A Swiss Re unit--SR International Business Insurance Company Ltd.--is faced with real estate developer Larry Silverstein's $7 billion insurance claim against various layers of insurers.

The allegation also is part of Swiss Re's attempt to defeat the purported "joint interest" privilege asserted by the Silverstein parties on behalf of their broker, Willis.

But a Willis representative said that Swiss Re's allegations do not change anything as far as Willis is concerned. "We have stated all along that this is a matter for the courts to settle based on the available contracts," said a Willis representative, adding that Willis therefore takes no position on the issue and has no interest in the litigation.

Swiss Re has asked the federal district court in Manhattan to require the production of "highly-relevant facts surrounding Silverstein's post-loss reinvention of the WTC insurance coverage placement history."

Jacques Dubois, chairman of Swiss Re America Holding Corp., said it has become "obvious" that the two-occurrence "confection is nothing but a post-loss creation" by Mr. Silverstein and his attorneys that "bears no relation to the actual placement history" of the insurance.

Swiss Re is arguing that there is no common legal interest between various Silverstein parties and Willis, which forecloses the invocation of the common-interest doctrine.

Swiss Re also has pointed out that the privilege asserted by the Silverstein parties on behalf of Willis does not apply because Willis is neither a party to the Swiss Re-Silverstein lawsuit, nor is it a client of Mr. Silverstein's attorneys.

Also, Swiss Re is claiming that because Willis is not an agent of the Silverstein parties, neither can claim attorney-client privilege or the related work-product doctrine privilege.

According to the Swiss Re motion papers, the Silverstein parties have tried to invoke the various privileges to keep Willis from revealing in depositions certain facts surrounding the alleged concoction of the two-occurrence theory.

Swiss Re said the theory directly contradicts Willis's earlier concession that the Sept. 11 events constituted only one insurable occurrence as per the controlling insurance documents.