All but 3 Sept. 11 lawsuits settled

[Alt+F4]

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]

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

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...

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.Lawsuits.2.789329.html

 

[LashL]

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:

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

 

[LashL]

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]

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?

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]

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:

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]

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]

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]

Thanks, Magenta and Lash.

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]

9/11 Victims Who Sued Got Bigger Payments

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

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.

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...

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]

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.