W000225
Wednesday, November 07, 2001 11:18 PM
Comments on victims compensation fund
My wife died in the attack on the Pentagon. I have two sons, aged 11 and
7.
I strongly disagree that any awards from the victims compensation fund
should be reduced by any other compensation received.
My wife and I prepared for the future by paying life insurance premiums,
contributing to her pension plan, and other steps we took. We made
sacrifices so that the one of us who survived, or our sons, if both of
us were deceased, would be provided for.
It is not equitable that the government should reduce any award my
family might receive from the victims compensation fund by the amount of
compensation we receive from our prior planning, sacrifice and
preparedness.
To take this amount away from any award my family would receive would be
like stealing from us, like punishing us for having prepared for the
future. It would also cheapen and minimize the loss we have experienced,
as though accountants were more concerned with the costs than with
taking care of people. It would make it as though we had never gone
through the effort to budget and to do without to make the premium and
contribution payments, or worse, that we done it for nothing.
Because we planned ahead, my family is not eligible for most of the
financial assistance aid currently available. This is because much of it
is need based. I think this is right. I have not even considered trying
to apply for funds to cover expenses that I am able to meet with the
proceeds from insurance, pension and my regular pay. There are many
people in dire straits who need that money. I would not think of taking
it from them.
So, I am not referring to compensation received from the American Red
Cross and other aid agencies. (For the record, I do not think that
victims' compensation should be reduced by amounts received from those
sources, either.)
If an award to my family is to be reduced by the amounts we've received
from insurance, retirement, pension, etc., I will probably elect to
sue--most likely successfully--American Airlines, Dulles International
Airport, the security services involved, and possibly other entities,
including governments. If I am forced into this course, I will be
required to seek a much larger award than that for which I would be
willing to settle if I did not have to go to court.
For me, the time and aggravation of going through a suit is a minimal
consideration. I do not need the compensation. I can wait years if that
is the case. However, I would much rather accept an award from the
victims compensation fund--probably much smaller than what I might
expect to receive from litigation--if it meant simplifying the process.
I think it would be much less costly to, and in the best interest of,
the taxpayers, for the government to agree to compensate victims without
regard to other compensation received. Keep it simple, be fair, get it
done with. Do the right thing once instead of dealing over and over
again with doing the wrong thing, or with doing only half of the right
thing.
The best solution for my family, and I think other victims, is to
determine a consistent standard, such as loss of
wages, as in our case, and set up a fair formula for pain and suffering.
Determine an award in each case, give it
to the victims and be done with it. Case law provides ample precedent
for doing this quickly and fairly.
For me, in consideration of the needs of my family, the bottom line is
not the amount of the award, nor is it the time it might take for
litigation. It is simply that I do not consider it right that the
insurance, retirement, etc. that my wife and I worked for should now be
discounted.
Do not penalize those who have had the forethought and made the
sacrifices necessary to be prepared for loss.
Individual Comment