On Tuesday, 4 January 2022 at 12:20:59 UTC+1, J.F wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2022 01:01:52 +0100, Robert Tomasik wrote:
> > W dniu 03.01.2022 o 11:03, J.F pisze:
> >>>> --niebezpiecznych wypadków (NW).
> >>>> pewnie chciałeś napisać
> >>>> ==Ubezpieczenie od następstw nieszczęśliwych (NNW) jest formą
> >>>> ubezpieczenia, obejmującą ochronę życia i zdrowia zarówno kierowcy,
> >>>> jak i pasażerów. Wypłacane jest ono w przypadku trwałego uszczerbku
> >>>> na zdrowiu. Ubezpieczenie NNW obejmuje szkody poniesione w wyniku
> >>>> wypadku drogowego oraz w innych sytuacjach komunikacyjnych.
> >>> My mamy na strzelnicy NNW, a tam nikt nie jeździ. Mam też takie coś przy
> >>> ubezpieczeniu domu i dzieciom się to w szkołach wykupuje. >
> >> A jaka macie kwote/sume ubezpieczenia?
> >
> > Co kwota ubezpieczenia strzelnicy ma wspólnego ze skutecznością liny
> > ewakuacyjnej z wieżowca?
> Moze i ma - jakby byla wysoka, to by ubezpieczyciel naciskal na
> bezpieczenstwo :-)
>
> No chyba, ze naciska na zbieranie kruczkow, i odszkodowania nie
> zamierza wyplacac.
>
> Ale jest i bat - pamietasz, jak to za WTC chcieli dwa odszkodowania?
> :-)
>
> J.
no i dostali


There are several underlying assumptions at work here: that the World Trade Center
must not have had terrorism insurance before Silverstein took over; that selecting
such coverage was purely optional; and that because he "chose" to buy such coverage
when he did, Silverstein must have known in advance that (and when) terrorists would
strike.

It's important to note that, despite appearances, Silverstein wasn't actually the
sole leaseholder of the World Trade Center: He led a consortium of investors and
lenders which included GMAC Commercial Mortgage (a General Motors subsidiary),
Westfield America Inc. (a shopping center developer), and real estate investor Lloyd
Goldman. All these entities had a voice in deciding how much insurance coverage the
properties would have, and each had some claim on whatever insurance monies were paid
out.

Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of "terrorism insurance coverage," what we're
actually speaking of is coverage that doesn't have a terrorism exclusion. Such
exclusions aren't uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute
virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered
terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because
the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was
fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an
estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There's no reason to suppose
that the WTC wasn't routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time
Silverstein took over the lease in 2001.

Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World
Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or "fortuitous," therefore,
about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy -- which at that time would have
automatically included terrorism coverage -- two months before 9/11, because that's
when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn't
even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion)
because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in
The American Lawyer.

It's a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for
double the damages. It's also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were
two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, "occurrences"), not one. But this wasn't some
premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes
would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was
estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein's court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus,
he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10
million per month to the Port Authority.

The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted
to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single "occurrence" by his
insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally
sought.

David Emery

Published 14 September 2016

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wtc-terrorism-insu
rance/
---
WTC traciły certyfikaty bezpieczenstwa instalacji, wind, stropów, wentylacji, bo to
byl stary budynek, przeznaczony do wyburzenia, bo koszty remontu przekraczały jego
wartość