N001953
Thursday, January 17, 2002 5:39 PM
comments on Interim Final Rule
17 January 2002
To: The Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund
Re: Interim Final Rule
My father, , was killed while working at One World Trade
Center September 11, 2001. After reviewing the Interim Final Rule
published on the Victim Compensation Fund web site, I am concerned the
current state of the Interim Final Rule is inconsistent with the spirit
and intent of the fund.
Specifically, by including the amount for "pain and suffering" in the
total from which "collateral sources" are subtracted, some families may
receive nothing for their loss. My parents were financially
responsible, securing life insurance for both of them to protect the
survivor in case one of them died. Based on my father's age (57) and
income, the amount of collateral sources (including life insurance paid
for from their earnings) is greater than the award projected by the
published charts. As I understand it, the award includes economic loss
as well as non-economic loss, also referred to as "pain and suffering."
Does the fact that my father provided for his death negate my mother's
pain and suffering? It does nothing to ease my loss that will not even
be considered since I am an adult child. Moreover, why should she sign
away her right to sue if she receives nothing from the Fund?
I believe the people most likely to sue are those who do not require
immediate monies from the Fund. Those are the same people who are apt
to have had life insurance, and most likely have high collateral
sources. Life insurance covers projected economic loss, so it is not
surprising that the economic loss portion of the award would approximate
life insurance proceeds. However, insurance generally does not address
non-economic loss, unlike the Fund.
At a time when our government aims to make families more self-sufficient
(e.g. through welfare reform), I find it disturbing that my mother
should be punished for preparing for the unexpected. It is absurd that
my parents' financial prudence should result in exclusion from a
supposedly equitable Fund.
I strongly believe the Fund should provide the minimum "pain and
suffering" award for ALL victims. Furthermore, I believe life insurance
should not offset the award. The rule as stated rewards those who
failed to plan ahead, and provides no incentive to waive legal action to
those most capable of suing. In essence, by minimizing this award, you
force my mother and those like her into court to receive an equitable
settlement.
Sincerely,
Individual Comment
Tucson, AZ