An acquirer of a reinsurance company sued the former parent company of the reinsurer under the relevant stock purchase agreement (SPA) for indemnification of $13.1 million in “losses” allegedly owed in connection with reinsurance contracts that covered the airplanes that were involved in the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11. The acquirer contended that the reinsurer misrepresented the extent of its 9/11 liabilities by setting its reserves based on one “terrorism” event under the governing contracts, rather than a higher liability for two “hijacking” attacks. The acquirer argued that the reinsurer was required to reserve for two attacks because the cedents had done so, and because the reinsurer had received broker advices for two losses. The court denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, holding that factual questions existed as to whether the reinsurer’s alleged fraud constitutes a “loss” under the SPA, and if it does, whether the “loss” was caused by the falsity of the reinsurer’s misrepresentations. The court’s findings included: (1) that the SPA’s provisions providing indemnity for “loss” were ambiguous, such that the court could not determine whether indemnity was limited to only amounts paid in excess of the reinsurer’s reserves; and (2) that conflicting testimony of the parties’ experts as to whether the reinsurer misrepresented that its reserving practices complied with “U.S. generally accepted actuarial standards” created disputed issues of fact. The court also held that benefit of the bargain damages were not available under the SPA, which contained broad waivers of “all causes of action related to the transactions contemplated” by the agreement, and of consequential, indirect, and incidental damages. , Case No. 600925/2009 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. July 10, 2012).