Business interruption losses have increased from 25 percent to 30 percent of total loss estimates, PwC said. It found that business interruption coverage continues to represent the largest portion of WTC claims, representing approximately 30 percent of the insurance industry's total associated losses, up 5 percentage points from PricewaterhouseCoopers' initial February 2002 estimate.

Liability, property and life comprise the remainder of overall insurance loss estimates. Total overall WTC loss estimates continue to fluctuate, but have been revised down from approximately $70 billion to $40.2 billion, PwC said.

According to the company, to date, approximately half of this amount has been paid against more than 33,000 claims related to the Sept. 11, 2001 events.

Steven Kessler, director with PwC's insurance claim practice, noted that the estimates were based on the assumption that losses would be calculated as arising from one payable event--not two as has been argued by Silverstein Properties, one of the WTC leaseholders.

Mr. Kessler said protracted litigation in the Silverstein action and for other claims means that it may take five or six years for some claims to settle. He also noted that the time period for business interruption claims is still running.

PwC said other factors slowing the claims process include complexity, size and calculation methodology.

The firm noted that the period of business interruption begins with the physical damage to property insured, and ends when damaged property is repaired, replaced and operations resume as expected before the physical damage occurred.

Some policies provide coverage for an extended period of time beyond this for loss of market share. Toward this end, the processing of business interruption claims adjustments continues to be relatively slow, due in part to a number of factors, including size and complexity of evaluating the loss, and coverage provided, PwC said.

Mr. Kessler said that calculating a business interruption loss is a difficult task under normal circumstances, and in this case it is even more difficult.

"What confounds the issue for Sept. 11, 2001 [business interruption] claims," he said, "is the extent to which a distinction must be made between a policyholder's sales and revenues losses caused by the general economic impact of the event itself, versus those caused solely by physical loss or damage."

Mr. Kessler noted that for some of the larger and more complex claims, economists have been engaged by insurers and policyholders to help evaluate overall claim and loss impact. Claims that are easier to measure and review by the insurers are generally being paid out accordingly, he noted.

PwC found that the order in which Sept. 11, 2001 claims are being processed seems to follow a pattern based upon the ease of measurement as follows:

? Physical damage claims--for example, assessment of overall scope of damage.

? Extra expense claims--such as temporary dislocation site-lease costs, and purchase costs for temporary use of office equipment.

? Expenses incurred that averted business interruption loss--such as expenses incurred by repair contractors to reduce the period of interruption.

? Low-limit liability loss--such as losses that far exceed policy limits.

? Overall business interruption loss--for example, a determination of what the business operation's level would have been had the loss or damage not occurred.

The consultants noted that if a firm located at the World Trade Center moved operations to New Jersey with a minimum six-year lease, most business interruption forms could conceivably cover the entire six years until the company moved back to a rebuilt location at WTC site.