Parker Hunsaker

In this case, he specifically came out and said, I would like this to have terrorism coverage.

Hmm.

So think about that for a second.

You've got this billionaire coming in, buying it for a renovation.

And now he says, okay, I want to have specifically terrorism coverage included on my policy, which again, isn't a very common endorsement that we would see on a policy.

So he comes in, all of that happens.

The policy hadn't been finalized by the time 9-11 hit, which meant usually in insurance contracts, there's a little bit of a waiting period until things are finalized, especially when you're dealing with big CEOs and companies like that.

So essentially what will happen is they'll bind coverage for a lot higher amount, but it doesn't kick in until a certain time after.

In this case, it hadn't quite been finalized, but they're still on the hook for that big amount, regardless of what happens until the finalization date.

So because 9-11 happened, they're still on the hook for that big amount.

So 9-11 happens.

And then what Silverstein tried to do is he tried to take it a step further.

He tried to say, well, there was two towers, so they should have been two separate attacks, which means I'm entitled to $7 billion.

Whoa.

And so now you've got the insurance company being like, dude, you're crazy.

This is something that we're never going to be paying out $7 billion for.

And luckily, they had policy language inside of the policy that protected him saying it's against one specific attack.

So because it was an overarching one single attack...

It was actually covered that way.

And so I think the court settled for, if I get my numbers correct, they settled for $4.5 billion.