World Trade Center Developer Says United & American Still Owe Him Billions

[Overspeed]

http://www.flyertalk.com/story/world-trade-center-developer-says-united-american-still-owes-him-millions.html
 
The developer of the Freedom Tower and the new World Trade Center complex is heading back to court in an attempt to claim damages from the parent companies of American Airlines and United Airlines.
 
Reuters reports arguments were heard by three judges of the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday in the cases of World Trade Center Properties against American, United and the property developer’s insurance company.
 
Attorneys representing Larry Silverstein and his company, World Trade Center Properties, are seeking the right to claim damages from both airlines for additional costs in rebuilding the World Trade Center complex, including lost rent revenue.
 
Reuters previously reported that the lawsuit claimed the two airlines were negligent in preventing the September 11 terrorist attacks.

 

[Ms Tree]

I don't see how that can be successful. Unless he can prove negligence on the part of the airlines how can the airlines be responsible for it? The airlines do not run their own security. It's done by the airports.

 

[delldude]

I don't see how that can be successful. Unless he can prove negligence on the part of the airlines how can the airlines be responsible for it? The airlines do not run their own security. It's done by the airports.

 
Airline security failed big time.

 

[eolesen]

I don't see how that can be successful. Unless he can prove negligence on the part of the airlines how can the airlines be responsible for it? The airlines do not run their own security. It's done by the airports.

Not the way I remember it. Airlines were custodians of the checkpoints back then, and responsible for the contracts and testing of the security contractors manning the checkpoints. That's why the lawsuits went forward in the first place. I don't see him winning the appeal, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Ms Tree]

There were fed guide lines that the airlines had to meet right? I have not had time to sit down and look into it yet.

 

[eolesen]

Yes, FAA had guidelines, and each airline had a security plan filed and approved by the FAA security guy assigned to that airline. Airlines took the bids, paid the bill, and had to do testing of the checkpoints (fake bombs, pistols, etc.). In a place like ORD or DFW where all the checkpoints in a terminal belonged to one airline, they footed the entire bill. At checkpoints shared by multiple airlines, one of the tenants would own the checkpoint, and bill the prorated cost back to the other airlines.

When I re-opened CUR back in the 90's, I was flying there with a box of checkpoint test devices, and intentionally put them thru as carry-ons at MIA (since AA owned the checkpoint). The entire box went thru without so much as a question.

I called the supervisor from Globe over to show her what her screener missed (two bombs, six knives, a hand grenade, and a pistol), she got mad at me because apparently the checkpoints were only supposed to be tested on Tuesday mornings...

And that's why we now have the TSA...

 

[FWAAA]

Airline security failed big time.

No, it didn't. Government intelligence failures? Sure.

Nothing mentioned in the Sept 11 Commission Report was against the then-rules. I routinely carried knives with me in carryons, along with utility knives (boxcutters). Not against the rules, and the airline-provided security screeners (as correctly remembered by eolesen) didn't bat an eye.

Anyone remember the configuration of the LAX Terminal 4 checkpoint before September 11, 2001? Two x-ray machines, couple of tables and two walk-thru metal detectors. The rotunda was walkable open space - today completely filled with the TSA nonsense. Similar arrangement at ORD, MIA and each wing of the JFK T-8 and T-9 complex.

As to the nonstory in the OP: Congress capped the airlines' liability at the policy limits, and Silverstein's insurers claimed the $1.2 billion total from UA's and AA's insurers. So there's no more liability for UA or AA no matter what he argues. The Airline Stabilization Act legislatively foreclosed what could have easily been a $20 to $40 billion liability potential if entreprising lawyers convinced juries and judges that UA and/or AA could have prevented the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon.

The other dispute is that Silverstein wants his insurers to give him that $1.2 billion that they collected from UA's and AA's insurers, but that's because he doesn't believe in the law of subrogation.

Bottom line: the loser in federal court gets one mandatory appeal of right, and this is Silverstein's appeal. When the Court of Appeals rules against him, he'll no doubt beg the US Supreme Court to hear his appeal, but they don't have to hear it - and they tend to hear fewer than 100 appeals each year out of nearly 10,000 appeals filed with them. After the 2d Circuit rules against Silverstein, it's over.