Subscribe Subscribe   Find us on Twitter Follow POL on Twitter  



9/11 fund bad, suing good, cont'd

Regarding our Sept. 30 item on the 9/11 fund, our original correspondent writes back to say:

Actually, the victim compensation fund was probably good from a "bipartisan" perspective, because it's not as if the plaintiffs' bar is unreservedly in favor of litigation when it is unlikely that available insurance coverage will suffice to fund even reasonably generous settlement offers. I heard at the time (although I certainly can't vouch for the truth of the claim) that no one in the subset of the plaintiffs' bar that focuses on airplane crashes could remember an aviation disaster involving a U.S. airline which was not resolved well within policy limits. In his critique, Henderson does not mention that the primary (sole?) purpose of the hastily-enacted legislation was to keep the airlines out of Chapter 11. (For a little while longer, at least! Even assuming that event to be inevitable, Chapter 11s where the liabilities are not hotly disputed or contingent are much easier to sort out.) Since the airline-protection motivation has been buried in subsequent public hoopla, however, the bad precedent point does have significant force.



Rafael Mangual
Project Manager,
Legal Policy

Manhattan Institute


Published by the Manhattan Institute

The Manhattan Insitute's Center for Legal Policy.