Printer Friendly

A compromise plan.

If the Tom Lantos Justice for Holocaust Survivors legislation, discussed in "Debate of the Moment," is enacted, it will primarily benefit the plaintiffs' lawyers rather than Holocaust survivors or their heirs. The pattern in Holocaust-era litigations has been that lawyers collect millions while survivors receive at most a few thousand dollars each. In 2005, for example, a federal judge in Florida awarded the law firm of legislation supporter Sam Dubbin more than $1 million in fees and expenses out of the $25.5 million "Gold Train" settlement of a litigation for the looting by U.S. Army personnel of property belonging to Hungarian Jews. At the same time, 34 named plaintiffs received "incentive" payments of $2,000 or $5,000 apiece. A year earlier, U.S. District Judge Edward Korman had rejected Mr. Dubbin's application for legal fees in another litigation as "outlandish." Dubbin is hardly the most egregious among these lawyers. In 2001, lawyers pocketed more than $59 million in legal fees from the multibillion-dollar slave and forced-labor settlement with German corporations. The surviving slave laborers themselves--mostly Jews and Sinti-Roma--received about $7,500 each, while forced laborers--primarily Eastern Europeans forced to work in Nazi war factories--received approximately $2,500 apiece.

More importantly, survivors with Holocaust-era insurance claims do not generally know which insurance company may have issued a policy to a family member and/or do not have other specific information regarding such a policy. Under the relaxed standards applied by the International Commission on Holocaust Era Insurance Claims (ICHEIC), individuals were able to file claims without documentation. If lawyers are now telling these survivors or their heirs that they can be successful without any proof of their claims, such advice is, to put it mildly, unduly optimistic.

This is why I proposed a compromise solution earlier this year on behalf of the World Jewish Congress and the American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants. After ICHEIC was formally dissolved in March 2007, the German insurance companies agreed to continue processing Holocaust-era claims. I suggested, therefore, that these insurance companies should now be asked to agree to an independent monitor, a person who would determine whether all potentially valid but as yet unresolved Holocaust-era claims are being honestly processed under the relaxed ICHEIC standards.

Under this proposal, the monitor, who should have the confidence of Congress and the survivor community, would examine any alleged problems with claims in process--those that may have fallen between the cracks, remaining claims that cannot meet the ICHEIC standards, as well as any claims that ICHEIC supposedly disposed of in violation of its own rules. The monitor should report to Congress periodically on the status of all open or disputed claims. If the insurance companies were to reject such a compromise, or if the monitor were to find one or more of these companies to be recalcitrant, congressional legislation allowing survivors or their heirs to sue the insurance companies in U.S. courts could then loom as a final remedy.

Menachem Z. Rosensaft

General Counsel, World Jewish Congress Vice President, American Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Their Descendants New York, NY
COPYRIGHT 2012 Moment Magazine
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2012 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:The Insurance Debate
Author:Rosensaft, Menachem Z.
Publication:Moment
Article Type:Letter to the editor
Date:Nov 1, 2012
Words:520
Previous Article:The origins of federalism.
Next Article:What makes someone a Jew?
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters