Unbelievable......

[Schleeper]

Legally, Walmart is right. Morally they are wrong.

Wal-mart has always put forth that there employees are associates. They are more than just employees, they are partners and family. They try to create a warm and fuzzy feeling, saying we care for you, you are not just a number.

In this light, they should pay. At the very least, they should provide full boat scholarships for her children.

If Mr Sam was still alive, this would not have happened.

Bill

Bill, your employees don't know how lucky they are, to be working for such a generous person as yourself!

What you're saying may have been true back when Sam Walton and his brother were operating their chain of Five and Dimes, but if he was still alive today, he'd be 90 years old, and he'd have zero input in how WalMart is run.

"They [WalMart] should pay," you say. Who they? The owners (stockholders) of the company? The rest of the company associates (employees?) The customers? Who gets to decide?

Even when Mr.Sam was still President and Chairman of the company, I doubt that he would have been in favor of WalMart paying the Shanks. Assuming he felt an obligation to help this short-time employee whose injuries were in no way related to her employment, he would have dipped into his own pocket for the funds. That's a personal decision, not a business one.

In situations such as this, it's not uncommon for the employee's fellow associates to organize fundraisers to help out. In those instances, the store would participate by contributing merchandise, allowing fundraising activity on store property, etc. Nobody is obliged to do so, of course; it's just something they want to do. I'm sure the store manager would have been receptive to the idea, but Mrs. Shank probably hadn't worked there long enough to elicit that kind of response from her co-workers.

[Sid]

The fact of the matter is that car insurance premiums have raised much faster than inflation or CPI can adjust for since the adoption of that law.

Do you have a source for that contention? I haven't seen it in my premiums. And the auto insurance market is not only highly competitive, but highly regulated. Premium increases many places have to be approved by state agencies, some led by politically ambitious insurance commissioners who enjoy the publicity of facing down the big, bad insurance companies.

Consider also the fact that people who buy insurance only when required are not the insurance companies' most desirable customers. They buy minimal policies that are more likely to be cancelled for non-payment, have more accidents, are more likely to cheat on claims. I don't think it was the big-name insurance companies that pushed for mandatory insurance laws.

Sid

[Slik Geek]

To say that Walmart is morally wrong for pursuing reimbursement for expenses that were another party's responsibility ignores their moral responsibility to their policy holders. It is those other employees in the insurance plan to whom the expense will be charged. Until repayment has been made, the Shanks have in effect been reimbursed twice for the medical care.

It strikes me as obscene that the attorney(s) in this case were paid 40% of the settlement. Especially in light of the law firm's failure to effectively represent the interests of the Shank family and protect them by coordinating with the health insurer. Where is the moral outrage towards the attorneys?

While I agree that the health insurance plan has the right to recover its expenses because someone else was liable and has paid for the medical expenses, I don't agree with this (apparent) aspect of this case: The health insurer did not pursue the liable party (the trucking company), and didn't pay any of the expense of litigation. They are, however, willing to demand the proceeds.

Walmart's health plan should legally have to share the cost of the recovery in order to benefit from its outcome. Hence, they should only be reimbursed for $281,530 (60% of their outlay, since 40% of the settlement was the cost of recovery).

[jonmulzer]

I would agree with that. They money she would have left would at least keep her out of a "Happy Gilmore" nursing home for a few years. I would even be ok with them eating all the costs of litigation. It is apparently their money, they should pay to get it.....

[germdoc]

WalMart said yesterday that they were going to give up their right to the money. So, they did the "right" thing even if they were legally entitled to reimbursement.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/law/04/02...ion/index.html

Note the Supreme Court declined to review the case, so WalMart certainly had an airtight case, but they lost in the court of public opinion.

[430752]

Huh? Viva Walmart.

I can't get out from why people think Walmart is not legally, morally and ethically entitled to this? And I'm normally an anti-company, ultra liberal whiney nabob from some ivory tower. (or maybe I'm not after all?)

Okay, lets recap:

You and I enter an arrangement that says if you get hurt by accident I will pay for your care. You, being smart, says well what if it wasn't an accident? I say well, if you purposefully hurt yourself, then I'm not paying. You say okay that makes sense since I did it to myself purposefully, fair enough.

BUT, you then ask, what if someone else does it to me and we don't know whether they had an accident or if they purposefully did it (such as not maintaining a trucks brakes to save on maintenance costs)? I say well, I guess in that case I won't pay for your care until we sort it all out. You say, but wait, I could be dying in the emergency room while you figure it out. I say, yeah that doesn't make much sense after all, how about I pay no matter what, but if it turns out that a third person did this to you and it was their fault, then I get to go after them or to recoup money from you for the money I already spent since you would be able to go after them for their fault? After all, I haev no relation with the third party so I have no obligation to insure them for their acts to you or me. You say, okay, makes sense - either way I'm protected physically and you're protected financially for going out on a limb for me.

And so one day it happens that an employee of Walmart, in a non-work related incident, gets hit by a truck for whatever reason the trucking company was to blame, Walmart lays out almost half a million dollars for the employee, a good deed if ever there was, and now is considered a bad company for looking to get its cash back when it turns out a third party was at fault for her injuries?

I'm sorry, but when did the moral rules of this nation change from you honor a deal you undertook - period, to you honor a deal you undertook unless the results of that deal were not beneficial to you. Yeah its tragic, that's why they call it tragedy.

I dunno, it sucks no doubt and my heart goes to this woman and her family, but why is what walmart did not legally, morally and ethically correct?

[LCHIEN]

...

I dunno, it sucks no doubt and my heart goes to this woman and her family, but why is what walmart did not legally, morally and ethically correct?

The intention of the clause to recover legal awards is to prevent double dipping, where a person is injured collects benefits $x from the insurance co. then sues the third party and collects $Y in damages, but has recovered fully with no aftereffects. In that case, the $Y is free and clear because medical expenses have all been paid.

In this case, however, IT IS ARGUABLE that the payments from the thrid party (trucking co) were capped by their insurance limits and that the payments were insufficient to pay for both the immediate medical costs (which Wallmart Inurance payed for) and her long term care costs. In fact, the payments, after legal costs were insufficient for her long term care alone. In this case its arguable that the payments from the trucking co. were not a double dip.

since the clause makes no mention of double dipping and just states that the insurer has a right to claim any paymnets, the supreme court did indeed side as you suggested. The court of public opinion sided with the injured, and the costs of bad publicity made it cheaper for Walmart to abandon their claim. Too bad it was after all the legal wrangling which I'm sure cost a few hundred-thou for all involved.

[Slik Geek]

Too bad it was after all the legal wrangling which I'm sure cost a few hundred-thou for all involved.

Yep - the only ones who came out ahead on the entire ordeal were the attorneys.

[Schleeper]

Our natural tendency is to root for the underdog, so right or wrong, the company always comes off looking like a bully in these scenarios. Once it attracted the attention of the media, it became a no-win situation. WalMart was forced into making a business decision; they could win the battle with the Shanks, they could win in the court of public opinion, but they couldn't win both. They must have decided that the adverse publicity was going to cost them more than a half million dollars, so they decided to bite the bullet.

It's a legal form of extortion, and in this case, the Wall Street Journal was a willing accomplice.