Walmart: "Worst company in the world"

[uruk]

I just found the links to the articles in the OP.

Two things I noticed. The Wal-mart rep. said that it recognized that the the woman's case is "her circumstances are clearly extraordinary". They admit that her case is exceptional.

Thier contract says that Wal-mart "has the right" to sue to recover losses. That suggest that they can also choose not to exercise that right.

They could have opted to forego thier right to sue due to extenuating circumstances and still be fair to thier constituants.

The other thing is $580,000 in legal expenses!

I said it before, and I'll say it again. Lawyers are *&*^%$%$^&!!!!!!!!!!

There is no way in hell a lawyer's fee should go anywhere abouve 50% of the settelment.

More than 50% and you are defeating the purpose of the settelment.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I pay my insurance company every month. If I’m ever late I get threatening letters from the insurance company to pay up. So I get hurt and qualify to be paid by my insurance company because I was paying for their service. The insurance company pays off. That is the end of the transaction. I paid for a service, they provided a service. We are done, bye see you.

Maybe you need to read your insurance policy. What they cover you for is the loss that you suffer. If you suffer no loss, you do not qualify to get paid.

I haven't seen the video (can't access from here) but it seems that what happened here is that the woman had insurance for any medical costs that she was required to pay. Her insurance policy paid out for these until she won her settlement. Having won her settlement, she has not been required to pay any medical expenses, so she must repay the amount she has already received for these form her insurer.

What you are asking for is a service that the insurance company did NOT agree to provide, i.e. to pay an amount equal to the medical expenses that SOMEBODY ELSE is required to pay for her.

I’m surprised the Libertarians are not up in arms over this intrusion into a citizen’s privacy or do they only care about government intrusions? It’s none of the insurance companies business what happens after they pay off unless some fraud occurred.

What intrusion? She chose to enter into a contract which gave both parties certain rights. Where is the Libertarian angle?

So if they can take back any settlement a person may receive, why do you have to pay every month? They got paid twice for this plus they get to intrude on your privacy, which could then be used against you in the future.

Because they take the risk that you get ill/injured and there is nobody to blame, or there is somebody to blame but they have no assets. That is the risk you pass on. That is what you pay for. And you get it.

So in the future we'll pay for a policy every month, get paid if we need it, and then have to pay the insurance company back. What a great system if your an insurance company (no risk insurance)!

Are they going to at least refund what she paid for the policy since they never provided her any insurance?

They provided the insurance she paid for. You want them to provide insurance she did not pay for.

 

[WildCat]

The Other Place? Skepticalcommunity?

Yes.

 

[aggle-rithm]

I pay my insurance company every month. If I’m ever late I get threatening letters from the insurance company to pay up. So I get hurt and qualify to be paid by my insurance company because I was paying for their service. The insurance company pays off. That is the end of the transaction. I paid for a service, they provided a service. We are done, bye see you.

Wait until you get hurt, and see if it's really that easy.

My mother-in-law bought mortgage insurance on her house a few years ago when her sister moved in with her. If she died, the insurance would pay off the house so that her sister wouldn't be out on the street.

Two years later, she suffered a heart attack and died unexpectedly. You would expect the insurance benefit to be easy to collect, right?

Wrong. The insurance company would not pay until they did a thorough investigation as to how healthy she was when she bought the insurance. That's right: they decide RETROACTIVELY whether someone is insurable or not, after taking their money for two years. This allowed them to delay payment for six months. Six months is a long time to have to cover mortgage payments when the income is no longer there.

(there was a clause in the policy, probably buried deeply in the legaleze, that they had the right to do this if the person died within two years of purchasing the policy.)

Her sister had bought a special policy sometime before that which paid benefits if she was diagnosed with cancer. She got breast cancer, but it took many months for the insurance company to come up with the promised benefits. Perhaps they were hoping she would put off treatment waiting for the money, and die..?

To insurance companies, it's all about playing the odds. The human element is rarely a factor.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wait people expect me to believe that a walmart employee has insurance?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Wait people expect me to believe that a walmart employee has insurance?

 

[WildCat]

Wait people expect me to believe that a walmart employee has insurance?

Yes, and a Wal-Mart employee is also far more likely to have insurance than an employee of Mom & Pop.

 

[Thanz]

$1,000,000 - $417,000 = $583,000 for her lawyers.

Now how could that be? It looks like it was not a contingency case, in which case they'd have gotten 1/3.

I don't think that the article gives full information on that. It may be misleadingly drafted. Here is the paragraph:

Two years after the accident, 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.

First, "about $1 million". Could have been less than $1 million.

Second, it doesn't state that after legal fees were paid, they only had $417,000 left. It just says that this amount was put into a trust. It is quite conceivable that other money from the settlement was available and used for something other than legal fees or the trust, such as paying down other debts or a mortgage.

I agree that the paragraph leads one to believe that only 417K was left, but I think that is unlikely.

 

[Daylight]

They provided the insurance she paid for. You want them to provide insurance she did not pay for.

No, they sued and got it back. They provided nothing for her monthly payment. And since they sued for more than they paid out she would have been better off not having any insurance.

This case is a great example why the US is going to switch over to Universal Health Care.

 

[WildCat]

This case is a great example why the US is going to switch over to Universal Health Care.

That I can agree with.

eta: I wonder how much of US "health care" costs is really legal expenses?

 

[Puppycow]

That I can agree with.

eta: I wonder how much of US "health care" costs is really legal expenses?

Good point. Even people who hate the idea of socialized medicine should notice that it would put a big dent in the ambulance chasers business. The US has so many lawyers per capita compared to other countries.

 

[rwguinn]

Good point. Even people who hate the idea of socialized medicine should notice that it would put a big dent in the ambulance chasers business. The US has so many lawyers per capita compared to other countries.

I know that one of the reasons my wife left nursing was the cost of malpractice/liability insurance--about 30% of her paycheck as a contract nurse. Hospitals usually pick it up for employees, so they get a better rate, but I don't know the numbers.
Liability/malpractice insurance is a big part of anything involving the public. As a PE, I refuse to stamp anything unless the insurance issue is in writing and paid for--and it ain't cheap!

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

No, they sued and got it back. They provided nothing for her monthly payment.

She got the insurance she paid for. Had she had to pay her medical bills, the insurance would have reimbursed her.

She did not have to pay her medical bills (because she sued the trucking company and THEY paid them), so there is nothing for her insurance to cover.

She was insured against the risk of having, out of her own resources, to pay medical costs. As that did not happen, she was not entitled to anything under her insurance policy.

Thanz explained it in very simple terms earlier:

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?

 

[Daylight]

She got the insurance she paid for. Had she had to pay her medical bills, the insurance would have reimbursed her.

She did not have to pay her medical bills (because she sued the trucking company and THEY paid them), so there is nothing for her insurance to cover.

She was insured against the risk of having, out of her own resources, to pay medical costs. As that did not happen, she was not entitled to anything under her insurance policy.

Thanz explained it in very simple terms earlier:

As I understand it, the trucking company, per the judge, paid for her long term care that was put into a trust fund. WalMart was able to raid this trust fund. As you said, the insurance was to pay for short term care, which they did not provide.

Bottom line, if she had no insurance, she would have been better off.

Also showing Universal Health Care is far superior to this crazyness.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

As I understand it, the trucking company, per the judge, paid for her long term care that was put into a trust fund. WalMart was able to raid this trust fund. As you said, the insurance was to pay for short term care, which they did not provide.

Bottom line, if she had no insurance, she would have been better off.

They provided insurance on the basis that, if the insured received a damages payment, they were entitled to reimbursement of amounts paid.

That is what happened. If she wanted insurance without that condition, she should have bought insurance without that condition.

No idea how you think she would have been better off without insurance.

Also showing Universal Health Care is far superior to this crazyness.

I would agree. But it is not Walmart's fault that there is no Universal Health Care.

 

[rwguinn]

As I understand it, the trucking company, per the judge, paid for her long term care that was put into a trust fund. WalMart was able to raid this trust fund. As you said, the insurance was to pay for short term care, which they did not provide.

Bottom line, if she had no insurance, she would have been better off.

Also showing Universal Health Care is far superior to this crazyness.

How would UHC have been "far superior to this crazyness"?
Her Medical bills got paid--and not out of her pocket.
With some sort UHC, the reimbursement to the Fed (carrier) would have likely come off the top--or she'd possibly not been able to sue in the first place, so she'd still be in the same boat.
A lot of you folks seem to think that all this insurance/lawsuitn stuff is supposed to make you better off financially. It isn't, and won't be.

 

[chulbert]

The sole travesty in this situation is that she wasn't awarded enough to cover her expenses. Everything else, including Walmart's refusal to give her a gift of nearly half a million dollars, is not an issue.

 

[Thanz]

The sole travesty in this situation is that she wasn't awarded enough to cover her expenses. Everything else, including Walmart's refusal to give her a gift of nearly half a million dollars, is not an issue.

According to this link, it was a settlement, and they and their lawyer knew of the clawback clause before they agreed to the settlement.

Wal-Mart paid about $470,000 for Debbie's medical expenses. The Shanks were also awarded about $900,000 in a settlement with the trucking company involved in the crash. After legal fees, $417,000 of that went in a trust to care for Shank's long-term care. Because of that settlement, Wal-Mart had the right to ask for its money back. Jim Shank says his attorney knew about the fine print in the insurance plan.

"He said if it happens we'll handle it when it comes. He didn't think they'd come after it. It took them three years to come after it. What were they waiting for?" said Shank.

So, they agreed to a settlement knowing that they might have to pay a large chunk to Wal-Mart, but hoping that they wouldn't. They gambled and lost.

 

[Travis]

I wonder how this qualifies Walmart as the "worst company in the world?" I mean a company that kills 20000 people with a gas leak gets a pass but if you sue a disabled woman you are not only evil but the evilest? What about companies that mislead their stockholders and bankrupted pension funds when it was revealed they were bankrupt? What about Enron and everything they did for pete's sake? At least everything Walmart's doing here is legal.

 

[Daylight]

They provided insurance on the basis that, if the insured received a damages payment, they were entitled to reimbursement of amounts paid.

From the short term account yes, long term no. Guess who get to pay for her long term care now? You an me. Walmart made a profit.

That is what happened. If she wanted insurance without that condition, she should have bought insurance without that condition.

She worked for WalMart. At the salery they pay you there are no other options. Take what they give you or be unemployeed. If it were Bill Gates I would agree with you about having a choice.

No idea how you think she would have been better off without insurance.

They sued her for more than was left AFTER her legal fee's. So basically she paid her monthly insurance payments, and after trying to collect she owed them. What a great business model. Take peoples money and if they file a claim, take even more. We all need to start our own insurance companies like this!

I would agree. But it is not Walmart's fault that there is no Universal Health Care.

I'll leave tis part of the discussion to the CT types.