Nine insurers are fighting his claim saying only one event is involved. It is the second proceeding on the issue to go to court.

The jury began its work after hearing Manhattan Federal Judge Michael Mukasey instruct them that, "The issue you must decide is whether, under the governing policy forms and binders, the parties intended to treat what happened at the WTC on Sept. 11, 2001, as one or two occurrences."

The nine insurers opposing the Silverstein parties are Allianz, Gulf, Industrial Risk Insurance (IRI), Royal Specialty, TIG, Tokio Marine, Travelers, Twin City, and Zurich.

The judge noted that with the exception of Allianz, "no insurer had issued a final policy as of Sept. 11, 2001, and insurance coverage terms between the parties were determined by temporary insurance contracts called binders."

He added, "You must remember that the Silverstein parties' claim against each insurer must be the subject of separate consideration and separate verdict."

Together, the nine insurers provided a little less than one-third?$1.132 billion?of the $3.55 billion in total per-occurrence WTC property coverage. The maximum dollar amount Mr. Silverstein could hope to get from these nine insurers is $2.264 billion--that's if the jury finds all nine insurers are liable for double payment.

The jurors before listening to the judge's charge heard summations from five lawyers representing insurers as well as from lead counsel for the Silverstein parties.

Lead attorney for Industrial Risk Insurers, Carolyn Williams, started closing arguments, reiterating one of the insurers' arguments that the WTC attack was one coordinated and thus a single insured event.

Ms. Williams told jurors, "WTC was destroyed by a single coordinated terrorist attack. One attack, one event, one occurrence." Ms. Williams also pointed out that Mr. Silverstein' in-house risk manager Robert Strachan actually used to work for one of the insurers represented, IRI, and argued that he clearly knew the forms would have treated 9/11 event as one occurrence.

But Mr. Silverstein's lead counsel Bernard Nussbaum told jurors they should interpret the event as two insured occurrences.

"The evidence showed that we suffered two distinct physical losses?each the result of a separate physical cause separated by space, separated by time," he said.

Mr. Nussbaum also revisited a number of specific clauses that may cast doubt on insurers' one-event claim. He noted that the "Hours Clause" in the binders and the policy language?which limits damages that occur within a set number of hours as one occurrence?as well as annual aggregate limits, contained various perils but no mention of fire or acts of terrorism.

Mr. Nussbaum told jurors that none of the nine insurers represented was bound to Willis Property's "WilProp" form which treats terrorist events such as 9/11 as one occurrence.

"Not a single one of these companies can claim its coverage was governed by WilProp even temporarily," Mr. Nussbaum noted. Five of the insurers?Allianz, Gulf, TIG, Royal Specialty and Twin City?never even received WilProp, he said. And four of the insurers?Travelers, IRI, Tokio Marine and Zurich?did receive WilProp but didn't accept it.