var googletag = googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad(); });
device = device.default;
//this function refreshes [adhesion] ad slot every 60 second and makes prebid bid on it every 60 seconds // Set timer to refresh slot every 60 seconds function setIntervalMobile() { if (!device.mobile()) return if (adhesion) setInterval(function(){ googletag.pubads().refresh([adhesion]); }, 60000); } if(device.desktop()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [728, 90], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.tablet()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.mobile()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } googletag.cmd.push(function() { // Enable lazy loading with... googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ // Fetch slots within 5 viewports. // fetchMarginPercent: 500, fetchMarginPercent: 100, // Render slots within 2 viewports. // renderMarginPercent: 200, renderMarginPercent: 100, // Double the above values on mobile, where viewports are smaller // and users tend to scroll faster. mobileScaling: 2.0 }); });

Question Over 9/11 Double-dipping May Go to Jury

published September 11, 2012

By Author - LawCrossing

( 1 vote, average: 4.8 out of 5)

What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
09/11/12

9/11 Double-dipping May Go to Jury
In a curious turn of events, a compensation case for additional damages, after the plaintiff has been fully paid by insurances, may go to the jury. In the instant case, possibly the only lawsuit over damages from the 9//11 attack on the World Trade Center still remaining in the courts, two bids to dismiss the suit by defendants have already been dismissed.


The defendants are United Airlines and American Airlines, while the plaintiff is Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the World Trade Center property. Silverstein is seeking damages from the airlines beyond what he has already been paid by his own insurer, raising questions of double dipping, but the courts are reluctant to dismiss the lawsuit.

While Silverstein is seeking $8.4 billion in damages for loss of property and lost business, the amount has already been reduced by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein to the $2.8 billion that Silverstein had originally paid for the leases.

However, on August 31, a motion by the defendants, claiming that the $4 billion Silverstein had already recovered from his own insurers was more than sufficient for what he sought to recover from the airlines, was dismissed by the court. The same judge, who limited Silverstein's claimed damages, also held that the question of double dipping, at least in this case, was a matter to be decided by a jury.

Another evidentiary hearing sought by the involved airlines was dismissed last Thursday.

On Monday, the lawyers for the WTC Properties requested the judge to schedule “an all-issues trial” that would include the liability of the airlines.

Silverstein maintains that the damages he received from his insurance company was purchased under a policy that covered accidents, and it did not reduce the liability of the airlines, who were in charge of the security of their flights, from paying additional damages for loss of property and business caused by their negligence.

Usually, under New York Law, a plaintiff who has been compensated for economic loss by a “collateral source,” such as an insurance company, cannot again recover compensation for the same cause of action in a tort lawsuit.

The World Trade Center Properties also mentioned in a letter to the judge sent on Monday that trial was required, as the reluctance of the defendants to settle for over 11 years, led to the money sitting in the accounts of the defendants' insurers and earning interest “instead of helping to rebuild the World Trade Center.”

The lawsuit brought by Silverstein claims that negligence of the defendant airlines allowed the hijackers to board the two planes at Boston airport and use the planes as missiles to destroy the World Trade Centers. Prior to the September 11 incident, security at airports and on airplanes was supervised by the airlines themselves.
( 1 vote, average: 4.8 out of 5)
What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.

Related