Block on Trump's Asylum Ban Upheld by Supreme Court
A new 9/11 lawsuit has been filed by Lloyd's Syndicate 3500, a London-based insurance company also known as "Lloyd's of London," in Western Pennsylvania. The federal lawsuit alleges a causal link between the government of Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Saudi Arabia financed and provided support to the terrorist attacks, according to the insurance company, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports. Also listed among the defendants are some Saudi banks and charities.
The insurance company alleges the attacks would never have happened without Saudi Arabia's support. As a result, they're asking that the nation repay them about $215 million, which is the amount the insurance company paid out in 9/11-related claims.
The insurance company made these payments on behalf of airlines, jet manufacturers, airport authorities, and security authorities who were sued by individuals after 9/11, reports the Tribune-Review.
A federal law passed in 1996 allows individuals to sue foreign countries for terrorist attacks if the country is responsible. But this same law also creates a hurdle.
The law requires that the sued country be on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors. Currently, there are four countries on that list: Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria, reports the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
Will this lawsuit meet with any success? It might not.
The same attorneys in the current lawsuit filed a similar lawsuit in 2003 against Saudi Arabia in a New York federal court. There, the federal court determined that Saudi Arabia could not be sued since the country was not on the State Department's list of terrorist sponsors, according to The Philadelphia Inquirer. The 2nd Circuit appeals court upheld that decision.
So, why are the insurance company's attorneys starting this new 9/11 lawsuit? They believe they have stronger evidence that shows a real connection between Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. And, they're likely hoping that the Pennsylvania-based appeals circuit - which isn't bound by the 2nd Circuit's decision - will be more favorable to their suit, according to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.