Silverstein earned money on insurance of WTC
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Larry Silverstein did receive large insurance payments related to the destruction of the World Trade Center and ultimately collected a series of settlements that totaled about $4.55 billion to cover losses on the leased towers, after a multiyear, high‑stakes dispute with insurers over whether the attacks constituted one or two “occurrences” [1] [2]. How much of that money he personally “earned” versus spent on legal fees, rebuilding costs, obligations to partners and contesting claims is contested and documented in news reporting and court filings [3] [4] [5].
1. The basic financial outcome: a roughly $4.55 billion settlement
Silverstein and his co‑leaseholder pursued insurance proceeds after 9/11 seeking to be paid per occurrence rather than once, a legal fight that produced multiple rulings and ultimately a series of settlements and appraisals that resulted in insurers agreeing to pay roughly $4.55 billion for the damaged towers and adjacent buildings [1] [2] [6].
2. Why Silverstein sought more than the policy face amount
The core dispute hinged on whether the two airplane impacts constituted two separate insurable “occurrences,” which would have doubled the payout from the combined face amount of policies (about $3.5 billion) to an asserted near‑$7 billion claim; courts and some insurers disagreed on that interpretation, producing split rulings and protracted litigation [1] [6].
3. What happened to the insurance proceeds — rebuilding, fees, and litigation
Reporting and court documents show portions of the insurance money were allocated to rebuild projects and to pay legal costs; outlets reported that Silverstein had already spent sizable sums — the Wall Street Journal and related coverage cited figures such as $1.3 billion expended from insurance proceeds with roughly $100 million reportedly paid to law firms — and Silverstein applied insurance receipts toward redevelopment at Ground Zero [4] [3] [1].
4. Competing narratives: “profiting” vs. “rebuilding and obligations”
Critics, including airline and victims’ representatives at times, argued that the insurance settlements left Silverstein “more than compensated,” while Silverstein and his lawyers maintained the funds were necessary for rebuilding Lower Manhattan and to meet ongoing obligations such as a 99‑year lease and annual base rent [7] [1]. The Port Authority sought a share of insurance proceeds for taking over 1 WTC and publicly expressed concern that Silverstein might run out of money while trying to rebuild multiple towers, illustrating competing institutional agendas over the same funds [8].
5. Public confusion and conspiracy‑tinged claims addressed
Persistent urban legends — for example that Silverstein “bought terrorism insurance just before 9/11” with nefarious intent — have been examined and contextualized by fact‑checking and mainstream coverage: reporting notes he signed the lease weeks before the attacks, that terrorism coverage was part of a complex program of policies from many insurers, and that Silverstein litigated for more payout on a disputed contract term rather than simply “profiting” from foreknowledge [9] [10].
6. Legal and moral dimensions remain contested
Courts split on coverage questions, some insurers succeeded in having portions treated as a single occurrence, others settled, and the State regulators eventually helped broker a resolution; meanwhile plaintiffs, insurers and governmental actors each pursued remedies and public messaging shaped perceptions — meaning the question “did Silverstein earn money?” is true in the narrow sense that his companies received and spent large insurance sums, but whether that constituted a personal windfall beyond obligations, legal costs, redevelopment expenses and negotiated concessions remains disputed in the record [6] [1] [5].
7. Bottom line for readers parsing headlines
The documented facts: Silverstein’s lease preceded 9/11 by weeks, he assembled insurance limits around $3.5 billion, he litigated to collect more and ultimately received settlements totaling about $4.55 billion, and portions of those proceeds were spent on legal fees and rebuilding efforts and were the subject of disputes with the Port Authority and insurers — assertions that he obtained an unexplained or secret profit from foreknowledge are unsupported by the contemporaneous reporting and fact‑checking cited here [2] [4] [9].