Widow's lawyers hit out at BOV

The Bank of Valletta has once again said that its insurers would only pay Lm25,000 to the widow of a bank messenger shot dead in San Gwann two years ago if the magisterial inquiry concludes that the death was caused by 'third parties with criminal intent against the bank'.

On Wednesday, Mary Ferriggi made a strong appeal to the bank to pay damages due to her and her 14-year-old son in terms of the bank's insurance policy for employees killed on duty.

Dr Jason Azzopardi, who, together with Dr Kris Busietta, are representing Mrs Ferriggi, yesterday hit out at Bank of Valletta, accusing it of "blatant evasion of responsibility".

Alphonse Ferriggi was killed in front of the bank's San Gwann branch on September 18 two years ago as he was about to deposit bank correspondence into a night deposit box just before dawn.

In its reaction, the bank said it appreciated "the indelible trauma the Ferriggi family has passed through as a result of the tragic death of Mr Ferriggi and sympathises fully with the family." For the record, however, the bank wanted to clarify a number of issues.

"The bank has handled and shall continue to handle the matter fairly and in full respect of the law. In this regard, the bank has already paid Mrs Ferriggi the sum of Lm46,036 comprising the sum payable under the Group Life Assurance Cover and the sum payable as compensation for accidents, other than assault occurrences, while on the bank's business duties."

But Dr Azzopardi said the bone of contention had always been the Lm25,000 which the bank still owed to the Ferriggi family.

"The bank did not do the Ferriggi family any favours when it paid the Lm46,000.

"Lm21,000 were paid as a result of the collective agreement which states that in case of death of an employee, the family will be paid four years' salary in one payment. The remaining Lm25,000 is half the sum specified by the life insurance policy which covers all the bank's employees in case an employee is killed on duty. The fact that the bank paid half of the amount due is an acknowledgment that Mr Ferriggi was killed on duty. Mrs Ferriggi and her son are owed Lm25,000 damages and the bank is blatantly refusing to effect the payment."

But the bank is saying that the further payment of Lm25,000 would be payable by its insurers if it resulted that the death arose out of and in the course of employment with the bank as a result of violence by third parties with criminal intent against the bank.

However, the bank is insisting that the obligation to effect such further payment depends entirely on the outcome of the magisterial inquiry, which is under way, and over which neither the bank nor its insurers had control.

"In this respect, the bank's insurers offered to place the Lm25,000 in a fixed deposit account in the name of the insurers, so that once the magisterial inquiry is concluded and, if it is decided that the claim is valid and should be paid, the insurers will pay Lm25,000 and all accrued interest (less withholding tax). However, Mrs Ferriggi's legal advisers refused this offer.

"Mrs Ferriggi can rest assured that if the bank's insurers, following the magisterial inquiry, do effect such further payment to the bank, it would immediately pass on such payment to Mrs Ferriggi."

But Dr Azzopardi said the bank's reaction was totally unacceptable. He said they were the ones who originally made the offer to the bank for the sum to be placed in a fixed deposit account in the name of the insurers for 18 months, after which the money would be passed on to the Ferriggi family if the inquiry was not concluded by then.

But their offer had been turned down, with the bank insisting they would not be bound by any timeframe and that the money would be passed to the family only when the inquiry was concluded.

"This is totally unacceptable. We want a timeframe. What will happen if the magisterial inquiry takes 20 years to be concluded? What will happen if the inquiry is never concluded?"

Dr Azzopardi said the inquiry had nothing to do with the damages owed to the Ferriggi family. "To be frank, the fact that there is or there is not a magisterial inquiry is irrelevant and immaterial. The inquiry is carried out for criminal reasons. Our case is completely civil. In my opinion the bank is using this argument to evade civil responsibility they have towards the Ferriggi family. We shall be making this argument in court if they keep on insisting."