Jump to content
Forumu Destekleyenlere Katılın ×
Paticik Forumları
2000 lerden beri faal olan, çok şukela bir paylaşım platformuyuz. Hoşgeldiniz.

7 aralik

mulgear6

Son yazan: mulgear6
yeri: Konu Dışı

 Paylaş

Öne çıkan mesajlar

Ardeth Grand Master

Ardeth

Mesaj tarihi:
Mesaj tarihi:
HotLine said:

Bu seni tatmin etmiyecegini bildigim icin. Ne de olsa sana Larry Silverstein Imzali ve Islak muhurlu bi belge lazim. Mantik duz mantik.

11 September Insurance / Wikipedia

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.
The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[20][21] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[22] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[23] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[24] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[25] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.
In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[26][27][28][29] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[30] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[25]

Kaynak : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein



burda terör saldırısına karşı olduğu yazmıyor :p
Link to comment
Sosyal ağlarda paylaş
Ardeth Grand Master

Ardeth

Mesaj tarihi:
Mesaj tarihi:
Suark said:

bide harbiden inanan bi arkadaş varsa burda,

abi neden internet sitesinde yayınlasınlar böyle şeyleri, biri bana şunu izah etsin.
ne farkı var bunun darbe.doc tan


bunların altında hep nikola tesla isimli şahıs var bence onu bulup yargı önüne çıkarmalı ve türk adaletine teslim etmeli!
Link to comment
Sosyal ağlarda paylaş
HotLine Collaborator

HotLine

Mesaj tarihi:
Mesaj tarihi:
Ardeth said:

HotLine said:

Bu seni tatmin etmiyecegini bildigim icin. Ne de olsa sana Larry Silverstein Imzali ve Islak muhurlu bi belge lazim. Mantik duz mantik.

11 September Insurance / Wikipedia

The insurance policies obtained in July 2001 for World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5 had a collective face amount of $3.55 billion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount (~$7.1 billion) on the basis that the two separate airplane strikes into two separate buildings constituted two occurrences within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view. Based on differences in the definition of "occurrence" (the insurance policy term governing the amount of insurance) and uncertainties over which definition of "occurrence" applied, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of which definition of "occurrence" applied and whether the insurance contracts were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation or the "two occurrence" interpretation.
The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[20][21] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[22] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[23] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[24] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[25] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss.
In July 2006, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a lawsuit against some of its insurers for refusing to waive requirements of the insurance contracts that Silverstein claimed were necessary to allow renegotiation of the original July 2001 World Trade Center leases. This litigation, was settled together with the federal lawsuits and appraisal, mentioned in the prior paragraph, in a series of settlements announced on May 23, 2007.[26][27][28][29] Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[30] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.[25]

Kaynak : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein



burda terör saldırısına karşı olduğu yazmıyor :p

terror saldirisina karsi oldugu yazmiyor ama terror saldirisindan parasini aliyor ve bilmem sadece terror sigortasi diye bisey yok zaten sigorta kapsamlari var adamda yazmis orda su su su sigortalari yaptirdilar diye demekki iclerinde bitanesi terroru kapsiyor. off ya valla daha cevap vermicem boyle seylere ne kadar yazdigim seyleri yadirgadiniz demekki fasoymusum neyse evet ben deliyim ve dunyayi yoneten 13 tane aileye inaniyorum ahah. ne demisler ab ordo chao
Link to comment
Sosyal ağlarda paylaş
 Paylaş
Konu listesine dön
×
×
  • Yeni Oluştur...