From today's New York Times article Insurers Agree to Pay Billions at Ground Zero 

The Spitzer administration announced the settlement of all insurance claims at ground zero yesterday, ensuring that $4.55 billion will be available for rebuilding the World Trade Center site.

The agreement, which the insurers described as the largest single insurance settlement ever undertaken by the industry, ended a protracted legal battle with insurers over payouts related to the terrorist attack.

New York State and Port Authority officials said yesterday that the deal removed any uncertainty over how much money would be available for rebuilding and would enable them to obtain private financing for the $9 billion project.

You wouldn't think there'd be a legal practice/personal story to go along with this settlement, but because this is the kind of work I did (insurance coverage litigation) during my last decade in practice, and because I met my husband litigating my last major coverage case (Lloyds of London adv. Imperial Oil, Exxon's Canadian subsidiary) this coverage litigation is a very personal story for me. 

How's that for a narcissistic world view?

The Legal Practice Angle

On Labor Day 2001, Steve, my beloved, moved to Heller Ehrman's Los Angeles office after 30-plus years at Heller in San Francisco. Five days before September 11.

We both had the same practice problem.  These cases -- the Imperial Oil case and soon the WTC coverage litigation -- consume your legal practice for years.  When they're over, you often think you'll never work again.  It's a little like being an actor in Hollywood.  Sure, you were nominated for an Academy Award for The Devil Wears Prada, but will Meryl Streep get another decent role ever again?

So Steve was wringing his hands about where his next case would come from.  When your practice depends upon catastrophic events accompanied by ambiguous insurance policies (they're all ambiguous) you don't want to wish too hard for new work.  

By Labor Day '01, I'd moved on to antitrust litigation against the entire Southern California workers compensation industry and was busy learning the intricacies of claims adjustment for workers comp claims.  My practice had always been more eclectic than Steve's so it was a little easier for me to pick up new work when THE BIG ONE settled.

You can see the rest coming.  Steve's daughter called the morning of September 11 and said "America's under attack."  The most chilling and difficult to comprehend string of words I've heard since a friend called at 3 a.m. in June of '68 to say "Kennedy's been shot."  

The towers came down and the coverage litigation commenced a few weeks later.  Steve and I spent our first year of unwedded bliss one week together and one week apart as he shuttled back and forth to New York for the conferences and court appearances; the depositions; and finally the mediation.  Because Steve represented Silverstein's lender (a mere $850 million) his client settled out early and we were able to get used to living together on consecutive weeks.

I neither worry about nor wish for Steve to obtain new coverage litigation anymore.  I started my neutral practice in '04.  Just as there is enough conflict in the world to keep every mediator employed full time through the next century, there will sadly be enough major catastrophic events to keep Steve employed through retirement.

And then neither of us will have to follow the "number of occurrences" case law ever again!  See also the Insurance Scrawl on the "number of occurrences" issue here.  Report on the Jury Verdict here.