Most of the insurers in the protracted World Trade Centre (WTC) insurance case have been found by a jury to only have to pay for the two September 11 attacks as one event.

But consortium leader Swiss Re’s share of the payout is still uncertain, with the jury still deliberating last night (Australian time) on whether the Swiss reinsurer agreed to be bound by a proposal that did not define the attacks as one event.

The successful companies which will only have to pay WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein about $US1 billion – half the amount Mr Silverstein wanted from them – include several Lloyd’s syndicates, AIG and Chubb.

As for Swiss Re, the jurors have several times asked Judge Michael Mukasey for clarifications, including one for an email sent to Swiss Re that contained a proposal form from Travelers Insurance which did not specify “event”.

Confusing things further, Swiss Re did not respond to the email – a point on which the jurors requested clarification. Does a lack of response mean agreement? The judge said it might. Or it might not. 

This case still has the potential to run and run. The jurors only have to decide which proposal form was operative. Fresh court cases – experts say as many as three – will then decide if a proposal form which contains no definition of “event” therefore means Mr Silverstein is able to claim for two separate events, or whether it doesn’t matter at all.