dojN001895.xml

dojN001895.xml

born-digital

email

yes

no

2002-01-16

Wednesday, January 16, 2002 1:13 PM
Victims Compensation Fund


Dear Sir or Madam,

My name is and my brother was murdered in the terrorist attack
on the World Trade Center. His name is and he worked for
on the floor in WTC1. He only lived to be 25 years old. His
career prospects could not have been any brighter and the scope for
promotions and earnings potential was phenomenal, but that was before
September 11.

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.

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.

Yours truly,

Individual Comment
STOCKHOLM
SWEDEN

2002-01-16