The phrase "a double payment" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used when referring to a situation where a payment has been made twice for the same item or service.
Example: "After reviewing the transaction history, we discovered that there was a double payment for the invoice dated March 15th."
Alternatives: "duplicate payment" or "two payments".
Mr. Silverstein says that those policies treat the attack as two occurrences, requiring a double payment.
Mr. Silverstein claims that he is entitled to a double payment of nearly $7 billion because two planes hit two towers in what he describes as two separate occurrences during the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, 2001.
Mr. Silverstein contends that he is entitled to a double payment of nearly $7 billion because two planes hit two towers in what he describes as two separate "occurrences" on Sept. 11.
The Travelers form, Mr. Silverstein maintained, had a less specific definition of "occurrence," making it easier to claim that the destruction of the trade center justified a double payment.
Therefore, he suggested a retiree disability feature, in which the annuity holder accepts an actuarial reduction in normal annual income in return for a double payment in the event of disability.
First, a jury trial scheduled to begin on Nov. 4 will determine whether the attack on the trade center last September represented two separate occurrences, entitling Larry A. Silverstein, the developer who had leased the huge complex, to a double payment totaling about $7 billion.
Worse yet, to promptly correct problems that may arise from electronic processing, such as double payment of a single check or payment in the wrong amount, the new rules require a customer to present a copy of the check's electronic image, known as a "substitute check".
Given an opportunity to reduce this risk of double payment, the Federal Circuit instead created an incoherent and unworkable progress-payment framework in Balboa Insurance Co. v. United States, complicating a government official's regulatory mandate to provide progress payments to contractors.
Although Mr. Silverstein had long argued that getting a double insurance payment was a civic necessity for the rebuilding, the judge told jurors not to let that "enter into your decision".
Ever since the attacks that destroyed the twin towers, Mr. Silverstein and his lawyers have argued that there were two attacks, not one, so he should be entitled to a double insurance payment.
Mr. Silverstein has insisted that he is entitled to a double insurance payment of nearly $7 billion because two planes hit two towers in what he describes as two separate occurrences.
