dojN002333.xml
Title
dojN002333.xml
Source
born-digital
Media Type
email
Date Entered
2002-01-22
September 11 Email: Body
Tuesday, January 22, 2002 6:07 PM
comment
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. Zurick:
This firm represents three minor children- ages 6, 11, and 14- who lost their father on the 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 childrens stepmother and does not live with or support the three children), and $340,000 in life insurance to the decedents 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 fathers 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A. THE COLLATERAL SOURCE PROVISION SHOULD BE REPEALED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 countrys 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
comment
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. Zurick:
This firm represents three minor children- ages 6, 11, and 14- who lost their father on the 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 childrens stepmother and does not live with or support the three children), and $340,000 in life insurance to the decedents 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 fathers 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 countrys 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
September 11 Email: Date
2002-01-22
Collection
Citation
“dojN002333.xml,” September 11 Digital Archive, accessed September 20, 2024, https://911digitalarchive.org/items/show/32480.