encompass an indirect economic interest in the property. Such an interest can be insured if, as is thecase here, it falls within the definitional boundaries set by the insurance policy.”Suppose that before September 11, ABM had transferred its operations at the WTC to another firm.Additionally, assume that it had sold its supplies and equipment to that firm but as of September 11, ABM hadnot notified Zurich to cancel its insurance. Would the result have been different? Why or why not? If ABM hadsold its business and its property in the WTC to another firm before the terrorist attacks, ABM wouldnot have had an insurable interest in the property at the time of its loss in the WTC. This would haveled the court to conclude that ABM was not entitled to recover under its policy with Zurich.ANSWER TO “THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION”QUESTION IN CASE 49.1On what issue was the court asked to rule in this case? Zurich (the insurer) filed a suit in a federaldistrict court against ABM (the insured) to determine the extent of Zurich’s liability for ABM’s claimsunder its policy for losses related to the destruction of the World Trade Center in the terrorist attack ofSeptember 11, 2001. Specifically, the court focused on whether ABM had a sufficient insurable interestto recover under the policy. Zurich essentially argued in part that ABM could not recover because it didnot own or lease the premises.ANSWER TO “THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION”QUESTION IN CASE 49.1On what did the court base its reasoning for its ruling on this issue? The U.S. Court of Appeals for theSecond Circuit pointed out that “[t]he terms of the insurance policy . . . do not limit coverage toproperty owned or leased by the insured. To the contrary, the policy’s scope expressly includes real orpersonal property that the insured ‘used,’ ‘controlled,’ or ‘intended for use.’ ” Further, under New Yorkstate law, an insurable interest is “any lawful and substantial economic interest in the safety orpreservation of property from loss, destruction or pecuniary damage.” In this case, “ABM’s incomestream is dependent upon the common areas and leased premises in the WTC complex, and thus ABMmeets New York’s requirement of having an ‘insurable interest’ in that property.” ABM could thusrecover for its losses under the policy.