Lawyer Says United, American Owe WTC Developer Billions

[golden hawk]

http://news.airwise.com/story/view/1421324999.html

Lawyer Says United, American Owe WTC Developer Billions

The developer rebuilding the World Trade Center in New York told a federal appeals court that he is entitled to recoup billions of dollars from two airlines, even though he has already collected USD$4 billion in insurance money for the September 11, 2001, attacks that destroyed the site.

Lawyers for Larry Silverstein and his World Trade Center Properties urged the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to overturn a lower court ruling barring him from pursuing damages against United Continental Holdings and American Airlines Group, whose planes crashed into the twin towers.

But the airlines said the insurance money was more than enough to compensate Silverstein for the fair market value of the lease he held for the property.

Separately, Silverstein's lawyers also argued his insurers should hand over USD$1.2 billion they won from the airlines and airport security companies.

The two-front appeal is the latest in a years-long legal battle Silverstein has waged over the site, which saw its new flagship skyscraper, One World Trade Center, previously known as the Freedom Tower, open in November.

Silverstein has argued that the lease included a contractual obligation that he rebuild the site. He claims he is entitled to money for those costs, as well as for lost rental revenue, in addition to compensation for the value of the buildings themselves.

In July 2013, US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said Silverstein could not recover damages from United Airlines, now United Continental, and American Airlines, which Silverstein accused of negligence.

Four months later, Hellerstein ruled Silverstein had no right to the money his insurers had collected from the airlines as part of their own claims.

The three-judge panel did not indicate how it would rule, though Circuit Judge Chester Straub expressed doubts about the airlines' position.

(Reuters)

[JBI]

Without looking into it further, it does sound like a somewhat interesting argument on how damages are assessed. Liability issues aside, it is foreseeable that there was property damage after an aircraft crashed into the towers, but would it be 'reasonably forseeable' that there was a clause in the lease that would have required a developer to redevelop a site.

[ahramin]

Exactly. I wonder how many leases have this clause? And wasn't this covered by the insurance? How much did the new building cost?

[YYZSaabGuy]

I'm missing something here. I can understand compensation for the value of the foregone lease revenue while the property was being rebuilt. I can also understand compensation for either the costs of rebuilding or for the value of the buildings destroyed, but not both. That sounds to me like double-counting. Unless his claim is for rebuilding costs in excess of the value of the destroyed buildings, on the basis that the rebuilding obligation contained in the lease forced him to incur those excess costs. That might make some sense.

[iflyforpie]

Anything goes in the Litigious States of America.

[Donald]

How much did the new building cost?

According to Wiki, 1 World Trade Center cost $3.9B

[ahramin]

It does sound like someone who wants to write off their car and have it fixed as well. Then again, normal rules of thinking and behavior don't really apply when you're talking about large sums of money. Perhaps the airlines should offer to buy the building.

[AirFrame]

I was sure after reading the headline that this would be a story from The Onion. [shakes head]

[JDW]

Without looking into it further, it does sound like a somewhat interesting argument on how damages are assessed. Liability issues aside, it is foreseeable that there was property damage after an aircraft crashed into the towers, but would it be 'reasonably forseeable' that there was a clause in the lease that would have required a developer to redevelop a site.

Also don't know a ton of details here but whether or not there was a contractual clause about rebuilding, wouldn't it be reasonably foreseeable that if a building was destroyed by an airplane, the responsible parties would have to pay for lost revenue and replacement cost? Either way, I read that whatever silverstein has recouped only covers about half of what he was in for.

[Liquid Charlie]

So now the airlines will turn around and sue the US Government because their security agencies dropped the ball and then the US Gov will sue Canada because the bad guys entered from Canada -- not sure who we will sue yet ??

[Pop n Fresh]

We won't sue Al-Quaida because we are too polite.

Anything goes in the Litigious States of America.

Yup.

[leftoftrack]

So now the airlines will turn around and sue the US Government because their security agencies dropped the ball and then the US Gov will sue Canada because the bad guys entered from Canada -- not sure who we will sue yet ??

I didn't think the terrorists came through Canada did they?

[YYZSaabGuy]

So now the airlines will turn around and sue the US Government because their security agencies dropped the ball and then the US Gov will sue Canada because the bad guys entered from Canada -- not sure who we will sue yet ??

I didn't think the terrorists came through Canada did they?

Not one of 'em. Janet Napolitano screwed that one up, too.

[leftoftrack]

did the canadian airports that took all of those aircraft once U.S. airspace closed, charge landing fees or were they waived under the circumstances

[newbiewings]

And then, there are the people that say in various videos that it wasn't actual airplanes involved, but hint at some sort of reinforced drones.

They base their arguments on test videos of planes being crashed. In one test, the jet was sliding across the ground and the right wing struck a wooden pole. The pole broke off about halfway through the wing structure. Then they show video of the second "plane" crashing into the building and completely penetrating the steel envelope, leaving a mostly airplane shaped hole in the side.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IL8cJWyOxWQ

I suppose it's up to an individual to decide what to believe...

[Nephilim]

This thread makes more sense when understanding the bigger picture. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GNckSJxFJQ. I recommend the whole video but for this topic 24 - 27 minutes into the video explains clear the motivation. No I am not an anti-Jewish.

[BDG]

They base their arguments on test videos of planes being crashed. In one test, the jet was sliding across the ground and the right wing struck a wooden pole. The pole broke off about halfway through the wing structure. Then they show video of the second "plane" crashing into the building and completely penetrating the steel envelope, leaving a mostly airplane shaped hole in the side.

E=MV^2, most of the crashes people compare to are (relatively) low energy states for the purposes of determining survivability.

If you get something moving fast enough, odds are it is going to penetrate.

[cgzro]

What goes around comes around, no doubt the victims are suing the building designers etc for not building aircraft proof structures.

Trickel down lawsuit economics...