would face some difficult challenges if they did decide to invoke act-of-war clauses, both legally and as a matter of public opinion, says Garrett Moore, a partner at Moore, O'Brien, Jacques, and Yelenak, a Connecticut law firm focusing on airline litigation. "The public response would be absolutely devastating to insurance companies," says Moore. "And there may be legal barriers even if they did decide they wanted to invoke act-of-war clauses." Last updated Sept. 14, 2001 William S Cook Public Adjuster Tom Toll (Tom) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 11:30 am:    In answer to Mike Stephenson's comment on my working claims during WWII, he is almost correct. At age 6 I was knitting olive drab yarn into 12"x12" squares for the army. These squares were then picked up by the civil defense people and delivered to facilities that tied them together to make blankets and sweaters for the troops overseas. My Mom and Pop were working at the aircraft factories. I guess knitting one and pearling two was a precursor to insurance claims adjusting. It taught me a level of patience and knowledge of basic math, knit one, pearl two. I remember the blackouts we had in Santa Monica and Venice. I have in my possession an ack ack shell that fell through our roof and into the living room, fortunately a dud. That was a frightening time, just as it is now. It is not over with. If we do not stand up and be counted very soon, we will again suffer dire consequences. Mike is a good friend, so I forgive him, yeah. I love America and proud of who I am, as is my wife. We will do whatever is necessary to help, as I am sure all of you in this community will. mark (Olderthendirt) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 11:02 am:    I suspect that most every insurer in the world will pay something, as the re-insurers re-insurance will be invovled. Many of the large losses will take some time to settle, they have time to build their reserves. As to the adjusting costs, public pressure will allow them to spare no expence at first, but there will be a back lash in the future once they look at how much they have spent. The group that stands to make the most money is the accountants, even at their pre attack fees. All that aside, if we are asked to do our thing, let's get it done promptly and professionally, and do our best to help people to return to a normal life. Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Friday, September 14, 2001 - 10:51 am:    One of the issues that have come to my mind after talking with carriers and watching some TV is who is going to pay? The insured losses are now being guessed to be $20 billion dollars. I cannot understand how much that is but do know it is a lot of money. First I would guess a lot of that amount would be pulled out of the stock market in the coming months. Second in time it will go back into the stock market as premiums increase on everyone in the US based on my understanding of reinsurance. If my understanding is correct even a county mutual in AR will be directly affected by the losses in NY. If I am off base please help clear up this issue but basically the tax payers/insureds will be paying for what this group/groups have done in a physical sense. Of course all are paying the human toll in an emotional sense and thousands have paid with their blood. I expect the carriers are going to be looking even more at all claims handling cost in this stressful time and that many companies are looking at decentralizing their offices so as not to lose so much staff in one attack in the future like the one bond firm loss. It is now clear there is no system for the handicapped to leave these types of buildings in a fire other than being packed by firefighters who may not have the time to get there. There will be good come from the disaster as there always is but at the moment that is not much comfort. Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 11:08 pm:    As best as my research has been able to learn, during WW2, (The Big Boom-Boom, as my DAD called it. He fixed P-38's in the South Pacific with the 13th Air Force.) Adjusters were mainly older men exempt from military service. I'm a little unclear but I think that they were entitled to the Class B gas cards. Some sources say they had unlimited gas cards, but I'm not sure. With a national 30mph speed limit and greatly reduced auto use, vehicle liability claims were way down. Property losses increased somewhat because maintainence lagged as no one was around to fix the roof or paint the siding. New business fell off as no new residential construction was going on except for emergency defense plant housing and these were company owned. The newest company cars were mostly 1941 models with a few 1942 models thrown in before car production shut down in early 1942. By 1945, these cars were pretty much run into the ground. Compared with today, adjusters were well respected but still grossly underpaid as professionals. That remains the one true constant. mike stephenson (Photoadjuster) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 10:02 pm:    Slightly off this topic, but I have always wondered what happened with insurance claims here in the US during WWII? Were the adjusters overseas fighting? Were adjusters excempt? I have always intended to ask Tom Toll, because I'm sure he was working claims then Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 9:19 pm:    Here in the OL' South, where old times are not forgotten, many Dixie-crats still refer to it as the 'Great Unpleasantness', when referring to that lil ol' family feud that started at Ft Sumter and ended at Appomattox. What's that old expression? Massa Lee didn't intend to surrender his sword, he thought U.S. Grant was just the knife sharpener! I fear we may have to respectfully disagree on the issue war within our sovieregn boundaries. If I was that cavalry trooper walking out the whorehouse door in Columbus, New Mexico in 1916 and saw a swarm of Mexican cavalry charging at me with rifles shooting, It would sure seem like war to me, declared or otherwise. Would our industry balk over a coverage question in the event the Congress declares a formal declaration of war? I don't know. But, there is a barn full of money in losses at stake. If I was one of the Names on the Lloyds list, I would sure be sweating. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 8:54 pm:    Ghost I am most appreciative of your history lesson which highlights your knowledge of military conflict and American political history while showcasing my own ignorance. Your shining examples and ability to dissect complex issues and then explain them in simple yet understandable terms never cease to amaze me. However, despite your numerous examples, the point I made and would continue to maintain, is that technically speaking, we have not suffered a 'war' within our national boundaries since the American Civil War. Warlike acts yes, but a 'war' (by definition) no. Remember the old expression, win the battle and lose the war? Do you really think any carrier or reinsurer would risk grave conflict by invoking the 'war clause' with such uphill odds against them? Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 8:42 pm:    Uhhhh... Let's see now, I recall in 1916, the state of New Mexico was invaded by General Pancho Villa. In WW1, German agents came ashore, did damage and were promptly caught and hanged. We were technically at peace on Dec 7, 1941, when American property was damaged in our territory of Hawaii. In 1942, Japanese forces shelled a west coast refinery and damaged it. Also in WW2, the Japs launched aerial incenderies that started fires in the upper northwest forests. And, again German agents invaded, were promptly caught and hanged. Mind you, this all occurred on our dirt. Is there precedent? Yes. Setting aside the public relations aspects. Setting aside the upcoming technical intricacies. Setting aside the flag waving and tradgedy, if war is declared by our government, from a pure policy angle, could a case be made as to a coverage exclusion issue? Since much of the loss is heavily reinsured by off shore concerns, I would imagine the English, the Germans, and the Swiss are pondering this question, too. Oh, I forgot to mention the Indian wars between 1865 and 1910. While damage was done to property and lives, I doubt any Good Hands agent was there to sell a Homeowners policy. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 6:50 pm:    Ghostbuster, wouldn't it be fair to say that America has been lucky not to have had a 'war' on our American shores since the Civil War? From all of the admittedly cursory research I have done, I can find no instance when the modern American insurance industry has imposed the war exclusion for property damages within the domain of our American soil. In fact, this exclusion was not invoked nor applied when a similar terrorist act was perpetrated against the World Trade Center in a 1993 event. Simply put there would appear to be no precedent either in law or practice with regard to answering the questions being asked with any clarity or authority. Absent that precedent, it remains clear to me that the court of public opinion would indeed be the threshold or bar to which the industry would be subjected in any attempt to deny coverage through any hair splitting definitional argument concerning actual verbage and intent of the policy language. While this is an interesting yet seemingly academic question, it seems to me that the larger questions we should ask are how these events may change the ways in which we adjust in the future, and what impact the overall claims costs from these events will bring to bear on specific individual carriers and the global insurance industry. I use the words global from the standpoint of terrorism knowing no boundaries, insurance capacity and reinsurance certainly being global in practice, and the insurance marketplace being international in nature. We should remember that victims from Tuesday's four air crashes and many World Trade Center occupants were not only American but also Japanese, German, French, British and of many other nationalities. Ghost, I do know that a very few cat adjusters have been put on standby to ultimately assist in handling what I feel will be somewhat complicated business interruption and leasehold interest claims. I am working overtime to research and write a fairly detailed article for CADO to outline some of the policy issues and practical considerations we may face in that arduous task as well as defining various leases with differences which surely will be encountered. Adjusters are not only going to be required to have a proficient knowledge of the commercial and business income forms but also some of the complicated nuances involved in extra expense endorsements, various problems created by different types of leases and leasehold interests (for instance: the distinction between amortization versus depreciation in handling tenant alterations and tenant upfitting improvement components), and some of the unique issues sophisticated risk management considerations and techniques will present. We need to remember that the World Trade Center took approximately 6 years to complete when it was constructed and that combined with a 'tight' real estate office rental market in New York City, finding replacement rental space for the business interests who have been displaced by this disaster is going to present special problems in restoring their operations on any timely basis. Adjusters should also refresh their knowledge regarding the unique and unusual aspects of handling leasehold interest claims, as most claims will be from business tenants (Lessees) with fee simple property ownership risks being a rather small sub-group of property claims. Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 5:46 pm:    OK, let's play the WHAT IF game. What if the Congress declares that a state of war has existed from the time the airliners were hijacked by The Subculture of Real Bad Guys, would the Act of War exclusion be valid? Not trying to be flip on this, Guys. I, like all of you out there, have a lot at risk, specifically, my two sons, age 18 and 20, that would be prime pickings for a GI draft. But, fussing over policy interpretation is what we do. Oh, by the way, my book on Nostradamus by a Rene Noorbergen from 1981 shows in your Quatrain Q183-Q184 the cause of loss to be from earthquake in New York City. I think the old Frenchman should have stuck to writing cookbooks rather than 'future telling'. Come to think of it, other than beautiful, passionate women, (and I don't mean sex!), and really good cooking, what else have the French done right? William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 4:56 pm:    Here is the URL for one of the best consolidated sources of information. http://www.researchbuzz.com/911.html William S Cook Public Adjuster Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 4:04 pm:    The phrase 'by any military personnel' applies only to the last category in the applicable sentence warlike act. The other categories (war, including undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion and revolution) are not affected by the phrase 'by any military personnel.' It seems to me that in looking at the coverage question, one must first look at the cause of loss. From all media reports, the first descriptions were that these were/are the acts of terrorists. Thus the cause of loss is terrorism. As there was no declared war or undeclared war at the time of the initial terrorist acts, those terrorist acts seem to me at least to be stand alone in causation. Even if there is some complicity by some rogue state or nation which provided a 'safe harbor', from all evidence it would appear that the terrorists were not officials or representatives of a recognized government (i.e., military operatives of a nation's army or state's military) and thus not likely to rise to the level of definition intended in the policy formulation and wording. No insurance carrier in America would be foolish enough to allow such a coverage question to go before a jury made up of New Yorkers, and no carrier would be able to bear the brunt of resentment and rebuke that denying a loss on such a thin coverage issue would bring. Yes, the acts were warlike, and from a purely political and diplomatic standpoint, allow our leaders to freely describe these acts as an act of war which justifies whatever military response and massive retaliation demanded by a nervous society while providing the unifying consensus of all Americans behind our President, the Congress and our military. Our leaders realize that by using the 'war' word, and only by using the war word, can they justify (politically and diplomatically) the military response sure to follow. But in looking back, the damages were the result initially of terrorist acts by some loose confederation of misfits and not the armies or recognized military of some fanatical regime or extremist rogue state. Cecelia Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 12:36 pm:    Since the policy from which I wanted to copy and paste popped up in Adobe I couldn't copy. Here it is anyway: War, including undeclared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, revolution or warlike act by any military personnel. Does the prepositional phrase "by any military personnel" apply to each and every description or only to the last (warlike act)? Since they were terrorists they weren't military personnel. We have here either war or undeclared war (the President says they have declared war by their actions, but I would think this would be another question when interpreting the policy for coverage). If deemed a terrorist attack only, there is no exclusion. We have no known entity against which we can retaliate, at this moment. Our general understanding of war, and the definitions offered by other posters, would definitely make what has just happened (as it relates to property coverage)a very big question regarding coverage. I do agree that insurers will probably pay up regardless. Especially since there is the chance that there is coverage due to the nature of the attacks. Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 11:44 am:    War risk: War risk insurance is available only as a special coverage on cargo in overseas ships, against the risk of being confiscated by a government in wartime. War risk is excluded from standard ocean marine insurance, but can be separately purchased. Typically, it excludes cargo awaiting shipment on a wharf, or on ships after 15 days of arrival at a port. Standard property/casualty policies typically cover damages caused as a result of acts of terrorism, but exclude coverage for acts of war. Life insurance policies issued to soldiers in time of war typically exclude war risk; at the war's end, the exclusion clause is removed and cannot thereafter be reinserted. The exclusion clause cannot be added to a life insurance policy already in force. (Reprinted from the MIFA Insurance Glossary Online) claims dude Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 10:03 am:    Kile: This is a copy and paste from an actual policy; War, including the following and any consequence of any of the following: (1) undelcared war, civil war, insurrection, rebellion, usurped power, revolution; or (2) warlike act by a millitary force or military personnel; or (3)destruction or seizure of yse for a military purpose. Kile Anderson (Kileanderson) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 9:31 am:    Thanks Jim. I haven't had anyone say I was right two times in one day much less in one statement, and not only that you agreed with me too. I had to get my girlfriend over to the computer to prove to her that yes, I am in fact right sometimes. Just trying to lighten the load. God Bless America. R.D. Hood (Dave) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 2:35 am:    According to Annotti, property/casualty insurers will pay claims as long as the incident is not deemed an act of war, which is specifically excluded in most property/casualty policies. Actions of terrorist groups are considered acts of war only if they are sponsored by a sovereign nation, and he says it's unlikely any nation will publicly claim responsibility for the Sept. 11 tragedy in New York City and Washington, D.C. This is the last paragraph in a statement made by one commentary on the (link removed by request from owner) website. For additional interspective of the industry approach, web site should be viewed. Whatever the outcome.................... Jim Flynt (Jimflynt) Posted on Thursday, September 13, 2001 - 1:39 am:    Ghost, I agree with you, it is an 'act of war' for all the reasons you mention and more, therefore logically it should be an excluded loss. However, Kile is right, it would be downright unpatriotic and un-American for any carrier to try and impose actual policy language and meaning. Kile is right, carriers are going to fork up (as they should) rather than run the risk of incurring the wrath of the American public and rightful media chastisement and political censure. While you both are 'right', there really is, as Kile suggests, only one way for the carriers to handle these claims. KileAnderson Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 - 9:28 pm:    The talk of war is rhetoric, Ghostbuster. I think it is being used because there really is no other word to use. As a former Infantry Sergeant, I am extremely frustrated at the fact that we can't put our finger on the cowards who did this. We can't lash out and use the awesome might at our fingertips to crush this piece of human dung. The reality is, the definition of war is "armed conflict between two political states." Since everyone supposes this act of terrorism is not linked to any nation-state then it cannot be considered an act of war. I know this is just academic. As far as I'm concerned we have been at war against these bastards since they stormed out embassy (sovereign US soil) in Iran. Since then there has been the Marine Baracks in Lebanon, The disco bombing in Germany, the world trade center was bombed, plane loads of US citizens have been blown out of the sky or intentionally flown into the ocean, Embassies have been bombed, one of our warship was blown up and we have done nothing to punish those behind these acts. To put it quite frankly we are now on a war footing and I believe our industry is afraid that it would be tantamount to treason to say "Sorry, not a named peril, as a matter of fact it's specifically excluded. No coverage." No red blooded, patriotic American would ever buy insurance from these guys again. The industry is doing the right thing, the only thing it can do. Taking care of its policy holders. God Bless America! Ghostbuster (Ghostbuster) Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 - 7:38 pm:    The Ol' Grinch and Resident Ogre needs to ask an embarrassing question... Despite what your Joe Annotti says, can this be considered an Act of War? After all, su presidente y members of the cabinet are calling it an act of war. Every member of Congress I hear on the radio is calling it an act of war. The man on the street is calling it an act of war. If we the people and our government call it an act of war, would it now be an excluded peril? And why does another soveriegn country have to be so named in order to have a war? (I bring up this issue because of a primal compunction to play the Devils advocate and I am bored and really need to go on a storm.) William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 - 5:11 pm:    $15 billion in losses from terrorist attacks will change the way insurers do business By Vicki Lankarge (link remove) As the insurance industry braces for potentially crippling claims in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C., there is no doubt among industry analysts that the tragedy will forever alter the way insurers do business. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Going forward, more of these policies will most likely exclude losses due to terrorist acts. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The world's largest insurers have a piece of this risk," says Robert Hartwig, the chief economist for the Insurance Information Institute in New York, who witnessed the disaster. "Although the losses will not threaten the industry's solvency, they will be a significant drain on the industry's capital and will further 'harden' the market." Moody's Investors Service says insurance claims could total between $10 billion and $15 billion. The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) agrees with the credit agency's estimate. According to Hartwig, no matter the ultimate price tag of the attacks — Swiss Re, the Swiss reinsurance giant, says it alone faces claims estimated at $1 billion — insurers are bound to change the way property/casualty insurance policies are written. Hartwig says, going forward, more of these policies will be changed to exclude losses due to terrorist acts and that this exclusion may become as commonplace as the "acts of war" exclusion found in virtually all property/casualty insurance policies. The World Trade Center was insured in the event of a terrorist bombing, according to The Wall Street Journal, but it was not insured against losses incurred during an act of war. In July 2001, Westfield America Inc. acquired a 99-year lease to the center from the New York Port Authority in an estimated $3.2 billion deal. Hardest hit Policyholders shouldn't panic, says Barbara Levering, the spokesperson for the American Insurance Association. "Those of us in financial services are deeply affected," says Levering. "The horror is unimaginable, but the industry is well capitalized and the risk was layered and spread among many insurers." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The horror is unimaginable, but the industry is well capitalized and the risk was layered." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hartwig agrees and says that while some smaller insurers might encounter extreme financial difficulties due to heavy claims, the world's largest insurers should be able to withstand significant financial losses. While the very nature of insurance is to insure against unforeseen disasters, Hartwig admits that no insurer has had previous experience with such a cataclysmic event. The attacks sent shockwaves through the entire insurance industry. Although the New York Stock Exchange didn't trade soon after the attack, the insurance sector dropped 11 percent on the London Stock Exchange before it, too, ceased operations. Swiss Re tumbled nearly 16 percent, AXA declined 13 percent, and Royal & Sun Alliance fell 14 percent on the London Stock Exchange. One of the insurers most likely to be hard hit is The Chubb Corporation. Chubb announced it has insurance exposure to both property and businesses housed in the towers that collapsed. In addition, the company will also pay claims under business interruption, accident, and workers compensation coverages. According to Chubb Chairman Dean R. O'Hare, pre-tax losses are expected to range between $100 to $200 million. O'Hare says while it is "difficult to focus on the financial fallout of these events during this time of overwhelming tragedy and grief," the company's customers will be able to focus on the human aspects of the tragedy "with full knowledge that the company's strong reserves and balance sheet will enable [Chubb] to assist them in their time of need." The NAIC is also telling policyholders that the insurance industry as a whole will be able to withstand the after-effects of the tragedy. "The insurance industry in the United States is an $850 billion industry with assets of over $3 trillion," it said in a statement released Sept. 12, 2001. "We have every confidence companies have the financial ability to keep the promises they've made to their policyholders in this instance." Last updated Sept. 12, 2001 William S Cook Public Adjuster Gale Hawkins (Gale) Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 - 2:02 pm:    Here is a link to an article on the subject 12 Sep 01. http://www.usatoday.com/money/general/2001-09-12-attacks-insurance.htm In Murray, KY the sun came up this morning and you could buy all of the gas you wanted at pre-stike prices and the was no lines like yesterday. Most stations held prices the same yesterday but I saw one little store in a community of 100 had prices posted of $2.40 and $3.60 and would guess those that were lined up there last evening are not so happy today. William S. Cook (Wscook) Posted on Wednesday, September 12, 2001 - 12:41 pm:    12-15-2014 - Article removed by request from article owner. Last updated Sept. 12, 2001 William S Cook Public Adjuster