P000115
Message:
Additional comments Congressman
Sununu has received on The Interim
Final Rule implementing PL 107-42
Dear Mr. Sununu,
My friend, , died in the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center. I am writing to express my serious concerns and objections to the US Department of Justice's (DOJ) "Interim Final Regulations Governing Payments Under the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund."
The airline bailout act gave the airlines 315 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 damages 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 actually 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 statue. 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 incomparable 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damages, including use of outdated and inapplicable worklife and life-cycle earnings data.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 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 far 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 court system the fund was designed to replace. While the 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.
Please contact Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and Special Master Kenneth R. Feinberg
and tell them of your concern that the interim final regulations fail to conform to the language and intent of the act. With the regulations soon to become final, I believe that only the swift and strong support of Congress can avert unnecessary financial and emotional
damage.
Thank you for giving this matter your immediate attention.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Merrimack, NH
January 18, 2001
Congressman John Sununu
Dear Congressman Sununu,
My sister's husband , and father of two little girls was aboard American Airlines flight 11 when it slammed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. I am writing to express my serious concerns and objections to the US 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 damages 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 actually 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 statue. 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 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 far 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 provide in the court system the fund was designed to replace.
While the DOJ has shown flexibility on some aspects of the rules, it is resisting the victims and families requests for significant changes. If the imposed 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.
Please contact Attorney General John D. Ashcroft and Special Master Kenneth R.
Feinberg and tell them of your concern that the interim final regulations fail to conform to
the language and intent of the act. With the regulations soon to become final, I believe
that only the swift and strong support of Congress can avert unnecessary financial and
emotional damage.
Thank you for giving this matter your immediate attention.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Hudson, NH