Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. It has been years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but If I'm remembering correctly, one of the changes he made in the policy was the addition of a double indemnity clause, which meant the policy would pay out twice what the buildings were actually worth, if they were destroyed by acts of terrorism. Financially, he did very well indeed on his insurance payout.
Someone please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on this. It has been years, so I'm a little fuzzy on the details, but If I'm remembering correctly, one of the changes he made in the policy was the addition of a double indemnity clause, which meant the policy would pay out twice what the buildings were actually worth, if they were destroyed by acts of terrorism. Financially, he did very well indeed on his insurance payout.
Double Indemnity is a great, great movie.
But that is not what happened in Silverstein's case.
He took his insurers to court to cover two instances of terrorism.
Each plane attack was a separate instance he argued.
He did get more money but way less than double.
Ahh, thanks Purkiss. I couldn't remember exactly what happened. Thanks for the clarification, fren.
I'm WhiteHairedJudge, fren.
Just to be clear
Sorry about that. I saw purkiss80's name and missed yours. Thanks, WhiteHairedJudge! :)