Walmart: "Worst company in the world"

But I thought you were a Ron Paul supporter and therefore a strong supporter of a lassiez faire economy.....
 
If Walmart's position is so wrong, then why did they win at trial, and on appeal, and then the SCC refuse to hear the case?

Probably because the contract is not as unfair as it is portrayed. Her insurance paid for her bills, with the proviso that if she recovered some of that back, the insurance could recover that money as well. Given that she didn't pay for the medical bills up front, allowing her to keep money for those bills would be unfair.

To put it in a less charged example, if someone did $10,000 worth of damage to your car, should you be able to collect $10,000 from your insurance and from the guy who did the damage?
 
Just as an aside, legal aid in the UK requires you to pay back some of the money if you manage to recover sufficient damages from the party sued.
 
There's a good thread about this at TOP if anyone's interested.
 
Thanz said:
If Walmart's position is so wrong, then why did they win at trial, and on appeal, and then the SCC refuse to hear the case?

Probably because the contract is not as unfair as it is portrayed. Her insurance paid for her bills, with the proviso that if she recovered some of that back, the insurance could recover that money as well. Given that she didn't pay for the medical bills up front, allowing her to keep money for those bills would be unfair.

To put it in a less charged example, if someone did $10,000 worth of damage to your car, should you be able to collect $10,000 from your insurance and from the guy who did the damage?
Click to expand...


Well, it was completely legal for Walmart to do so - thanks to the fine print within the contract with her.

But the point is that kicking a disabled Woman and her Family [who also lost a son fighting in Iraq] is more than just disgusting for a company that earns Billions in profits.
 
The purpose of insurance is not to enrich anybody. The point of it is to restore you to where you were or would have been had something bad not happened. Hence, medical insurance will pay for your cancer treatment, but it will not pay for your cancer treatment and your plastic surgery and your liposuction so that you may appear as a supermodel. If your house burns down insurance will pay you what it was worth, not buy you a mansion next to Barbra Streisand's. You are not supposed to wind up better off than you were before.
 
Indeed - and I can't speak for the US here - you need to look up the legal concept of "betterment" in relation to insurance.
 
Oliver said:
But the point is that kicking a disabled Woman and her Family [who also lost a son fighting in Iraq]
Click to expand...
Did Wal-mart kill her son?
...is more than just disgusting for a company that earns Billions in profits.
Click to expand...

You know, Wal-mart certainly does earn billions in profits. But, it also SELLS billions of dollars in merchadise, runs, thousands of stores, and employees 10s of thousands of people. There profit margin isn't as big as you think it is.

For example, in the summer of 2002, they had a profit margin of 3.4%. This is roughly half the profit margin of other companies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2190877.stm
 
It likely wasn't Wal-Mart doing the bad stuff, but their insurance carrier (or likely, Administrator--Cigna, BC/BS, Aetna).
But its easy to blame the company...
 
Oliver said:
Well, it was completely legal for Walmart to do so - thanks to the fine print within the contract with her.

But the point is that kicking a disabled Woman and her Family [who also lost a son fighting in Iraq] is more than just disgusting for a company that earns Billions in profits.
Click to expand...

Ah, the old 'fine print' defense. Why, whoever could be expected to read the words on a legal document that you are signing? Especially if the font is tiny. Its just another case of a big old evil corporation pulling the wool over the eyes of a good, law-abiding citizen.

Why do you hate small font?
 
The greater fault lies in the jury which set the award, and exhorbatant attorney fees. Although juries are not permitted to calculate the attorney fees into their awards, the jury should take into account the cost already spent in medical care. Her "actual" award was $510000. Any juror with an ounce of general sense should know that her medical costs, when paid by a 3d party, will be taken from the award. If they intended to award her $1mil for continuing care and damages, they should have awarded her $1.490 mil. ($490k in previous medical expenses, $1 mil (not specified how divided for Pain & Suffering and for continuing medical expenses)) for damage and continuing care. After the legal sharks got their cut, she would have a residual necessary for continuing care.
 
Oliver said:
But the point is that kicking a disabled Woman and her Family [who also lost a son fighting in Iraq] is more than just disgusting for a company that earns Billions in profits.
Click to expand...

That's the wonder and glory of capitalism, isn't it? :rolleyes:
 
rwguinn said:
It likely wasn't Wal-Mart doing the bad stuff, but their insurance carrier (or likely, Administrator--Cigna, BC/BS, Aetna).
But its easy to blame the company...
Click to expand...
I believe Wal-Mart is self-insured.
 
WildCat said:
I believe Wal-Mart is self-insured.
Click to expand...
So is Lockheed--and the insurance is administered by companies that do that for a living.
I just assumed that a savvy company like Wal-Mart would hire people who are experts in the field to do it for them, even though they are self-insured...
 
The lawyers are the ones who are really fleecing this woman.

Shank and her husband, Jim, were awarded about $1 million in a lawsuit against the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees were paid, $417,000 was placed in a trust to pay for Debbie Shank's long-term care.
Wal-Mart had paid out about $470,000 for Shank's medical expenses and later sued for the same amount. However, the court ruled it can only recoup what is left in the family's trust.
Click to expand...

It seems that they have only enriched themselves while the woman and her family only
get what they would have gotten anyway from the insurance (or even less?). If they only got $417,000, why did Walmart sue for $470,000?

So anyway, in the moral heirarchy I put the lawyers below Walmart in my book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom