All but 3 Sept. 11 lawsuits settled

Dog Town · 5th March 2009, 01:42 PM

Quote:

NEW YORK – A mediator says all but three of nearly 100 lawsuits brought on behalf of those killed or injured in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have been settled for half a billion dollars.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090305/...ept11_lawsuits

7Billion paid out?

leonAzul · 6th March 2009, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090305/...ept11_lawsuits

7Billion paid out?

Please clarify where the "$7 billion" figure comes from.

KDLarsen · 6th March 2009, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by leonAzul

Please clarify where the "$7 billion" figure comes from.

From the linked article:

Quote:

The lawsuits were brought by those who chose not to participate in a special fund Congress established that distributed more than $7 billion to more than 5,000 survivors.

I'm not sure, but it sounds like a typo, since $7 billion would be something like $1,40 million for each survivor. That is quite a lot of money.

Dog Town · 6th March 2009, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by KDLarsen

I'm not sure, but it sounds like a typo, since $7 billion would be something like $1,40 million for each survivor. That is quite a lot of money.

Do not think it's a typo, now.
from an Aug, 2008 piece:

Quote:

Their families were among fewer than 100 who sued over deaths or injuries from the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 5,000 others received money from a special fund established by Congress that distributed more than $7 billion.

also from 2008 article:

Quote:

Lawyers for the families of four 9/11 victims are urging a judge to reconsider his decision to reject $28.5 million in settlements that he now says are excessive compared with those other survivors received

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Sept.11....2.789329.html

Brainster · 6th March 2009, 11:46 AM

Actually roughly $2 million per victim is not all that surprising. Remember, wrongful death awards are typically based on the discounted value of the future income of the person who died, and there were presumably some pretty high-income people working for companies like Cantor Fitzgerald.

Alt+F4 · 6th March 2009, 11:59 AM

The fact that all but three took the money just further exposes the "truther" lie that the victims and their families believe in the conspiracy nonsense.

Dog Town · 6th March 2009, 12:43 PM

NVM.

chillzero · 6th March 2009, 12:47 PM

Is there any reason given, or any significance to the three that have not been settled?

MikeW · 6th March 2009, 12:48 PM

It's not a typo:

Quote:

ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.:
Five thousand five hundred and sixty claimants participated in the Fund, receiving more than $7.049 billion in full satisfaction of their claims, all within thirty-three months of the attack.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...settlement.pdf

Go click the link to get that report (it's only 250 KB or so and well worth the read).

MikeW · 6th March 2009, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by chillzero

Is there any reason given, or any significance to the three that have not been settled?

The report just says they're wrongful death suits, two relating to flight 11 and one to flight 175.

chillzero · 6th March 2009, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by MikeW

The report just says they're wrongful death suits, two relating to flight 11 and one to flight 175.

I was wondering why they haven't been settled with the others, and whether these are the last straws for CTists to grap at - if maybe the families are refusing to settle?

Dog Town · 6th March 2009, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by chillzero

Is there any reason given, or any significance to the three that have not been settled?

I can't find any. Perhaps our resident Legaltainment Goddess can help.

OT?
-How does one type the trademark logo?

grmcdorman · 6th March 2009, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

OT?
-How does one type the trademark logo?

One way is to use the superscript option: Legaltainment[sup]TM[/sup] gives Legaltainment^TM. There's also a TM character in HTML (™ for you HTML junkies), but that's harder, if not impossible, to enter.

[/ot]

ETA: This character: ™ (which may not show up properly in all browsers anyway); copypasta from a web page I'm working on with it in it.

Bobert · 6th March 2009, 06:34 PM

They are having a big circle jerk over at ATS over this.....
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread442967/pg1
As usual the claims that this is hush money.

LashL · 6th March 2009, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by chillzero

I was wondering why they haven't been settled with the others, and whether these are the last straws for CTists to grap at - if maybe the families are refusing to settle?

Most likely, it is because they are unhappy with the dollar figures that they are being offered. Most of the ~95 lawsuits were brought by those who expected to get more money via litigation than they would via the Compensation Fund. Among other things, the Fund had caps on compensation and it also had built in set-offs so that awards were reduced by the amount of collateral benefits that the deceased's beneficiaries obtained via insurance policies, etc. Also, the amounts awarded were lower, quite understandably, for the deaths of children, adults with relatively low incomes, adults without dependants, and the elderly, since the largest portion of the total payouts were amounts to compensate for loss of future income.

It's been quite a while since I last read many of them, but if memory serves, the lawsuits regarding the deaths of family members were generally brought by those who lost family members who were either children, adults with relatively low incomes, adults without dependants, and adults with exceptionally high incomes and large life insurance policies that they didn't want to have to offset against any recovery they received from the Fund. (Typically, in litigation, there is no offset against awards of damages for life insurance proceeds, so the offset could be a huge economic factor for claimants in the latter category particularly - if you check out the final report of the Fund - see below - there was one case in which the payout to a claimant was offset by almost $10 million in collateral benefits)

I don't know off the top of my head which three plaintiffs are the last of the remaining plaintiffs, but I know I have docs from PACER from back when there were still ~10 left and 21 MC 97 was closed and the remaining few were transferred to 21 MC 101, and I know I have a list of those plaintiffs, so if I find that, I will try to take a look at PACER over the weekend to scope out which 3 are left, if I get the opportunity.

Here is the final report on the Compensation Fund by Kenneth Feinberg. It's fairly comprehensive in terms of claims, payouts, denials/fraudulent claims, setoffs, etc. Skip down to around page 96 of the report proper (page 102 of the document as a whole) for the tables outlining the number and types of claims, the payouts, the averages, the offsets, etc. The total payout would have been almost $10 billion if it weren't for offsets of nearly $3 billion.

LashL · 6th March 2009, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dog Town

-How does one type the trademark logo?

I use ALT 0153 to get Goddess of Legaltainment™

/OT

chillzero · 7th March 2009, 01:54 AM

Thank you LashL.

I can't imagine how anyone even begins to sit and work out a money figure to accept as compensation for the loss of any loved one.

JihadJane · 7th March 2009, 02:59 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

The fact that all but three took the money just further exposes the "truther" lie that the victims and their families believe in the conspiracy nonsense.

How?

Alt+F4 · 7th March 2009, 04:19 AM

Originally Posted by chillzero

Is there any reason given, or any significance to the three that have not been settled?

Originally Posted by New York Daily News

Among those refusing the payouts is the family of Sara Low, 28, a flight attendant aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first to hit the towers. Low's father, Mike Low, is just as committed to going to trial now as he was in 2003.

"Our intent at that time was to see some accountability for the failures and ineptitudes that led to 9/11," said Low, who runs an Arkansas limestone quarry. "I just want to see some light shined on the actions and inactions of the day. I owe it to my daughter." Were it not for the suit, Low said he would not have learned about his daughter's heroic efforts to thwart the attacks.

Linky:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009...uits_to_t.html

Alt+F4 · 7th March 2009, 04:20 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

How?

If you believed the government was behind the murder of your loved one would you have taken the money?

Alt+F4 · 7th March 2009, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

Most likely, it is because they are unhappy with the dollar figures that they are being offered.

I don't think so. The victims in these last three cases are Sara Low, a Flight Attendent on AA 11, Mark Bavis, a passenger on UA 175 and Barbara Keating, a passenger on AA 11.

Low and Bavis were young and unmarried, Keating was 72. It appears that no one was dealing with financial loss as a result of their deaths. I think it's about accountability regarding the airlines, not money.

Dog Town · 7th March 2009, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

I think it's about accountability regarding the airlines, not money.

Quote:

She said she pursued the suit in part for "moral reasons of corporate responsibility and a desire that U.S. taxpayers not be required to pay for my family's loss," adding that she has been satisfied by the outcome

There is this, but...

Quote:

Even with her lawyers' 25 percent fee, she wrote, she is still getting about $1.75 million more than she would have had she followed the mediator's recommendation.

You decide!
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Sept.11....2.789329.html

LashL · 7th March 2009, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

I don't think so. The victims in these last three cases are Sara Low, a Flight Attendent on AA 11, Mark Bavis, a passenger on UA 175 and Barbara Keating, a passenger on AA 11.

Low and Bavis were young and unmarried, Keating was 72. It appears that no one was dealing with financial loss as a result of their deaths.

I think you misunderstood the point:

Quote:

Also, the amounts awarded [from the Compensation Fund] were lower, quite understandably, for the deaths of children, adults with relatively low incomes, adults without dependants, and the elderly, since the largest portion of the total payouts were amounts to compensate for loss of future income.

This was, objectively, a rational basis upon which those who fell into these particular categories would choose to sue, as compared to those who fell into other categories that garnered them larger payouts from the Fund. It makes sense that those in certain categories would choose litigation over the Fund, as litigation was likely to lead to higher payouts than the Fund for those in the categories for which payouts were capped and otherwise limited by the terms of the Fund.

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

I think it's about accountability regarding the airlines, not money.

I can believe that accountability was part of it, especially initially, but I've been working in the judicial system for far too long to think that money does not feature prominently in the decision to continue the litigation in the present circumstances.

Also, I will be very surprised if these last three cases do not settle without going to trial.

Alt+F4 · 7th March 2009, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

I think you misunderstood the point:
This was, objectively, a rational basis upon which those who fell into these particular categories would choose to sue, as compared to those who fell into other categories that garnered them larger payouts from the Fund. It makes sense that those in certain categories would choose litigation over the Fund, as litigation was likely to lead to higher payouts than the Fund for those in the categories for which payouts were capped and otherwise limited by the terms of the Fund.

I can believe that accountability was part of it, especially initially, but I've been working in the judicial system for far too long to think that money does not feature prominently in the decision to continue the litigation in the present circumstances.

Also, I will be very surprised if these last three cases do not settle without going to trial.

Good points. It's been awhile so I had forgotten how the fund had categorized the victims.

JihadJane · 8th March 2009, 06:47 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

If you believed the government was behind the murder of your loved one would you have taken the money?

If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route.

What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw?

Alt+F4 · 8th March 2009, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route.

What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw?

Which second route? As far as I know everyone took the money except for these three families.

Dog Town · 8th March 2009, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw?

WoW! It is twooo! You can't read!

LashL · 8th March 2009, 09:26 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw?

Well, let's see:

2880 death claims and 2680 injury claims paid out by the Fund, plus 95 lawsuits = a total of 5655 claims, of which 3 claims remain

3/5655 = 0.0005305 or 0.05305%

If I'm doing the math correctly, it appears that 99.94695% have "taken the money" so far.

Orphia Nay · 8th March 2009, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route.

What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw?

Originally Posted by LashL

Well, let's see:

2880 death claims and 2680 injury claims paid out by the Fund, plus 95 lawsuits = a total of 5655 claims, of which 3 claims remain

3/5655 = 0.0005305 or 0.05305%

If I'm doing the math correctly, it appears that 99.94695% have "taken the money" so far.

I think JihadJane means how many deaths there were other than those paid out by the Fund.

There were 2,974 fatalities on 9/11, and 2880 death claims according to LashL. Therefore 96.83% of deaths were paid out by the Fund, or 94 deaths that were not compensated. Feel free to check my maths.

Magenta · 9th March 2009, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by orphia nay

I think JihadJane means how many deaths there were other than those paid out by the Fund.

There were 2,974 fatalities on 9/11, and 2880 death claims according to LashL. Therefore 96.83% of deaths were paid out by the Fund, or 94 deaths that were not compensated. Feel free to check my maths.

Most were compensated by the Fund, some chose litigation, and a very small number made no claim at all. From an interview with Ken Feinberg when he was in Australia last year:

Quote:

Damien Carrick: Now the families had until 22 December 2003 to sign up to the fund. Ultimately, did most eligible families come on board?

Ken Feinberg: Virtually all of them. At the end of the day on December 22nd 2003, we had over 5,300 dead and physically injured in the fund. Out of the entire total only 94 people decided to sue, and that was their right under the fund. My single biggest disappointment however, were the I think seven families who did nothing by the deadline. Nothing. They never entered the fund, they never filed a lawsuit, they allowed the statutory time period to run, and they were so overcome by grief, paralysed, they were unable to file, or do anything. ...

[...]

Damien Carrick: Attorney Ken Feinberg says the hearings took more than two years to complete. Ultimately, the fund paid out on average $2 milliion to the families of those who died, and $400,000 to those who were physically injured.

Almost every claimant received the same amount for pain and suffering. When it came to calculating economic loss, Ken used his discretion.

Ken Feinberg: The median award for a death claim was $1.7 milliion. In other words, half the people got more than $1.7 million, and half got less. And if you look at the average award of $2 million and compare it to the median award of $1.7 million, you can see statistically what I did. I exercised my discretion to bring up the amount awarded bus boys, soldiers, cops and firemen, and used my discretion to bring down the amount awarded stockbrokers, bankers and other more wealthy. So that I tried—within the confines of the law however—to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor.

Damien Carrick: Can we talk about those who didn't decide to come on board. I think you said initially 90 families decided to sue and the bulk of those involved in litigation have since settled. But are there a few still going on?

Ken Feinberg: Yes, there are two, as I understand it, or four, that are still litigating in Federal Court in Manhattan in New York City, arguing that the airlines, the World Trade Center, the aircraft manufacturer, the Port Authority, were all negligent in allowing 9/11 to happen. And they are continuing to litigate, but 90 of them originally of the 94, have settled.

Radio National Law Report

Bobert · 9th March 2009, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by JihadJane

If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route.

What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw?

How do you know that they woud have been impoverished?
LOL what is stopping someone from taking the money and still speaking out about their belief that the government was behind 9-11?

LashL · 9th March 2009, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by orphia nay

I think JihadJane means how many deaths there were other than those paid out by the Fund.

There were 2,974 fatalities on 9/11, and 2880 death claims according to LashL. Therefore 96.83% of deaths were paid out by the Fund, or 94 deaths that were not compensated. Feel free to check my maths.

I don't know why JihadJane would be referring to the Fund only since this thread is actually about the lawsuits, although the Compensation Fund is a natural offshoot of that in the circumstances.

Your math looks correct to me, but I did actually include the ~95 lawsuits in my math...most of the lawsuits were related to deaths, I believe, although a few were injury claims, but I'm not sure of the exact breakdown. So, it looks like there were a few deaths that nobody made claims on, for whatever reason. (I have no idea why).

In any event, all but 3 of the families of the deceased who made any claim at all (i.e. including claims via the Fund and claims via lawsuits) have "taken the money" at this point, regardless of which path they chose.

ETA: See Magenta's post regarding a few families not making any claims. (Thanks, Magenta!)

Orphia Nay · 9th March 2009, 11:14 PM

Thanks, Magenta and Lash.

Quote:

My single biggest disappointment however, were the I think seven families who did nothing by the deadline. Nothing. They never entered the fund, they never filed a lawsuit, they allowed the statutory time period to run, and they were so overcome by grief, paralysed, they were unable to file, or do anything. ...

Dog Town · 12th March 2009, 05:39 PM

NYTimes article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/ny...s.html?_r=1&hp

Quote:

Gillian K. Hadfield, a law professor at the University of Southern California, surveyed about 140 people who had lost a relative and were eligible to file with the fund, as part of a study published last year on how people chose between doing so or suing.

Not much new here, but twoofers will love this one.

Quote:

One widow agonized over whether applying to the fund might do a disservice to her husband and other victims’ families, because suing seemed to be the only way to find out why the attacks happened, said her lawyer, Ralph F. Sbrogna of Worcester, Mass.

He said the woman also feared that families who sued might lose and end up with nothing. She ultimately accepted a payment from the fund, he said, “for the sake of her children,” to get whatever she could for their education and future.

ETA: This will have'm jumping too...

Quote:

But Mr. Migliori, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, who is a partner at Motley Rice, disagreed. He said that during the discovery process, the lawsuits had turned up mountains of material that helped explain the security lapses that allowed the attacks to take place.

That material remains largely confidential, he said, adding that the plaintiffs in the three unresolved lawsuits are seeking to have it made public as part of any settlement.

MarkyX · 13th March 2009, 07:16 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

If you believed the government was behind the murder of your loved one would you have taken the money?

Let's not forget this is a discount of what the relative could have to made, so in the long run, they would have more money.

5th March 2009, 01:42 PM	#1
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	All but 3 Sept. 11 lawsuits settled Quote: NEW YORK – A mediator says all but three of nearly 100 lawsuits brought on behalf of those killed or injured in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks have been settled for half a billion dollars. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090305/...ept11_lawsuits 7Billion paid out?
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

6th March 2009, 04:57 AM	#2
leonAzul Illuminator Join Date: May 2007 Location: Nowhere Land Posts: 3,734	Originally Posted by Dog Town http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090305/...ept11_lawsuits 7Billion paid out? Please clarify where the "$7 billion" figure comes from.
	__________________ "Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits." - Satchel Paige

6th March 2009, 08:38 AM	#4
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	Originally Posted by KDLarsen I'm not sure, but it sounds like a typo, since $7 billion would be something like $1,40 million for each survivor. That is quite a lot of money. Do not think it's a typo, now. from an Aug, 2008 piece: Quote: Their families were among fewer than 100 who sued over deaths or injuries from the Sept. 11 attacks. More than 5,000 others received money from a special fund established by Congress that distributed more than $7 billion. also from 2008 article: Quote: Lawyers for the families of four 9/11 victims are urging a judge to reconsider his decision to reject $28.5 million in settlements that he now says are excessive compared with those other survivors received http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Sept.11....2.789329.html
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

6th March 2009, 11:46 AM	#5
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 10,408	Actually roughly $2 million per victim is not all that surprising. Remember, wrongful death awards are typically based on the discounted value of the future income of the person who died, and there were presumably some pretty high-income people working for companies like Cantor Fitzgerald.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

6th March 2009, 11:59 AM	#6
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	The fact that all but three took the money just further exposes the "truther" lie that the victims and their families believe in the conspiracy nonsense.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

6th March 2009, 08:22 AM	#3
KDLarsen Graduate Poster Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Lord's Posts: 1,939	Originally Posted by leonAzul Please clarify where the "$7 billion" figure comes from. From the linked article: Quote: The lawsuits were brought by those who chose not to participate in a special fund Congress established that distributed more than $7 billion to more than 5,000 survivors. I'm not sure, but it sounds like a typo, since $7 billion would be something like $1,40 million for each survivor. That is quite a lot of money.

6th March 2009, 12:43 PM	#7
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	NVM.
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09 Last edited by Dog Town; 6th March 2009 at 12:46 PM.

6th March 2009, 12:47 PM	#8
chillzero Domestic Godless Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Top of the world, ma! Posts: 15,226	Is there any reason given, or any significance to the three that have not been settled?

6th March 2009, 12:48 PM	#9
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	It's not a typo: Quote: ALVIN K. HELLERSTEIN, U.S.D.J.: Five thousand five hundred and sixty claimants participated in the Fund, receiving more than $7.049 billion in full satisfaction of their claims, all within thirty-three months of the attack. http://online.wsj.com/public/resourc...settlement.pdf Go click the link to get that report (it's only 250 KB or so and well worth the read).
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

6th March 2009, 12:51 PM	#10
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911	Originally Posted by chillzero Is there any reason given, or any significance to the three that have not been settled? The report just says they're wrongful death suits, two relating to flight 11 and one to flight 175.
MikeW Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 1,911

6th March 2009, 12:56 PM	#11
chillzero Domestic Godless Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Top of the world, ma! Posts: 15,226	Originally Posted by MikeW The report just says they're wrongful death suits, two relating to flight 11 and one to flight 175. I was wondering why they haven't been settled with the others, and whether these are the last straws for CTists to grap at - if maybe the families are refusing to settle?

6th March 2009, 02:38 PM	#13
grmcdorman Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 857	Originally Posted by Dog Town OT? -How does one type the trademark logo? One way is to use the superscript option: Legaltainment[sup]TM[/sup] gives Legaltainment^TM. There's also a TM character in HTML (™ for you HTML junkies), but that's harder, if not impossible, to enter. [/ot] ETA: This character: ™ (which may not show up properly in all browsers anyway); copypasta from a web page I'm working on with it in it.
grmcdorman Muse Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 857	__________________ "Hello. My name is Inigo Skywalker. You are my father. Prepare to die." Last edited by grmcdorman; 6th March 2009 at 02:39 PM.

6th March 2009, 06:34 PM	#14
Bobert Government Loyalist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kennesaw GA Posts: 4,146	They are having a big circle jerk over at ATS over this..... http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread442967/pg1 As usual the claims that this is hush money.
	__________________ CIT CULT founder Ranke responding to where Flight 77 is"I'm not aware of any "theories" nor am I interested in theorizing about what method was used to murder them ." CIT CULT MEMEMBER ROUNDHEAD Suck on one weenie, you are a weenie sucker for life CIT CULT founder Aldo Marquis :You're going to regret. Don't forget we have your info too pal. Think about your kid and family

6th March 2009, 08:35 PM	#15
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,174	Originally Posted by chillzero I was wondering why they haven't been settled with the others, and whether these are the last straws for CTists to grap at - if maybe the families are refusing to settle? Most likely, it is because they are unhappy with the dollar figures that they are being offered. Most of the ~95 lawsuits were brought by those who expected to get more money via litigation than they would via the Compensation Fund. Among other things, the Fund had caps on compensation and it also had built in set-offs so that awards were reduced by the amount of collateral benefits that the deceased's beneficiaries obtained via insurance policies, etc. Also, the amounts awarded were lower, quite understandably, for the deaths of children, adults with relatively low incomes, adults without dependants, and the elderly, since the largest portion of the total payouts were amounts to compensate for loss of future income. It's been quite a while since I last read many of them, but if memory serves, the lawsuits regarding the deaths of family members were generally brought by those who lost family members who were either children, adults with relatively low incomes, adults without dependants, and adults with exceptionally high incomes and large life insurance policies that they didn't want to have to offset against any recovery they received from the Fund. (Typically, in litigation, there is no offset against awards of damages for life insurance proceeds, so the offset could be a huge economic factor for claimants in the latter category particularly - if you check out the final report of the Fund - see below - there was one case in which the payout to a claimant was offset by almost $10 million in collateral benefits) I don't know off the top of my head which three plaintiffs are the last of the remaining plaintiffs, but I know I have docs from PACER from back when there were still ~10 left and 21 MC 97 was closed and the remaining few were transferred to 21 MC 101, and I know I have a list of those plaintiffs, so if I find that, I will try to take a look at PACER over the weekend to scope out which 3 are left, if I get the opportunity. Here is the final report on the Compensation Fund by Kenneth Feinberg. It's fairly comprehensive in terms of claims, payouts, denials/fraudulent claims, setoffs, etc. Skip down to around page 96 of the report proper (page 102 of the document as a whole) for the tables outlining the number and types of claims, the payouts, the averages, the offsets, etc. The total payout would have been almost $10 billion if it weren't for offsets of nearly $3 billion.

6th March 2009, 08:37 PM	#16
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,174	Originally Posted by Dog Town -How does one type the trademark logo? I use ALT 0153 to get Goddess of Legaltainment™ /OT

7th March 2009, 01:54 AM	#17
chillzero Domestic Godless Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Top of the world, ma! Posts: 15,226	Thank you LashL. I can't imagine how anyone even begins to sit and work out a money figure to accept as compensation for the loss of any loved one.

7th March 2009, 02:59 AM	#18
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,668	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 The fact that all but three took the money just further exposes the "truther" lie that the victims and their families believe in the conspiracy nonsense. How?
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

7th March 2009, 04:19 AM	#19
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by chillzero Is there any reason given, or any significance to the three that have not been settled? Originally Posted by New York Daily News Among those refusing the payouts is the family of Sara Low, 28, a flight attendant aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first to hit the towers. Low's father, Mike Low, is just as committed to going to trial now as he was in 2003. "Our intent at that time was to see some accountability for the failures and ineptitudes that led to 9/11," said Low, who runs an Arkansas limestone quarry. "I just want to see some light shined on the actions and inactions of the day. I owe it to my daughter." Were it not for the suit, Low said he would not have learned about his daughter's heroic efforts to thwart the attacks. Linky: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009...uits_to_t.html
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky Last edited by Alt+F4; 7th March 2009 at 04:20 AM.

7th March 2009, 04:20 AM	#20
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by JihadJane How? If you believed the government was behind the murder of your loved one would you have taken the money?
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

7th March 2009, 04:27 AM	#21
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by LashL Most likely, it is because they are unhappy with the dollar figures that they are being offered. I don't think so. The victims in these last three cases are Sara Low, a Flight Attendent on AA 11, Mark Bavis, a passenger on UA 175 and Barbara Keating, a passenger on AA 11. Low and Bavis were young and unmarried, Keating was 72. It appears that no one was dealing with financial loss as a result of their deaths. I think it's about accountability regarding the airlines, not money.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

7th March 2009, 07:00 PM	#22
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 I think it's about accountability regarding the airlines, not money. Quote: She said she pursued the suit in part for "moral reasons of corporate responsibility and a desire that U.S. taxpayers not be required to pay for my family's loss," adding that she has been satisfied by the outcome There is this, but... Quote: Even with her lawyers' 25 percent fee, she wrote, she is still getting about $1.75 million more than she would have had she followed the mediator's recommendation. You decide! http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Sept.11....2.789329.html
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09

7th March 2009, 08:19 PM	#23
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,174	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 I don't think so. The victims in these last three cases are Sara Low, a Flight Attendent on AA 11, Mark Bavis, a passenger on UA 175 and Barbara Keating, a passenger on AA 11. Low and Bavis were young and unmarried, Keating was 72. It appears that no one was dealing with financial loss as a result of their deaths. I think you misunderstood the point: Quote: Also, the amounts awarded [from the Compensation Fund] were lower, quite understandably, for the deaths of children, adults with relatively low incomes, adults without dependants, and the elderly, since the largest portion of the total payouts were amounts to compensate for loss of future income. This was, objectively, a rational basis upon which those who fell into these particular categories would choose to sue, as compared to those who fell into other categories that garnered them larger payouts from the Fund. It makes sense that those in certain categories would choose litigation over the Fund, as litigation was likely to lead to higher payouts than the Fund for those in the categories for which payouts were capped and otherwise limited by the terms of the Fund. Originally Posted by Alt+F4 I think it's about accountability regarding the airlines, not money. I can believe that accountability was part of it, especially initially, but I've been working in the judicial system for far too long to think that money does not feature prominently in the decision to continue the litigation in the present circumstances. Also, I will be very surprised if these last three cases do not settle without going to trial.

7th March 2009, 08:34 PM	#24
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by LashL I think you misunderstood the point: This was, objectively, a rational basis upon which those who fell into these particular categories would choose to sue, as compared to those who fell into other categories that garnered them larger payouts from the Fund. It makes sense that those in certain categories would choose litigation over the Fund, as litigation was likely to lead to higher payouts than the Fund for those in the categories for which payouts were capped and otherwise limited by the terms of the Fund. I can believe that accountability was part of it, especially initially, but I've been working in the judicial system for far too long to think that money does not feature prominently in the decision to continue the litigation in the present circumstances. Also, I will be very surprised if these last three cases do not settle without going to trial. Good points. It's been awhile so I had forgotten how the fund had categorized the victims.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

8th March 2009, 06:47 AM	#25
JihadJane Penultimate Satisfaction Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 42,668	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 If you believed the government was behind the murder of your loved one would you have taken the money? If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route. What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw?
	__________________ THE END of the recession IS NIGH

8th March 2009, 10:03 AM	#26
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,770	Originally Posted by JihadJane If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route. What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw? Which second route? As far as I know everyone took the money except for these three families.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

8th March 2009, 09:20 PM	#27
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	Originally Posted by JihadJane What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw? WoW! It is twooo! You can't read!
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09 Last edited by Dog Town; 8th March 2009 at 09:26 PM.

8th March 2009, 09:26 PM	#28
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,174	Originally Posted by JihadJane What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw? Well, let's see: 2880 death claims and 2680 injury claims paid out by the Fund, plus 95 lawsuits = a total of 5655 claims, of which 3 claims remain 3/5655 = 0.0005305 or 0.05305% If I'm doing the math correctly, it appears that 99.94695% have "taken the money" so far.
	Last edited by LashL; 8th March 2009 at 09:28 PM.

8th March 2009, 11:41 PM	#29
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,338	Originally Posted by JihadJane If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route. What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw? Originally Posted by LashL Well, let's see: 2880 death claims and 2680 injury claims paid out by the Fund, plus 95 lawsuits = a total of 5655 claims, of which 3 claims remain 3/5655 = 0.0005305 or 0.05305% If I'm doing the math correctly, it appears that 99.94695% have "taken the money" so far. I think JihadJane means how many deaths there were other than those paid out by the Fund. There were 2,974 fatalities on 9/11, and 2880 death claims according to LashL. Therefore 96.83% of deaths were paid out by the Fund, or 94 deaths that were not compensated. Feel free to check my maths.
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

9th March 2009, 05:14 PM	#30
Magenta Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Australia Posts: 1,311	Originally Posted by orphia nay I think JihadJane means how many deaths there were other than those paid out by the Fund. There were 2,974 fatalities on 9/11, and 2880 death claims according to LashL. Therefore 96.83% of deaths were paid out by the Fund, or 94 deaths that were not compensated. Feel free to check my maths. Most were compensated by the Fund, some chose litigation, and a very small number made no claim at all. From an interview with Ken Feinberg when he was in Australia last year: Quote: Damien Carrick: Now the families had until 22 December 2003 to sign up to the fund. Ultimately, did most eligible families come on board? Ken Feinberg: Virtually all of them. At the end of the day on December 22nd 2003, we had over 5,300 dead and physically injured in the fund. Out of the entire total only 94 people decided to sue, and that was their right under the fund. My single biggest disappointment however, were the I think seven families who did nothing by the deadline. Nothing. They never entered the fund, they never filed a lawsuit, they allowed the statutory time period to run, and they were so overcome by grief, paralysed, they were unable to file, or do anything. ... [...] Damien Carrick: Attorney Ken Feinberg says the hearings took more than two years to complete. Ultimately, the fund paid out on average $2 milliion to the families of those who died, and $400,000 to those who were physically injured. Almost every claimant received the same amount for pain and suffering. When it came to calculating economic loss, Ken used his discretion. Ken Feinberg: The median award for a death claim was $1.7 milliion. In other words, half the people got more than $1.7 million, and half got less. And if you look at the average award of $2 million and compare it to the median award of $1.7 million, you can see statistically what I did. I exercised my discretion to bring up the amount awarded bus boys, soldiers, cops and firemen, and used my discretion to bring down the amount awarded stockbrokers, bankers and other more wealthy. So that I tried—within the confines of the law however—to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor. Damien Carrick: Can we talk about those who didn't decide to come on board. I think you said initially 90 families decided to sue and the bulk of those involved in litigation have since settled. But are there a few still going on? Ken Feinberg: Yes, there are two, as I understand it, or four, that are still litigating in Federal Court in Manhattan in New York City, arguing that the airlines, the World Trade Center, the aircraft manufacturer, the Port Authority, were all negligent in allowing 9/11 to happen. And they are continuing to litigate, but 90 of them originally of the 94, have settled. Radio National Law Report
	Last edited by Magenta; 9th March 2009 at 05:16 PM.

9th March 2009, 05:44 PM	#31
Bobert Government Loyalist Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Kennesaw GA Posts: 4,146	Originally Posted by JihadJane If the choice was between that and grinding poverty while fighting a monolithic State, I might well do. We have seen what happens to people who take the second route. What percentage of family members have "taken the money", btw? How do you know that they woud have been impoverished? LOL what is stopping someone from taking the money and still speaking out about their belief that the government was behind 9-11?
	__________________ CIT CULT founder Ranke responding to where Flight 77 is"I'm not aware of any "theories" nor am I interested in theorizing about what method was used to murder them ." CIT CULT MEMEMBER ROUNDHEAD Suck on one weenie, you are a weenie sucker for life CIT CULT founder Aldo Marquis :You're going to regret. Don't forget we have your info too pal. Think about your kid and family

9th March 2009, 06:07 PM	#32
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,174	Originally Posted by orphia nay I think JihadJane means how many deaths there were other than those paid out by the Fund. There were 2,974 fatalities on 9/11, and 2880 death claims according to LashL. Therefore 96.83% of deaths were paid out by the Fund, or 94 deaths that were not compensated. Feel free to check my maths. I don't know why JihadJane would be referring to the Fund only since this thread is actually about the lawsuits, although the Compensation Fund is a natural offshoot of that in the circumstances. Your math looks correct to me, but I did actually include the ~95 lawsuits in my math...most of the lawsuits were related to deaths, I believe, although a few were injury claims, but I'm not sure of the exact breakdown. So, it looks like there were a few deaths that nobody made claims on, for whatever reason. (I have no idea why). In any event, all but 3 of the families of the deceased who made any claim at all (i.e. including claims via the Fund and claims via lawsuits) have "taken the money" at this point, regardless of which path they chose. ETA: See Magenta's post regarding a few families not making any claims. (Thanks, Magenta!)
	Last edited by LashL; 9th March 2009 at 06:09 PM.

9th March 2009, 11:14 PM	#33
Orphia Nay Penguilicious Spodmaster. Tagger Join Date: May 2005 Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables). Posts: 28,338	Thanks, Magenta and Lash. Quote: My single biggest disappointment however, were the I think seven families who did nothing by the deadline. Nothing. They never entered the fund, they never filed a lawsuit, they allowed the statutory time period to run, and they were so overcome by grief, paralysed, they were unable to file, or do anything. ...
	__________________ Are you an ex-Truther? Please share your story. ~ The Australasian Skeptics Forum.

12th March 2009, 05:39 PM	#34
Dog Town Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Sunny blue sky, cold water. Posts: 4,461	9/11 Victims Who Sued Got Bigger Payments NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/13/ny...s.html?_r=1&hp Quote: Gillian K. Hadfield, a law professor at the University of Southern California, surveyed about 140 people who had lost a relative and were eligible to file with the fund, as part of a study published last year on how people chose between doing so or suing. Not much new here, but twoofers will love this one. Quote: One widow agonized over whether applying to the fund might do a disservice to her husband and other victims’ families, because suing seemed to be the only way to find out why the attacks happened, said her lawyer, Ralph F. Sbrogna of Worcester, Mass. He said the woman also feared that families who sued might lose and end up with nothing. She ultimately accepted a payment from the fund, he said, “for the sake of her children,” to get whatever she could for their education and future. ETA: This will have'm jumping too... Quote: But Mr. Migliori, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, who is a partner at Motley Rice, disagreed. He said that during the discovery process, the lawsuits had turned up mountains of material that helped explain the security lapses that allowed the attacks to take place. That material remains largely confidential, he said, adding that the plaintiffs in the three unresolved lawsuits are seeking to have it made public as part of any settlement.
	__________________ "Yes. I often wonder why it is that the nutjobs, who clearly think they're among a tiny handful of people who "get it", are wholly incapable of communicating effectively enough so that other people can understand them and "get it", too." Gee Mack, JREF 5/15/09 Last edited by Dog Town; 12th March 2009 at 05:44 PM.

13th March 2009, 07:16 AM	#35
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	Originally Posted by Alt+F4 If you believed the government was behind the murder of your loved one would you have taken the money? Let's not forget this is a discount of what the relative could have to made, so in the long run, they would have more money.
MarkyX Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 2,158	__________________ MarkyX's Haunted Bloghouse - Read my boredom