N002272
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 1:26 PM
Comments on iterim final rules regarding Sept 11Victims
Compensation Fund Construction
My name is and I'm the father of one of the deceased Victims
of the Sept 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. I live at
. We lost our son on Sept
11th. worked at on the floor of Tower 2. was
years old , unmarried with no children.
My concerns regarding the interim final rules are basically two:
1. Knowing what the final award will be prior to official acceptance.
If claimant is required to waive their right to pursue legal action it
would seem only reasonable that the exact settlement to claimant is verified
and agreed to prior to acceptance. This would eliminate the possibility of
any misunderstandings.
2. Private insurance premiums paid by the Victims were paid to protect their
loved ones financially in the event of death. Their responsible behavior
should in no way be offset by this horrific terrorist act. If the concern of
the Federal Government is minimizing the use of American dollars then freeze
the assets of the 60 countries engaged in or supporting terrorist activities
and use those monies to compensate the impact to the treasury. Wrongful
death, i.e.. murder, should have no beneficial financial offset flowing to
anyone culpable on the back of the murdered victims.
Finally, by way of an editorial comment; I sincerely hope that no additional
weight is given to the numerous mass e-mailings going to the DOJ's web site
[requesting comments] on the part of those groups with an obvious political
agenda. In fact it is my hope that they be discounted.
Specific Objections to the arbitrary interim final rule construction:
I am writing to express my serious concerns and
objections to
the Department of Justice's (DOJ) "Interim Final Regulations Governing
Payments Under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund."
The airline bailout act gave the airlines $15 billion in cash and loan
guarantees and capped the airlines' liability for the September 11 crashes
at
the limits of their insurance coverage. Because of this cap, the damage
caused
by the crashes greatly exceeds the private fund available to compensate
victims and their families. Thus for the vast majority of victims and
families, the cap has the effect of eliminating the right that they would
otherwise have to sue the airlines. Congress set up the fund to ensure
that
the airline bailout would not come at the expense of the victims'
families.
The act mandates full and fair compensation to victims and their families
for
their actual economic and non-economic damages.
DOJ has ignored this mandate and instead has written arbitrary
regulations
that will result in compensation levels far below the losses actual
suffered
by the victims and their families. In fact, many families' total
compensation
from the fund and all collateral sources combined will not even fully
replace
lost income. In effect, these families will not receive any of the non-
economic compensation required by the statute. After collateral sources
are
deducted, as required by the statute, some families would receive nothing
from
the fund under the interim final regulations.
DOJ's formula allows for non-economic awards at only one-tenth the
level
paid in comparable cases, even though Congress explicitly enumerated a
broader
range of non-economic damages than could be recovered in any single
jurisdiction. DOJ's formula for non-economic damages is $250,000 for the
person killed and $50,000 for the spouse and each dependent. In a wide
variety
of air crash and terrorism cases, however, judges, juries, and mediators
commonly have provided non-economic damage awards well into the
seven-figure
range.
Independent economists have found serious flaws in DOJ's method of
calculating economic damages, including use of outdated and inapplicable
worklife and life-cycle earnings data. DOJ greatly underestimates
promotions
and other increases in earnings for victims. It relies on civil service
and
military retirement system actuarial data that track federal worker
incomes
and pension requirements, not the higher-paying private sector career
paths
followed by the vast majority of the victims.
The interim final regulations also arbitrarily cap a victim's income
at
$231,000 a year. Combined with the faulty methodology described above, the
income cap would result in some families receiving compensation for less
than
25% of their actual economic losses.
Under DOJ's rules, a family's award may be increased above the
"presumptive" award only by a showing of "extraordinary circumstances" --
beyond those suffered by other victims or victims' families. This high
burden
of proof makes a charade of the right to a hearing provided by the
statute.
DOJ should fulfill the act's intent by revising the rules to
compensate
victims and their families for the types of damages specified by Congress,
at
levels comparable to those provided in the tort system the fund was
designed
to replace. While DOJ has shown flexibility on some aspects of the rules,
it
is resisting the victims' and families' requests for significant changes.
If
the proposed regulations are not changed significantly, victims' widows
will
have to sell their homes, deplete their children's college funds, and give
up
their plans of being full-time parents while their children are young.
Many
families, anticipating little relief from the fund, will decide to sue the
airlines and others, despite the handicap of the liability limits. We do
not
believe these are the outcomes Congress intended.
Thank you for your swift and focused attention to this injustice.
Individual Comment