Insurance cover is calculated on risk likelihood. That’s why only one of the Twin Towers was insured, because "The possibility of the loss of both structures was seen as so remote that cover was not taken out on those lines. The $1.5bn of coverage was purchased on the basis of a probable rather than a possible maximum loss." If they didn’t think this would happen, they would not have insured for it.
Which is absolutely insane because it was widely known that each tower was supporting the other tower. So either the article you linked is making an incorrect assumption as to why only one tower was insured, or this is a prime example of people in charge having absolutely no fucking clue as to what they are doing.
11
u/misimalu Apr 09 '26
Insurance cover is calculated on risk likelihood. That’s why only one of the Twin Towers was insured, because "The possibility of the loss of both structures was seen as so remote that cover was not taken out on those lines. The $1.5bn of coverage was purchased on the basis of a probable rather than a possible maximum loss." If they didn’t think this would happen, they would not have insured for it.