N001554
Sunday, January 13, 2002 5:43 PM
comments on Interim Final Rule
13 January 2002
To: The Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund:
Re: Interim Final Rule
After reviewing the Interim Final Rule that is published on the Victim
Compensation Fund Web site, I am concerned that the Interim Final Rule as
presently written is not consistent with the spirit and intent of the fund.
My husband, , killed while working at the World Trade Center
on September 11, 2001, was financially responsible and deeply concerned for
my welfare and, therefore, secured life insurance to protect me in case he
died. It appears that based on 's age (57) and income, the amount of
my collateral sources is greater than the award projected by the published
charts. It is my understanding that the award includes both economic and
non-economic loss (also referred to as "pain and suffering"). I do not
believe that life insurance purchased by any victim should be part of the
collateral sources that are to offset any award. Furthermore, I believe
that any collateral sources should offset ONLY economic loss and that
everyone should receive the non-economic loss amount that has been specified
for "pain and suffering" regardless of the victim's economic situation.
The Interim Final Rule (and perhaps the law) is unfair for those people who
used their money to prepare for the unexpected. In a recent meeting with U.
S. Senators from NJ, I learned that perhaps the legislators acted in haste
when drawing up the guidelines for the law. I believe it is the current
administration's desire to foster and strengthen self-reliant families.
Reducing the award by the amount of insurance a victim carried seems in
opposition to this desire. The Interim Final Rule appears to favor those
who did not purchase life insurance to protect their families and those who
have no dependents and no need for life insurance. Indeed, I find it
reprehensible that our taking care of ourselves should result in exclusion
from a Fund that is supposedly equitable to all.
The proposed disbursement of the Fund provides no real motivation for me to
waive my right to sue. Specifically, by including the amount for "pain and
suffering" in the total from which "collateral sources" are subtracted, some
families may receive nothing for their loss. I believe the people most
likely to sue are those in a financial situation that does not require
immediate monies from the Fund and can withstand a wait of 10 years or more
while the lawsuit is in court. Those are the same people who are apt to
have had purchased life insurance and thus are most likely to have high
collateral sources. The idea of purchasing life insurance is to cover
economic loss in case of death, so one might expect life insurance to offset
the economic loss. However, life insurance does not generally address
non-economic loss, while the Fund implies that it does. By allowing the
"pain and suffering" award to be eliminated by collateral sources, you are
motivating the individuals most capable of bringing legal action to do just
that.
Please consider adjusting the guidelines to provide at least the minimum
"pain and suffering" award to all victims, regardless of collateral sources.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Green Brook, NJ