Does anyone know whether survivors or the families
of victims were compensated by White Star?
If memory serves me correctly, yes. But only a small amount. I remember
reading what the total amount was but can't put my finger on it.
PF
After investigation USDC/Southern District concluded an appraisal and
stated the value of the Titanic and her pending freight was
$94,581.90. Claims of approximately $16,000.00 were filed including
some very interesting claims for dogs, oil paintings bagpipes and a
marmalade machine.
Anyway, the Southern District of the USDC had to check out all the
claims, verify them and decide what payment could be made from the
$94,000.00 figure <based on salvage figures>. Ads were placed in
newspapers to alert potential claimants and a filing by date
established <14 January 1913>. On 22 February 1913 the USDC made a
decision to allow claimants to file suit in that court against the
objections of the WSL's attorneys. Much fuss and bother
resulted...much legal maneouvering.
Utilmately the claims were divided into 4 parts:
Loss of Life = $35,376.00
Loss of Property=$6,743.00
Loss of Life & Property=$40,601.00
Injury & Loss of Property=$10,843.00
Many hearings ensued.
Under US Law, the owners' liability would be limited to salvage value
<eg. $97,000.00> but it was ruled that British law "applied to the
total limit of claims...." in the amount of $16,804.112.00. Ultimately
a decree was signed ending all Titanic claims and the amount
distributed amongst all plaintiffs/claimants was $663,000.00.
The book really does a better job of explaining than have I. :-)
Shai
Hop Bailey wrote in message <6gld86$r6g$1...@news.ccit.arizona.edu>...
:
:Does anyone know whether survivors or the families
:
> The book really does a better job of explaining than have I. :-)
I'm impressed!
----------> AH
Shai
Andrew and Rebecca Hall wrote in message
<352E89...@phoenix.net>...
:
:
>Shailagh Collins wrote:
>>The book really does a better job of explaining than have I. :-)
>I'm impressed!
So am I. I added Shai's post to my Titanic archives.
It should also be mentioned that many of the passengers, especially those
in first class, had their own private insurance coverage as well.
-----
Eric Smith | "They were like travellers unwillingly
erics @netcom .com | returned from brilliant realms, not yet
http://www.catsdogs.com | adjusted to their return." - Olivia Manning
This was posted with an altered address to thwart bulk email programs.
To respond by email, take out the ".remove.this" part.
Shai
>Thank you for your kind words, Eric.
You're welcome.
>It was fascinating to learn what the passengers were toting with them.
Someone posted a couple months ago that there were also these claims:
$5,000 for Mr. Carter's Renault automobile, $750 for Mr. Daniel's champion
French bulldog, and $207.87 for four roosters and chickens owned by Ella
Holmes White!
Eric Smith wrote in message ...
:
:Someone posted a couple months ago that there were also these claims:
:
:$5,000 for Mr. Carter's Renault automobile, $750 for Mr. Daniel's
champion
:French bulldog, and $207.87 for four roosters and chickens owned by
Ella
:Holmes White!
Yes, I see those as well as the Margaret Brown claim of "3 crates of
ancient models for the Denver Museum" and Annie May Stengel's claim
for "Copy of 'Science And Health". Interesting list here.
Still tryin' to find info on a "marmalade machine" though. :-)
Shai
According to "Titanic, Triumph & Tragedy", Haas & Eaton..chapter 19,
page 278:
William Carter: 1 Renault 25hp automobile, $5000.00 along with 2 dogs
one valued at $100.00 and one at $200.00.
I hope that helps.
Shai
Rene Bostelaar wrote in message
<6gmfft$d...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
:
:Eric Smith (er...@netcom.remove.this.com) writes:
:> Someone posted a couple months ago that there were also these
claims:
:>
:> $5,000 for Mr. Carter's Renault automobile, $750 for Mr. Daniel's
champion
:> French bulldog, and $207.87 for four roosters and chickens owned by
Ella
:> Holmes White!
:
:I could have sworn I saw somewhere that the Renault was claimed for
:10,000. Or maybe it's 5,000 dollars and 10,000 british pounds.
:
:I quickly looked in my two walter lord books, and two of ballard's
:(exploring and discovery), but I couldn't find it. Anybody else know
for sure?
:
:Ren
:
:
:--
:| ad888a "888888b, d8b "888b ,888" | Does it diminish your
super-
:| `"Yaa88a 888ad8P'dPaaY8b 88èY88P888 | capacity to love?
:| a, Y88 888 dP Y8b 88 YP 888 | Does it exhibit your
natural
:| `"8ad8P'd888b d88b d888bd88b d888b | tendency to
ate? -Flemenco
Eric Smith (er...@netcom.remove.this.com) writes:
> Someone posted a couple months ago that there were also these claims:
>
> $5,000 for Mr. Carter's Renault automobile, $750 for Mr. Daniel's champion
> French bulldog, and $207.87 for four roosters and chickens owned by Ella
> Holmes White!
I could have sworn I saw somewhere that the Renault was claimed for
10,000. Or maybe it's 5,000 dollars and 10,000 british pounds.
I quickly looked in my two walter lord books, and two of ballard's
(exploring and discovery), but I couldn't find it. Anybody else know for sure?
Ren
--
| ad888a "888888b, d8b "888b ,888" | Does it diminish your super-
| `"Yaa88a 888ad8P'dPaaY8b 88čY88P888 | capacity to love?
| a, Y88 888 dP Y8b 88 YP 888 | Does it exhibit your natural
| `"8ad8P'd888b d88b d888bd88b d888b | tendency to hate? -Flemenco
Lord says that a Mary McGovern added "$20 to her claim for time spent
listening to highly technical arguments in court." :)
- Andrys
--
===========================================================
Andrys Basten <and...@netcom.com>
CNE, Basten Micro Consulting
San Francisco/East Bay - 510/235-3861
Have music, will travel: piano, harpsichord, recorders
http://www.andrys.com -Online resources
http://www.andrys.com/indox.html -Peru photos w/Canon Elph
Shailagh
Andrys D Basten wrote in message ...
:In article <ericsEr...@netcom.com>,
[.]
:Lord says that a Mary McGovern added "$20 to her claim for time spent
Have fun.
SBonham wrote in message
<199804241854...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
|Yet some people were not allowed to insure their belongings. They
were told
|that the ship was unsinkable and told there was no reason for
insurance.
Most interesting. Can you cite, please, where you obtained this
information? I would love to read more about it. From all the reading
I've done the media was the entity that claimed Titanic was
"unsinkable" not the WSL.
|Can
|you imagine. I'm doing a quantitative perspective for college and
have found
|only 8 to 12 lawsuits on the net and in books. The bulk of the
lawsuit is
|sitting in 15 boxes at the National Archives in New York. Hopefully
this summer
|I will be spending quite a few days there organizing a larger
database for my
|Senior thesis.
You might want to have a read of Eaton & Haas' "Titanic, Triumph &
Tragedy" chapter 19, entitled "Limitation of Liability" .
Good luck.
S.
>Yet some people were not allowed to insure their belongings. They were told
>that the ship was unsinkable and told there was no reason for insurance. Can
>you imagine. I'm doing a quantitative perspective for college and have found
>only 8 to 12 lawsuits on the net and in books. The bulk of the lawsuit is
>sitting in 15 boxes at the National Archives in New York. Hopefully this summer
>I will be spending quite a few days there organizing a larger database for my
>Senior thesis.
Please share your discoveries, or let us know how we can obtain your
thesis when it's finished!
>SBonham wrote
>>Yet some people were not allowed to insure their belongings. They were told
>>that the ship was unsinkable and told there was no reason for insurance.
>Most interesting. Can you cite, please, where you obtained this
>information? I would love to read more about it. From all the reading
>I've done the media was the entity that claimed Titanic was
>"unsinkable" not the WSL.
Hmm, I didn't take the original message to mean that it was White Star
that was refusing the insurance. (However, White Star did say in a brochure,
referring to both the Olympic and Titanic, "as far as it is possible to
do so, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.")
However, when you think about it, whoever the insuring agency was, why
would they refuse insurance because the ship was thought to be unsinkable?
Wouldn't it make sense that insurance would be refused only if there was
a high probability of loss, not a low probability?
Eric Smith wrote in message ...
|"Shailagh Collins" <shai...@NOSPAMprivatei.com> writes:
[.]
|Hmm, I didn't take the original message to mean that it was White
Star
|that was refusing the insurance. (However, White Star did say in a
brochure,
|referring to both the Olympic and Titanic, "as far as it is possible
to
|do so, these two wonderful vessels are designed to be unsinkable.")
Whoops. <g> Oh well, I did. Guess we'll have to see what the poster
meant.
|However, when you think about it, whoever the insuring agency was,
why
|would they refuse insurance because the ship was thought to be
unsinkable?
|Wouldn't it make sense that insurance would be refused only if there
was
|a high probability of loss, not a low probability?
I'm with you 100% on this. That's why I was curious to see the cites
on this one. I'm really hoping to find a new source to read!
Shailagh
> However, when you think about it, whoever the insuring agency was, why
> would they refuse insurance because the ship was thought to be unsinkable?
> Wouldn't it make sense that insurance would be refused only if there was
> a high probability of loss, not a low probability?
You'd think. Insurance companies live for low-risk clients.
--
Adam Bailey | Chicago, Illinois
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-| "Do not take life too seriously;
ad...@tezcat.com | you will never get out of it alive."
ada...@aol.com | - Elbert Hubbard
Finger for PGP | http://www.tezcat.com/~adamb