New York media reports on the courtroom tussle between World Trade Centre leaseholder Larry Silverstein and a consortium of reinsurers and insurers provide fascinating reading.

Among the evidence over the past week:

An email sent from the then CEO of broker Willis to a syndicate of London insurers said he was “considering various options” over the insurance coverage of his client, who had leased the World Trade Centre. He said he was unable to “disclose terms and amount of coverage” or “the actual content and language” of the policy.

Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder, whose draft insurance policy only covered one event, faces having his claim halved if he cannot have the Federal Court support his view that the September 11 attack on the Twin Towers was two occurrences.

The matter hinges on which draft policy was in effect while the cover was finalised – the Willis Proposal (Wilprop) – which specified cover for “one occurrence” – or the later Travelers’ proposal which did not.

Willis broker Timothy Boyd said the WilProp form was originally sent in July 2001 to potential underwriters, but he had only regarded  it as a draft. He said the Travelers’ form may have replaced it in mid-July, but he was in the process of cutting out the form before September 11 because it was “a drag”.

The insurance manager of Mr Silverstein’s largest lender, General Motors Acceptance Corp (GMAC), said he believed that the WilProp form was the one in effect on September 11. Insurers “almost always” resist efforts to use a broker’s policy form, he said.

GMAC’s director of insurance operations, Beth Ann Hermann, couldn’t remember much at all for the court, despite having taken notes at all the meetings.

The Judge’s stunned reaction led to an apology to Mr Silverstein’s lawyers, saying he didn’t intend to suggest they had deliberately told a witness not to remember anything.

The case continues.