Swiss Re believes a recent series of court rulings over its dispute with World Trade Centre leaseholder Larry Silverstein “clearly support” the insurers’ view that the terrorist attack on the centre towers was one insurable loss.

The company said last week that recent court developments, coupled with testimony by Mr Silverstein’s insurance broker, Willis, indicate that Willis and the insureds believe the attack constituted one insurable loss. “These and other ongoing developments are leading inexorably to a single occurrence conclusion and to the fact that Swiss Re and all of the insurers are bound by the Willis policy form [called Wilprop] or its equivalent,” a Swiss Re spokesman said.

The policy form included a clear definition of a single occurrence: “‘Occurrence’ shall mean all losses or damages that are attributable directly or indirectly to one cause or to one series of similar causes. All such losses will be added together and the total amount of such losses will be treated as one occurrence irrespective of the period of time or area over which such losses occur.”

Jacques Dubois, Swiss Re’s US CEO, also weighed in last week with a statement demanding that Mr Silverstein “accept the fact that, aided by his own sophisticated and experienced internal and external advisers, he intentionally and willingly underinsured the World Trade Center against the possibility of a total loss”.

“Silverstein also must accept the fact that the coverage was bound under Wilprop,” Mr Dubois said. He said Mr Silverstein’s settlements with two of the other WTC insurers, ACE and XL, acknowledged that under the policy form the attack resulted in one insurable loss.

Under the Wilprop form, Mr Silverstein can elect to receive the actual cash value or the replacement cost value, but each is restricted to the $US3.5 billion policy limit. Acceptance of the actual cash value would force him to abandon rebuilding plans.

“Any ultimate recovery for Silverstein and his partners on either basis will be reduced by the financial cost of wasted time, money, and legal expenses,” Mr Dubois said. “Swiss Re believes that Silverstein should abandon his over-reaching efforts in the interest of letting New York… go about the business of rebuilding Lower Manhattan.”

Mr Silverstein has yet to respond.