dojW000656.xml

dojW000656.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2001-11-26

Monday, November 26, 2001 4:36 PM
Comments on the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act

Dear Mr. Zwick,

Attached please find our comments on the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act. If you can not open the attachment, please contact me at .

Thank you


---------------------

New York, NY

November 26, 2001

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:

We are writing to provide comments on the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, (hereinafter, "The Act"). The points that we would like to comment on are twofold.

First, with regard to the consideration of "collateral source" as defined in Section 401 of Title IV, and the associated "collateral compensation" as set forth under Section 405(b)(6), we would comment as follows:

The acts of September 11, 2001 were a very emotional and trying time for every American. We have spent time reviewing some of the heart wrenching comments submitted by the victims surviving family members and they are truly disturbing. However, it is imperative that the underlying rationale for the Act be remembered - - and that is, to ensure that Americas air transportation system will continue to function and be a viable part of the United States economy. For this reason, the only conclusion that should be reached is that charitable contributions that have been either received by, or earmarked for victims families must be treated as a collateral source and any compensation should be reduced by the amount actually received. Collateral charitable contributions should not be ignored in considering plaintiffs compensation from the air carrier under the Act. To not include charitable contributions, in light of these unusual circumstances, would put the airline industry and insurance providers that support the ongoing viability of the airline industry in jeopardy. If victims families are allowed to recover compensatory damages irrespective of charitable donations, then these claimants would essentially be obtaining a windfall while future Americans that loose loved ones would be without recovery because the insurance industry that supports the airlines may not be there for such future claims.

The events of September 11 are horrific and are indelibly etched in every Americans mind. What the victims families have gone through is unthinkable, and it is also difficult to comprehend the tens of thousands of lives that have been forever changed, but this Act must balance what is fair in compensating the victims of this tragedy with ensuring that the airline industry continues to be a vital part of the American way of life, continuing to be there for future Americans. The airline industry will not be able to exist without insurance, and the insurance carriers that will be responsible for bearing the bulk of the loss stemming from September 11th will be stretched to their elastic limits. Consequently, we ask that the charitable contributions received by victims families from the generous outpouring of supportive Americans be included in the victims total compensation under the Act. This will in effect allow these contributions to be used for the greater good of all Americans.

The second element that we would like to comment on regards representation by counsel before the Special Master. Under Section 405(b)(4)(A), the claimant shall have the right to be represented by an attorney and under (B) the right to present evidence including the presentation of witnesses and documents. There is no provision currently noted for the air carrier, as defined under the Act, to be represented by counsel. We would recommend that in the event the claimant chose to be represented by counsel, then the air carrier should have the option of being represented by counsel out of fairness. For those cases where the claimants choose not to be represented by an attorney, then likewise the air carrier should not have the opportunity to be represented by counsel. The intent of this comment is to strike an equitable balance in these proceedings.


Comment By:

Mendes & Mount, LLP

New York, NY

2001-11-26