More 9/11 Lawsuits Are Settled

[Alt+F4]

According to today's New York Times:

As 14 families of people killed in hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, have settled their lawsuits against the airlines, they have left the future of the remaining cases in doubt just a week before the first trial was scheduled to begin.

Only 21 cases now remain of the 95 cases, on behalf of 96 victims, originally filed against the airlines, airports, airport security companies and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which built the World Trade Center.

Although the court has barred parties to the settlements from talking about them or revealing how much money they received, Mr. Migliori said they felt vindicated by their decision to forgo the compensation fund.
“I think it’s fair to say that the folks that chose litigation knew they were going to get compensated whether they went into litigation or went into the fund,” he said. “But uniformly it was understood and appreciated that the fund was not going to provide the same level of compensation as litigation.”

The conspiracy liars have been saying the victims who passed on the compensation fund did so because they refused to take a "bribe" to keep quite and their lawsuits were a demand for "the truth". Now it appears that most of these people felt certain groups, such as children, retired people and very high earners were being undercompesatated by the fund.

I wonder how many more of the 21 remaining cases will be settled before the next is set for trial in November.

Linky: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/nyregion/18cnd-settle.html?hp

[LashL]

I wonder how many more of the 21 remaining cases will be settled before the next is set for trial in November.



My guess: probably all of them with the possible exception of one Ms. Gallop. She's been involved in at least four lawsuits arising out of the events of 9/11 and in one of those cases, she is the only remaining plaintiff out of dozens.

[Calcas]

My guess: probably all of them with the possible exception of one Ms. Gallop. She's been involved in at least four lawsuits arising out of the events of 9/11 and in one of those cases, she is the only remaining plaintiff out of dozens.

Lash, this may sound callous but please help me out here.

Why are 9/11 victims eligible for compensation and who is paying?

Are those that were passengers compensated the same as those that died on the ground? (either at the towers or the Pentagon)

Who was "at fault?" The airlines? The government? Why is someone who is killed by tragic events like this eligible for compensation but someone who is killed tragically by a drunk driver (with no insurance) is treated differently?

Again, I don't mean these questions to be taken the wrong way. I'm just not clear why some are compensated and some are not.

BTW, how does the average compensation for one of these "airline" victims stack up against the average compensation for one of our soldiers killed in Iraq?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Lash, this may sound callous but please help me out here.

Why are 9/11 victims eligible for compensation and who is paying?

Are those that were passengers compensated the same as those that died on the ground? (either at the towers or the Pentagon)

Who was "at fault?" The airlines? The government? Why is someone who is killed by tragic events like this eligible for compensation but someone who is killed tragically by a drunk driver (with no insurance) is treated differently?

Again, I don't mean these questions to be taken the wrong way. I'm just not clear why some are compensated and some are not.

BTW, how does the average compensation for one of these "airline" victims stack up against the average compensation for one of our soldiers killed in Iraq?

I believe that the compensation was based on the age of the victim, their income, and an estimate of how long they would have worked in their lifetime, and how much they would have eventually earned. This is the complicated world of Actuary I believe. The government awarded the money as part of the billions that were being thrown around (albeit haphazardly).

Some problems arose where, say a stock broker, just starting may have been making 40,000 a year, and the estimates may have said that they only received 4% raise a year for the rest of their life... because it's not an easy job, and while you can earn a lot of money... not everyone does.

Compare that to, say a 30 year old CPA who's family is awarded more because as a CPA, someone is almost guaranteed to have a steady, well paying job.

Meanwhile the family of a Janitor in their 50s who earned 40,000 a year was assumed to retire at 65 and therefore received a much smaller amount.

Most families took the money in exchange for not suing the government, the airlines, the city, the building owners etc. I think they had 2 months to decide? Or was it a year. I can't remember.

[Civilized Worm]

My guess: probably all of them with the possible exception of one Ms. Gallop. She's been involved in at least four lawsuits arising out of the events of 9/11 and in one of those cases, she is the only remaining plaintiff out of dozens.


Isn't she a twoofer?

[Nim Chimpsky]

“But uniformly it was understood and appreciated that the fund was not going to provide the same level of compensation as litigation.”


One thing to add about this: I had heard some of the victims saying that they weren't going to get too much because their loved ones were well insured and had planned for a tragedy. So I'm guessing that some of those people were probably only going to get a few thousands or tens of thousands vs. suing the airlines and settling, where their liability insurance, I'm sure, will pay them in the millions to settle.

It is definitely a debatable point as to the "why" this group and not that group should receive compensation. I think there was just a tremendous amount of guilt and the government realized it better to just pay them off rather than have a long lingering inquiry into their shortcomings and failings that day.

[LashL]

Lash, this may sound callous but please help me out here.

Sorry, I didn't see your post to me until now. It doesn't sound callous. Your questions are legitimate. I don't know the answers to all of them, but I will answer the ones that I can.

Why are 9/11 victims eligible for compensation and who is paying?

The federal government established the Victims Compensation Fund as one of the measures in the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act, which it enacted shortly after the attacks.

Essentially, the government sought to provide the victims of the 9/11 attacks with an alternative to ligation, and sought to limit the liability of various entities who would be the target of litigation. The Act established a sort of "alternative dispute resolution" mechanism by creating the Victim Compensation Fund, requiring that those who partook of the fund could not sue anybody.

Some of the expressed reasons for doing this were:

1) the threat that the airline industry would be shut down due to insurance companies refusing to insure them and capital markets refusing to provide liquidity in the face of potentially unlimited liability

2) to protect potential defendants from the risk of bankruptcy due to huge damages awards if the matters proceeded to litigation

3) to protect against the possibility of inconsistent verdicts as a result of thousands of separate lawsuits

4) to provide certainty to victims without protracted litigation

(The Act also did other things, like capping liability for airlines to the maximum of their insurance limits, authorizing loans of $10 billion to airlines, etc., but those are probably a topic for another thread.)

Are those that were passengers compensated the same as those that died on the ground? (either at the towers or the Pentagon)

There was no distinction made for compensation purposes between those who died on the airplanes and those who died on the ground. All of the recipients were compensated according to the same formula, considerations, and application of the regulations, but not all recipients received the same amounts.

Who was "at fault?" The airlines? The government?

No entity was deemed to be "at fault".

Why is someone who is killed by tragic events like this eligible for compensation but someone who is killed tragically by a drunk driver (with no insurance) is treated differently?

I don't know. (Although in Ontario, the family of a person killed by a drunk driver would be eligible for compensation, either through their own insurer, or through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, but they would not likely receive nearly as much as they would if the drunk driver was insured.)

Again, I don't mean these questions to be taken the wrong way. I'm just not clear why some are compensated and some are not.

I have not taken them the wrong way. I wish I could answer your last question, because it is a worthy one. Unfortunately, I just do not have the answer.

BTW, how does the average compensation for one of these "airline" victims stack up against the average compensation for one of our soldiers killed in Iraq?

The payouts from the VCF to families of those who died ranged from $250,000 to $7 million, with the average payout being ~$2 million, and the median being $1.6 million. The total payout from the VCF to families of the deceased was just over $6 billion. (There were also 2,680 claimants who were compensated for injuries sustained at the WTC and the Pentagon, which amounted to another $1 billion)

I don't know anything about the compensation available to the families of soldiers killed in the line of duty, so I cannot make the comparison that you are looking for, sorry.

[Sabrina]

Calcas, go here (http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/adutydeath.htm) for more information on the benefits and compensation available to family members of military personnel killed in the line of duty. From my very general knowledge; if I were on active duty and were killed in the line of duty, the only thing my family would get is my SGLI, (my life insurance basically), but if I were married, my spouse could be entitled to another sort of compensation, where he would basically get paid some percentage of my normal salary for as long as he didn't remarry. There's more in the link; hope it helps.

[Good Lt]

According to today's New York Times:


Dude, they're totally in on it. Why haven't you 96.4%ers figured this out yet?

[Good Lt]

Sorry - 95.4%ers.

There are even less of you than you thought!! LOLz!

[LashL]

I believe that the compensation was based on the age of the victim, their income, and an estimate of how long they would have worked in their lifetime, and how much they would have eventually earned. This is the complicated world of Actuary I believe. The government awarded the money as part of the billions that were being thrown around (albeit haphazardly).

Yes, compensation was based on actuarial factors, and certain items were capped regardless of the actuarial figures.

The total paid out of the fund to families of 2880 deceased victims was ~$6 billion, and another $1 billion was paid out to 2680 injured victims.

Most families took the money in exchange for not suing the government, the airlines, the city, the building owners etc.

Yes, approximately 97% chose to utilize the VCF rather than litigate.

I think they had 2 months to decide? Or was it a year. I can't remember.

The last day to file a claim was December 22, 2003 so they had 2 years, 3 months and 11 days to decide.

[LashL]

Isn't she a twoofer?

I have no reason to believe that she's a full fledged twoofer. She strikes me more as a traumatized person lacking in critical thinking skills who has been co-opted by the twoof movement for their own purposes.