Not true. - $4.577 "The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[23][24] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[25] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[26] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[27] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[28] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss."
no subject
"The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.[23][24] The jury was unable to reach a verdict on one insurer, Swiss Reinsurance, at that time, but did so several days later on May 3, 2004, finding that this company was also subject to the "one occurrence" interpretation.[25] Silverstein appealed the Swiss Re decision, but lost that appeal on October 19, 2006.[26] The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the "two occurrences" interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).[27] The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.[28] An appraisal followed to determine the value of the insured loss."