N001080
Friday, December 28, 2001 11:12 AM
Victim Compensation Fun - Offsets
Special Master
Kenneth R. Feinberg,
Mr Kenneth Zwick
28 December 2001
Dear Sir,
Comments as to Victims Compensation Fund
My daughter, who was born and lived in England, UK, was attending a conference at the WTC on behalf of her UK employers. She is was single, aged 30 in the prime of her life with no dependants. She died on the 106th floor of the North Tower.
I can only agree that the prime function of the Victims compensation fund is to provide financial support to the dependents of those victims who died and in particular to those who actually need that financial support
However, on reading your comments at the News Conference carried out on the 20th December a number of factors appear to have been either completely ignored or glossed over.
Before making these comments, I should point out that I myself do not need financial support because of the death of my daughter and we as a family have already agreed that the bulk monies regrettably gained through her death should go to my daughter's brother and sister, nephew and niece. That is the way my daughter would have wanted it. But nevertheless those responsible do have to pay for this atrocity and the extreme grief we as a family have had to endure
1. The Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act was established by congress for a number of reasons some of which included:-
A. To protect the Airlines from overwhelming litigation
B. To provide compensation to the dependants or personal representative of individual who was killed as a result of the September 11th atrocity.
C. To provide a fast track method to those obtaining compensation.
2. Any court of law would provide substantial damages (albeit in relation to income age etc) but also included in these damages would be an a very high element to cover any factor where the court considered that the deaths of these poor people was caused by any negligence carried out by the defendant that could have contributed to that death. Any award given would most certainly not be offset by any insurance cover etc that those who died might have had in place at the time.
3. It would appear therefore, judging by the nature of the work place (WTC) that a very high percentage of those killed would be what we here in England call the professional classes and I think in America - White Collar Workers. Most of these will be covered by their own employers and personal insurance policies. Because of Offsets therefore, I would suspect that a large percentage of claimants would not be able to make a claim. Certainly in my daughters's case, who was on a fairly average salary the offsets amount to 85% of the estimated total award before offset. Who gains ? Certainly not those who have no insurances - they do not get any more. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT GAINS BY NOT HAVING TO PAY.
4. Because of this alone, I would suspect a large number of us will have no alternative but to sue - which is what your government was trying to prevent !
5. Why should I sue when the last thing I want is money, it will never replace the loss of my daughter, all the money in the world would never do that.
The reasons are quite simple.
A) Punitive damages need to be awarded against the airlines, those airport authorities concerned and it would now possibly appear in the case of my daughter , the landlords of the North Tower, in order to try and prevent this happening again.
B) Nineteen terrorists hijacked four planes and caused the death of thousands.
C) This can be put down to an almost total lack of security at the airports concerned, one terrorist getting through security you could call a percentage risk, two bad luck, three doubtful, but nineteen commandeering four separate planes all on the same day in this country would be called criminal negligence and commercial manslaughter. In Europe we have lived with terrorism for many years, the best security in the world will not prevent some getting through. Here, however, we have managed to control this evil and keep it to acceptable levels. But, no or inadequate security is an open invitation to any one.
D) It would now also appear that because my daughter died above where the plane hit the north tower, she could not even make an escape to the roof, in spite of the fact that there were helicopters available and in the air at the time. Why not - because reports printed in your press, now indicate the roof doors were locked on the directions of the landlords and city authorities.
E) So why did we not have this security - why were the doors locked. The answer is simple - LOSS OF PROFIT. Your government would not pass an act of congress forcing the airlines and airports to increase security - maybe something to do with votes. The airlines would not insist that the airport authorities increase security because that in turn would increase their charges. The airport authorities would not act by themselves because they would loose business to other airports. The doors were shut because it would have meant employing more security guards. One way or the other it is all to do with profit.
Why am I unhappy with the compilation of the awards therefore ? Perhaps I might have kept quiet if it had not been for the offset rule. But I believe those who have allowed this atrocity to happen are getting off almost scot free with the nett result that in the future it will be allowed to happen again. Punitive awards, will make those concerned sit up and take note. It will make their insurers insist that security is increased albeit at the expense of profit, in order that claims of this size will not happen again. It will make governments act in the interests of their citozens rather than their corporate voters and lobyists.
It will prevent other fathers losing their daughters in the way that I have lost mine.
A normally very private individual
Individual Comment