dojN001690.xml

dojN001690.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-15

Tuesday, January 15, 2002 9:29 PM
to the Special Master

Dear Mr. Feinberg:

I lost my beloved husband when he was murdered at the World
Trade Center on September 11th.

I am writing to express serious concerns re 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 apparently discarded this mandate, instead creating 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 COMBINED with all collateral sources combined will not fully
replace lost income as the Fund regulations now stand. 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, despite news reports that would have the public believe
otherwise.

DOJ's formula for non-economic damages of $250,000 for the person killed and
$50,000 for the spouse and each dependent is about 1/10 of the minimum
awarded in a variety of air crash and terrorism cases. Further, independent economists have found serious flaws in DOJ's method of
calculating economic damages, including use of outdated and inapplicable
worklife and lifecycle earnings data.

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
puts the onus on the grieving families and creates, intentionally or not, an
adversarial situation with families "competing" for monies.

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.

DOJ continues to resist the victims' and families' requests for significant
changes. If the proposed regulations are not changed meaningfully, many
families, anticipating little relief from the Fund, will be forced into the
legal system, suing despite the handicap of the liability limits.

I cannot believe this is the outcome Congress intended.

Sincerely,
Individual Comment

2002-01-15