dojN002493.xml

dojN002493.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-22

Victims Compensation Fund

January 22, 2002

Mr. 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

Dear Mr. Zwick:

This firm represents three minor children-ages 6, 11 and 14-who lost their father on the
106th floor of the World Trade Center Tower which was hit by the first plane. His body has
never been found. The decedent left $200,000 in life insurance benefits to the three children,
$300,000 in life insurance benefits to his spouse (who is the children's stepmother and does not
live with or support the three children), and $340,000 in life insurance to the decedent's sister.
The policy paying benefits to the sister had a face amount of $170,000 and a double indemnity
provision. These children will be receiving less than 25% of the life insurance benefits left by
their father. The children live with their natural mother, and were over 50% dependant on their
father's support.

A. THE COLLATERAL SOURCE PROVISION SHOULD BE REPEALED

Benefits received from collateral sources should not affect the amount awarded to victims
under this Act. Victims and their families have suffered and will continue to suffer due to these
terrorist acts. Families should not be punished for victims having alternative measures in place,
such as life insurance, which they are now entitled to after years of paying premiums. This Fund
should be regulated according to the purpose for which it was created, as "an unprecedented
expression of compassion on the part of the American people to the victims and their families
devastated by the horror and tragedy of September 11." Our country's expression of compassion
should not be limited by the compassion of others or various benefits available to families.
B. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COLLATERAL SOURCE PROVISION OF THE
SEPTEMBER 11TH VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND OF 2001 SHOULD BE AMENDED

We are especially concerned to the extent that the Act arguably reduces the amount of
compensation to be given to victims based on collateral sources, including life insurance,
regardless of whether the victims received the benefit of the insurance that is causing the
reduction. We ask that this offset not be applied as an across the board rule.

In the situation of the three children, fundamental fairness should not allow their potential
recovery to be reduced by $840,000, when $640,000 of that amount will never be available to them.

The purpose of this fund was to provide monetary compensation for the loss so many
families are suffering due to terrorist attacks. By applying this collateral source provision, it
goes against the meaning for which this fund was intended. As it stands, these three children
will have their award reduced by "collateral compensation" from which they will never benefit.

This type of reduction was not intended by the drafters of Section 405 (b)(6). At very
least, benefits should not be reduced based on the total amount of collateral compensation, but
rather, reduced by compensation that the individual receives from outside sources.

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these issues.

Sincerely,
Individual Comment

Alpharetta, GA

2002-01-22