W000255
Wednesday, November 07, 2001 1:51 PM
Points to be considered.
I have spent the past few weeks researching Title 4 and I have a few
comments and questions:
First: Why is pension funds listed specifically as a collateral source of
income? The only time this would be available would be in the case of the
death of the victim, when it would convert to the victims family. Wasn't
this money that the decedent had already earned and then saved? How is this
a benefit? Is it fair to use this as an offset against the compensation of
Title IV? It is my opinion that this would not be fair.
Second: Are charitable contributions and grants made by charities going to
be listed as collateral sources of income? This too would not make much
sense, unless the actual purpose of this plan was only to keep the cost of
the potential exposures low.
Third: Under the terms of Title IV, anyone applying for this fund would not
be able to pursue a lawsuit against anyone else. This would seem to include
the following:
The security firms that were directly responsible for checking the
passengers for weapons
The management of the World Trade Center, who did not have an
adequate evacuation plan and had told the people in the second tower to go
back to their desks despite that the construction of the two towers did not
allow for fire stop walls. Some have said that it is standard operating
procedure to have people stay in their current locations until removed from
the building by rescue workers, usually the fire department, but that only
works in buildings that have walls and fire doors to separate areas from
one another as per the current code regarding residential high rise
buildings. The towers were built in such a way as to allow for the greatest
amount of free working area, were office space and were built before the
residential codes were in effect.
And, despite an anti-terrorism law that is currently on the books
written to deal with precisely this situation, the terrorists themselves
cannot be sued.
The law that was enacted still requires the airlines to place the limits of
their liability insurance to the Victims Compensation fund, but none of the
3 groups above are required to place any amount into the fund, but still
receive the same if not greater protection under this act. This is also
extremely unfair. The monies frozen by the government belonging to
terrorist organizations should be entered immediately into this fund, while
the other groups involved should also be forced to agree to place into the
fund the limits of their insurance in order to have the same basic immunity
from litigation. While I understand that the airlines do serve a vital
national interest, the same cannot be said for the other groups that should
share to some extent the blame for the deaths of thousands.
Individual Comment
Brooklyn, NY