N001904
Wednesday, January 16, 2002 4:26 PM
Comments on Interim Final Rule
January 16, 2001
Kenneth L. Zwick
Director, Office of Management Programs
Civil Division
U.S. Department of Justice
Main Building
Room 3140
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530
Re: Comments on the Interim Final Rule
I appreciate being given an opportunity to comment on
the Interim Final Rules. I am a 69 year-old father who
lost a 30 year-old son at the World Trade Center. A
son that would have provided me with much love,
happiness and comfort in my twilight years. There is
no amount of money in the world that could ever
compensate me for that loss of affection.
The Interim Final Rules are a step in the right
direction. They try to take a very complex legal
problem and simplify it. I commend the Special Master
for trying to eliminate the need for victims' families
to go through a long complicated and expensive legal
process. Unfortunately, in trying to reach this
idealistic goal, the Interim Final Rules totally
ignore the law that was enacted by the Congress and
signed into law by the President.
Congress did not intend that the non-economic loss of
the victims of the terrorists attacks be equated to
"roughly equivalent to the amounts received under
existing federal programs by public safety officers
who are killed while on duty or members of our
military who are killed in the line of duty." If
Congress intended to do this they would have put it
into law.
In layman terms what Congress did say was . . . We
have to bail out the airlines in order to salvage our
economy by enacting the The Airline Stabilization Act.
We will also ensure that the airlines remain solvent
by protecting them from any litigation resulting from
their failure to provide a safe transportation system
by enacting the "Victim's Compensation Fund". In the
eyes of Congress the "Victim's Compensation Fund" was
intended to fairly compensate the victims and their
families for their tragic losses and eliminate
lawsuits against the airlines and the government.
However something happened between the Law and the
Rules. Congress said that the victims' families should be
compensated for 12 different categories of
non-economic loss such as pain and suffering etc.,
etc. The Special Master said no . . . "give them the
same $250,000 that anyone in the military service
would get for loss of life". But isn't this comparing
"apples and oranges"? A military person would be
awarded $250,000 for loss of life whether that loss of
life is in combat, by natural death or by accident.
That same military person or that person's family
could also-
- - - - Purchase additional life insurance for amounts
in excess of $250,000 without any of the excess
amounts being deducted from what his or her survivors
would receive. Not so with the victims of September
11, 2001. All insurance proceeds by law are deducted.
- - - - Collect the $250,000 in insurance and then
also bring a lawsuit against an airline or a third
party for wrongful death. Not so for the victims of
September 11, 2001. If they accept the award of the
Special Master, they are prohibited by law to
litigate.
The final result of the Interim Rule is not fair and
just to those who have lost a loved one on September
11, 2001. The intentions of Congress in enacting the
law and the intentions of the President of the United
States in signing the law clearly indicate that the
victims should be treated on the same basis as one who
brought suit against the airlines or government.
The non-economic loss suffered by the victims of this
horrific event should be less than the amounts that
would be obtained by victims that have to litigate
through a long and expensive process. That is the
tradeoff for a speedy decision and no expensive
litigation fees. However that tradeoff shouldn't
result in extraordinarily low awards to victims'
families. Much has been made in the media about the
average award being $1.65 million dollars. This number
is truly misleading and doesn't take into
consideration the collateral offsets required by the
statute. Since many insurance awards are doubled
because the tragedy resulted in accidental deaths
while the victims were at work, these insurance awards
are substantial. The average payoff will probably be
considerably less than half of the $1.65 million that
was released to the media. The net result is also
substantially less than jury awards in airline
wrongful death cases.
In New Mexico in 1994, a jury awarded $2.9 million in
damages to a woman who was burned
when she spilled a cup of coffee she had purchased at
a drive-through window at a McDonald's Restaurant. I
am sure that the woman involved suffered much pain
from the hot coffee. I am also sure that the pain has
long since gone away. The pain of losing a loved one
on September 11th is much more substantial than a
spill from hot coffee. The pain of the families of the
victims from the tragedy of September 11 will last
through their entire lifetimes.
The $250,000 in non-economic losses proposed by the
Special Master contradicts the law and the intention
of Congress. The non-economic loss should be
established at a level of at least $1,000,000. This
would be considerably less than an amount awarded in a
wrongful death lawsuit for non-economic losses in an
airline disaster. It would also go a long way toward
bringing equality between the awards to low-income
victims and those victims that enjoyed higher
salaries.
Thank you for considering the above comments. I hope
that you will seriously consider a substantial
increase in the non-economic loss award.
If you need additional information I can be contacted
at .
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Schenectady, NY