N002555
Honeoye Falls, N.Y.
January 21, 2002
Kenneth L. Zwick, Director
Office of Management Programs Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Main Building, Room 3140
950 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, C.C. 20530
Dear Mr. Zwick:
We are writing in regard to the September 11th Compensation Fund of 2001. Our
son, , was killed as a result of American Airlines aircraft crashing into the
North Tower of the World Trade Center. We believe we understand the rationale, purpose and
logic of the creation of the fund. We have read the act, been to several meetings with Kenneth
Feinberg, and followed the subject closely in the media. We have several comments regarding the
guidelines of the Compensation Fund.
First and foremost, we believe the Airline Transportation Safety Act to be correct
action to have taken. With that having been said, there are several ways in which the ruling falls
short. We will spare you the horrible details of what our family has been through, as well as
families of all the other victims, we're sure, in the greatest tragedy that the United States has
suffered in this act of international terrorism. Please do not take those missing details lightly as,
even though we are only one family in this international scandal, our son was central in our lives
and had already contributed his worth to society albeit his youth.
When Congress enacted the bail out, it was first and foremost for the benefit of the
airlines and, secondarily, for the victims' families. In doing so, in effect, it removed any practical
means to recover both economic and non-economic loss through any other means, then through
the Victims Compensation Fund because of limits on liability. By Kenneth Feinberg's own
admissi0on, "This is a classic trade off between administrative speed and efficiency and rolling the
dice in court and going for the proverbial pot of gold," as quoted in the N.Y. Times, 12/21/01.
With this, we ask you to consider:
1.) Why should these awards be discounted from what would be awarded in an individual
lawsuit where there are no liability limitations?
In determining non-economic loss, the special master has determined that $250K plus
$50K per survivor is adequate citing that this figure conformed roughly with federal programs
that compensate families for military personnel and police officers. This line of thinking is
irrational:
2.) Did it ever occur to Mr. Feinberg that the vast number of victims were not firefighters
and policemen? Although our son, as well as over 3,000 other victims, died on September 11,
2001, they did not contractually take on jobs to place themselves in the line of fire. Firefighters
and police personnel seek employment choosing to place themselves in the line in danger, they are
trained
with public monies; and, they receive paychecks funded with public monies. Our son and 3000
others were dutifully employed and at their jobs as contracted by their individual employers.
These 3,000 individuals never signed up, volunteered, nor were paid to do life threatening jobs.
These individuals had no choice in surviving the events of that day. Therefore, we would
suggest the non-economic award to be minimally $1 million per individual, similar for
compensation paid in other airline disasters. Since this is an out-of-court settlement,
documentable evidence is available for other airline out-of-court settlements.
In setting standards for economic loss, Mr. Feinberg has chosen to use national standards.
These disasters happened primarily in our nation's largest cities of New York City and
Washington, D.C. Therefore,
3.) Why not use standards that apply to big cities where the cost of living is high and
commensurate with animal increases that are accelerated well beyond a rural environment? It is
not fair, not just, to apply standards to this disaster that don't relate to the circumstances. If the
victims fall outside the range of the charts provided, you must go and argue the case thus
victimizing the victims. Why should the burden be on the victims? Given documented income
levels, the award should be calculated with consistency.
Finally, we feel it unfair for families to walk away with nothing as a result of collateral
offsets. There should be a minimum award established regardless of the offsets and there should
be consistency in the way the award is granted.
4.) We support the view of and as to minimum
awards and consistency in granting awards.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Honeoye Falls, N.Y.