The research paper, entitled "One vs. Multiple Occurrences," "cites several rulings where courts have held that events separated by space and time are separate ?occurrences' even if caused by the same general exposure to a peril," said the Alexandria, Va.-based organization. Because there were two separate aircraft flown into two separate buildings by two separate groups, Mr. Wilson concludes that there were two separate losses, and the courts will rule that way.

"If the court rules that no specific definition of ?occurrence' applies, our prediction is that the court will find that this was two occurrences," Mr. Wilson wrote. "In our opinion, a ?plan' is neither a peril nor an occurrence as contemplated by most insurance policies."

The paper also cites court decisions to back up the author's case.

To date, Mr. Silverstein settled with two insurers back in February for more than $360 million and is seeking a total of $7 billion from 20 insurers involved in providing coverage to the structures.

Jeffrey A. Myers, vice president of publice affairs for the agent group stressed that, " The virtual university article does not reflect the views of IIABA. IIABA will not get involved in this litigation in any way and supports our company partners on terrorism insurance issues.

In June, an U.S. District Court Judge refused to issue a summary judgment reserving the matter for a jury trial.

Full detail of the paper is available at: http://vu.iiaa.net/1vs2.htm.