SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (33955)10/18/2001 2:09:23 AM
From: bonnuss_in_austin  Respond to of 82486
 
Yep. I saw that, as well. / eom



To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (33955)10/18/2001 8:15:46 AM
From: thames_sider  Respond to of 82486
 
I heard initial reports that only one of the towers was insured.

I've read that also - in the FT, I think (in an article discussing the likely impact on insurance companies... sigh). The stated rationale was that they couldn't conceive of any likely (i.e., assessable) catastrophe which would render both towers unusable...



To: Mac Con Ulaidh who wrote (33955)10/18/2001 12:43:47 PM
From: TimF  Respond to of 82486
 
So then who eats the cost of the building that wasn't insured? The Port Authority, or the leaseholder? (Or the federal government as part of the rebuilding and economic stimulus bills?)

Tim