N002058
Saturday, January 19, 2002 3:59 PM
Individual Comment
Dear Mr. Kenneth Zwick,
NON-ECONOMIC LOSS
Arguments are being raised that the non-economic loss compensation being
offered is substantially less (some suggest by a factor of 10 to 1) than
comparative awards in recent US history. This needs to be addressed urgently
particularly as claimants are required to abandon their rights to certain
further US action ahead of compensation determinations.
There is a large disparity between the compensation in respect of married
and unmarried victims. The difference is excessive and I would suggest
should be no more than 25%.
Further I would suggest that extenuating factors related to the individual
circumstances of the deceased should further close the gap. For example
where it can be shown that an unmarried partner has been seriously
prejudiced and suffers by way of the loss, they should be treated proximate
a married partner. There have been hundreds of (largely repetitive) appeals
for the fair treatment of same sex partners and far far fewer appeals for
heterosexual unmarried partners who need fair consideration particularly
bearing in mind our changing social norms.
The heroism of the NY firemen and police killed needs to be recognized
through this fund category.
The suffering of the victims, and their kin now and in the years to come,
killed on the upper 15 floors of WTC 1, where there were no survivors,
warrants special consideration.
For both categories I would suggest an increase in non-economic loss of some
50% over the average granted.
ECONOMIC LOSS
I suggest the basis for projecting future earnings, namely 1998-2000 taxed
earnings together with a growth projection of approximately 5% per year is
unrealistic and inequitable to the youth killed ( i.e. under 30 years old)
as well as to those advancing at greater than 5% per year in the past few
years. Earnings in 2001 should be taken as the starting base.
I join the chorus in suggesting that the offset of life insurance sends out
a poor signal.
I suggest that there can be few sound arguments to justify significant
differences between single and married victims in respect of the present
value of their projected earnings. This is nothing short of discrimination
against the families of single victims.
There are also I suggest no grounds for differentiating the present value of
substantially the same earnings stream in the cases where there are
dependants. If this concept remains can I suggest that as a minimum the
category of dependant be at least widened to include parents and siblings
depending on the individual circumstances of each deceased.
Respondent N001548 suggests that the future earnings discount rate used of
5.13% over the risk less rate is excessive and materially affects the amount
of compensation in current terms. This clearly warrants clarification.
Individual Comment
Johannesburg, South Africa