Something to ponder (re: 9/11 victims)

[Buccaneer]

From CNN Report: 9/11 compensation totals $38.1 billion WASHINGTON (AP) -- Victims of the September 11 attacks received $38.1 billion in compensation, with insurance companies picking up the largest portion of the tab, according to a study released Monday. The report by Rand Institute for Social Justice found that civilians killed or injured have received an average of $3.1 million per person from the government, charities and insurance companies, or $8.7 billion in total. Emergency personnel killed or injured were given a total of about $1.9 billion. First responders received an average of $1.1 million more than civilians with similar economic losses, the study found. Most of the extra money came from charities. Insurers paid 51 percent of the overall total, or about $19.6 billion. The government distributed $15.8 billion, or 42 percent, and charities paid $2.7 billion, or 7 percent. The majority of the money went to New York City businesses, which received $23.3 billion, according to Rand. Three out of every four dollars that went to businesses came from insurance companies. In such a large-scale disaster, even the secondary assistance added up to billions of dollars in compensation. About $3.5 billion was paid to displaced residents, workers who lost their jobs, and those who suffered emotional problems or were exposed to environmental dangers. Lloyd Dixon, who co-authored the study, said the results raise questions about the future role of insurance companies in the response to any attack. "It points out the hole that would be created if we don't have terrorism insurance," Dixon said. "What if the insurers weren't there the next time?" A federal guarantee protecting companies against major financial losses in the event of another attack is set to expire at the end of 2005, and some in Congress are pressing for an extension now to keep premiums down. Dixon also said that one of the defining features of the response to the September 11 attacks is the relative lack of litigation, which has yet to account for a significant portion of the compensation. The report notes that some lawsuits are pending from individuals and companies, the outcomes of which will change final compensation figures. One such case is the ongoing court battle between World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein and his insurers. Researchers did not include the billions in federal dollars allotted for rebuilding lower Manhattan's infrastructure because their study focused on payments made to people or companies. I had two reactions: 1. There were/are probably a lot of lawyers getting rich off of this. 2. There is something unfair about this distribution but I cannot articulate it.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Your cynicism about lawyers is misplaced in this case. While I'm sure there are a few cases where lawyers have made money (but probably only cases like Silverstein where the litigation is over double indemnity), I think you underestimate the legal community. All the representation of 9/11 victims that I know of was pro bono. My old firm did more than any firm in the city (I think) and there were thousands of total hours put in. Personally, I only worked on one matter (largely because I was too busy doing other pro bono work), but I know many people that took 3 or 4 cases themselves.

[Draft Dodger]

do you agree about #2, though? because I find myself leaning in that direction.

[gottimd]

Having lost someone in the WTC, I am unsure of why you say it is unfair? Unless you mean putting a value on someones life?

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by Draft Dodger

do you agree about #2, though? because I find myself leaning in that direction.

I'm not sure what seems unfair (although I'm not closed to the idea that it is unfair). I realize that property damage was the highest cost associated with 9/11. That may seem a little crazy to some people, but in the NYC real estate market, that is just reality.

[gottimd]

Yes, property damage may have been a huge tangible loss but you cant compare a building that can be rebuilt, or an areas economy that can be revived to the loss of life sustained in the tragedy and the many families pain and suffering it caused. I am sure those families would rather have their loved ones back than all the money in the world.

[Craptacular]

I don't want to turn this into a big argument, or seem insensitive, but I agree that $3.1 million on average seems a bit much. No, you can never place a value on a human life. However, a family could live quite comfortably on just the interest from $3.1 million, without ever having to work. Would I want to be in their shoes and have lost a loved one? Hell no. But I can see why it might raise a few eyebrows.

[Draft Dodger]

Originally Posted by Craptacular

I don't want to turn this into a big argument, or seem insensitive, but I agree that $3.1 million on average seems a bit much. No, you can never place a value on a human life. However, a family could live quite comfortably on just the interest from $3.1 million, without ever having to work. Would I want to be in their shoes and have lost a loved one? Hell no. But I can see why it might raise a few eyebrows.

I guess that's kind of where I lean as well. Certainly if I died tomorrow, my family isn't going to see anywhere near this type of money. That sounds like jealousy, or insensivity to the horror of the tragedy...but people die in horrible ways every day, and (normally) their families don't become multimillionaires out of it.

honestly, I can't believe I just typed that, but I guess that's the thought I'm having.

[Buccaneer]

Or if you have died in a Florida hurricane or a California earthquake or a Colorado avalanche or a Missouri flood ....

Galt, my cynicism was misplaced.

[GoldenEagle]

It seemes corporations are getting most of the money and not individuals.

[Buccaneer]

I'm not thinking properly on this and I just don't know what's causing my conundrum.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Or if you have died in a Florida hurricane or a California earthquake or a Colorado avalanche or a Missouri flood ....

Galt, my cynicism was misplaced.

I agree with you Bucc- it sets a precedence, as if some deaths are more important than others.

[Glengoyne]

The survivors of Oklahoma City Bombing victims have weighed in on this issue in the past. They didn't receive any sort of settlement from the Government for their loss.

The difference, is not that one death or life is worth more or more important than others. The difference, as I understand it, is that this system was put in place in lieu of these individuals suing the Companies their loved ones worked for, the City of New York, the Port Authority, the Airlines, the Airports, and everyone's insurance company. In short these people, or some of them, were going to be cashing in on this through law suits. The costs of litigating those suits, and paying the settlements would have been enough to ruin a number of the Businesses involved. This system was put in place to prevent or actually minimize those lawsuits. Almost all of the vicitm's families opted for this settlement route over litigation.

[kcchief19]

I don't know if "unfair" is the word I would choose, because no amount of money will ever rebuild the lives of people with a family member killed at the WTC.

But I admit that I don't understand why some lives are more valuable than others. The families of vicitims in Oklahoma City or soliders in Iraq did not and will not receive any where close to this amount of money. And certainly some of that is due to the charitable contributions, which I admit that I also don't understand. Why do people give money to victims of 9/11, but don't contribute to victims of other tragedies? I would say that was the magnitude of the tragedy, but I know that's not true -- charities typically raise money in relationship to the media coverage they receive, and no charity garnered more attention than the 9/11 fundraisers.

What probably bothers me the most is the federal contributions. Once again, I'm not sure why victims of the WTC are more "deserving" than victims of other tragedies, terror attacks or wars, other than it was the "politcally correct" thing to do.

Regardless, while I certainly support government expenditures on economic development, there is the laissez-faire economist in me that says that insurance, private investment and charity should have taken a larger role and goverment spending should have taken a smaller role.

[John Galt]

I know it probably upsets lots of people, but an inevitably of the court system as designed is that there IS a monetary value to human life and certain lives are more valuable than others. In tort cases around the nation, lawyers use other verdicts to reach local area market values for a human life (based on demographic information like age, earning potential, etc.). I've never been a fan of this system, but no one has come up with a better one.

In the 9/11 cases, the proceedings were very unusual and probably won't be repeated. The fact is that the organization had a lot of money to give out and I think the special apppointed judges did their best to allocate it fairly. There is no clear cut formula and it is not that the people in NYC were more deserving, just that in these cases, the money existed to compensate the victims (when normally there is no money to go around).

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Let me address at least part of this.

As far as the Government distributions in the trust fund, there's one attorney - Kenny Feinberg - who is the final say-so in the matter. He's out of Washington DC and his office hears the claims, the tales, etc. and makes the decision. I know this because he went to elementary - High School with my father.

[Anthony]

once everyone realizes that people from NYC are more valuable than non-New Yorkers, it doesn't seem that bad.