Don't you EVER owe a single penny to Wal-mart!
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,722
Likes: 0
From: Chandler, AZ
It makes Wal-Mart look like the bad ones here but they can't make an exception for 1 person unfortunately. They pay thousands of claims a year and if they changed this tiny rule, they would have thousands of old cases come back to roost and all the future reprecussions.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,771
Likes: 2
Yup been beaten to death on other forums.
The fact that she worked for Walmart is incidental. It could have been Honda or GM or Sears or just about anybody. They and their attornies screwed up and now they are looking for public sympathy.
"They are quite within their rights. " as quoted from the article.
Look at your own health insurance. You'll find the same clause. You simply don't make a profit off of an accident.
BTW your thread title doesn't make any sense. No one is going after her.
The fact that she worked for Walmart is incidental. It could have been Honda or GM or Sears or just about anybody. They and their attornies screwed up and now they are looking for public sympathy.
"They are quite within their rights. " as quoted from the article.
Look at your own health insurance. You'll find the same clause. You simply don't make a profit off of an accident.
BTW your thread title doesn't make any sense. No one is going after her.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 15,323
Likes: 28
From: Longmont, CO
Let me see if I can write up the Cliffs Notes.
1) Woman works for Wal-Mart.
2) Woman gets in accident.
3) Wal-Mart health insurance pays $470,000 to help her
4) Lawsuit against trucking company involved in accident nets her $417,000.
5) Per the legal wording of the Wal-Mart health insurance plan, that money goes to Wal-Mart to reinburse them their expenses.
6) Court ruled that Wal-Mart only gets what is left from the lawsuit, which is $277,000 right now.
1) Woman works for Wal-Mart.
2) Woman gets in accident.
3) Wal-Mart health insurance pays $470,000 to help her
4) Lawsuit against trucking company involved in accident nets her $417,000.
5) Per the legal wording of the Wal-Mart health insurance plan, that money goes to Wal-Mart to reinburse them their expenses.
6) Court ruled that Wal-Mart only gets what is left from the lawsuit, which is $277,000 right now.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 112,963
Likes: 150
From: Doh!!
it is sad, true, but the real bad guys are the trucking company who had crappy coverage and the incompetent lawyer for the Shanks should have gone after the trucking company's asset to cover for the loss of income and lifetime care for Mrs. Shank.
Walmart was not at fault here. It is entitled to recover it's money. Granted that it could do a charitable thing and give the money but it's within it's legal and moral rights to recover that money.
Walmart was not at fault here. It is entitled to recover it's money. Granted that it could do a charitable thing and give the money but it's within it's legal and moral rights to recover that money.
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,293
Likes: 1
That's why you gotta read the FINE PRINT!!! Walmart is not the bad guys here. In insurance, there is a principle called "subrogation," which means if you receive money from an insurance claim, like the Shanks did with their Walmart health insurance, then they give up the right to sue a third party. That's what the insurance is there for. Therefore money that they collect from the truck company is supposed to be Walmart's money. Insurance is about indemnification of a loss, not about making a profit off of a loss.
And Walmart should definitely NOT "make an exception" just cause it's a sad story. I would love to see her get the extra money but it's not Walmart's obligation to pay. If they do, that'll just raise the premiums for everyone else.
And Walmart should definitely NOT "make an exception" just cause it's a sad story. I would love to see her get the extra money but it's not Walmart's obligation to pay. If they do, that'll just raise the premiums for everyone else.
