Unbelievable......

[newood2]

IMHO: It's just liberal media trying to create a stink.

Intriquing, to say the least. The Wall Street Journal is owned by Rupert Murdoch a neoconservative who has propagated his far right agenda throughout his media empire. Get your facts before bashing the liberals, that's too easy.

[jackellis]

I'm no expert on insurance but I think there are a couple of points to be made here.

First, the insurance companies have a legitimate right to limit their liability under a policy. If you buy health care insurance, that should not necessarily have to cover you for pain and suffering. Lots of folks won't like that but health care is a different risk than general liability.

Second, although imperfect, I think people ought to assume they must buy coverage to cover the errors of others. It's not right that I should have to insure myself against someone else's misdeeds, but doing so is certainly better than assuming or hoping I'll be covered under the other guy's policy.

I used to think the only redeeming quality of the no-fault auto insurance I buy in California was to cut down on the amount money that's spent on litigation. As I read this, I'm thinking about the best we can do is require everyone to insure themselves in order to avoid unfortunate circumstances like this one.

[JSUPreston]

Sorry about the liberal media rant. I've heard and seen this story in other places than WSJ. Those usually are the more liberal news sources.

My apologies.

[jseklund]

I do agree that the plaintiff's attorney did not fulfill his responsibilities to the client. He may have been too short sighted to realize that there was more to this case than just winning.

Regardless, it just makes you want to review your insurance policies, doesn't it?

[jonmulzer]

I used to think the only redeeming quality of the no-fault auto insurance I buy in California was to cut down on the amount money that's spent on litigation. As I read this, I'm thinking about the best we can do is require everyone to insure themselves in order to avoid unfortunate circumstances like this one.

I despise that idea. I would love to see how much automobile insurance has went up, adjusted for inflation of course, since the passage of the law requiring people to have it to drive. As soon as government passes a law requiring a commodity, the people selling that commodity have a captive market, then the price goes up exponentially. Then you are socializing corporate America. No more worries about free market, they may as well tack that on as another line item in my payroll deductions.

[Hoover]

No matter how you look at this, this woman was a victim twice. It is truly a sad story, and the victim is left with medical problems for the rest of her life.

[JSUPreston]

I despise that idea. I would love to see how much automobile insurance has went up, adjusted for inflation of course, since the passage of the law requiring people to have it to drive. As soon as government passes a law requiring a commodity, the people selling that commodity have a captive market, then the price goes up exponentially. Then you are socializing corporate America. No more worries about free market, they may as well tack that on as another line item in my payroll deductions.

But Jon, then you have those ***holes like the one who rear ended me in '04 who know they don't have insurance stiffing my insurance company and me. In the end, he left town owing me my $500 deductable as well as $2500 to my insurance company. Not only that, I lost several days of work while trying to get the insurance settled and then having to buy a replacement vehicle.

Just so it is known, Alabama requires all vehicles to have at least liability, but it is not checked during an accident. Presenting a card indicating coverage is "sufficient." That's how the guy that hit me got away with it.

I know of a lot of folks who would not carry liability insurance at all if it weren't required by law. In this case, I think a little government intervention is a good thing.

[germdoc]

My .02: right now I'm knee-deep in lawyers and have to battle insurance companies daily, so I normally would not have any sympathy for either.

There are 2 issues here though. If settlement was for costs of care, that should go into pot and is fair game for insurance co.--why should insurers pay if someone else was at fault and agreed to pay? If the patient got a settlement for pain and suffering or non-treatment-related costs, that would be different. (Interestingly, I've never heard this issue come up re' malpractice settlements, where you would think the insurance co. would be rooting for the plaintiff so that they could get their money back.)

OTOH, it's bad PR for insurance companies to pursue this in most cases. It makes them look greedy. Few observers understand or care to understand the esoteric legal issues at play here, they only see the victim vs. the big corporation.

[jonmulzer]

In this case, I think a little government intervention is a good thing.

I tend to think that no government intervention is good government intervention. Government, as a whole, has overstepped its bounds, as a whole. Now yes, I completely agree that particular part of the legislation has been good. But the other consequences have been much less desirable. You now have a totally captive market. You have two choices, either don't drive (which is near impossible outside of NYC), or drive and pay exorbitant premiums to the insurance companies. Free market capitalism has been restrained, at the people's detriment.

Let us compare it to the oil situation. And just do this does not turn political, let's examine it outside of our borders. We have a world that is run on petroleum. Without crude oil, our way of life ends. Not just changes, is inconvenienced, etc. It ENDS. We have centralized our food production at a worldwide level. Food stuffs are being transported across great distances by ships, trucks, trains and planes. All of these are powered by some manner of fuel refined from crude oil. They roll on tires from the same. The list could go on forever. So we are 100% held hostage by OPEC. We have to pay, whatever they charge. This world is a captive market to them. Their expenses are nowhere near $100 a barrel, but since that is what they want, that is what we pay.

Now, just like with insurance we could just not drive. Take public transportation, bum rides, take a bike, walk. That is not practical for the majority of the people in these United States. So we are forced, by law, to pay whatever they wish.

I do however agree with you that it was a net gain for the people probably. I just hate captive markets. But it did create an insurance mafia with our government as the henchmen.

[Anna]

I tend to think that no government intervention is good government intervention. Government, as a whole, has overstepped its bounds, as a whole. Now yes, I completely agree that particular part of the legislation has been good. But the other consequences have been much less desirable. You now have a totally captive market. You have two choices, either don't drive (which is near impossible outside of NYC), or drive and pay exorbitant premiums to the insurance companies. Free market capitalism has been restrained, at the people's detriment.

Let us compare it to the oil situation. And just do this does not turn political, let's examine it outside of our borders. We have a world that is run on petroleum. Without crude oil, our way of life ends. Not just changes, is inconvenienced, etc. It ENDS. We have centralized our food production at a worldwide level. Food stuffs are being transported across great distances by ships, trucks, trains and planes. All of these are powered by some manner of fuel refined from crude oil. They roll on tires from the same. The list could go on forever. So we are 100% held hostage by OPEC. We have to pay, whatever they charge. This world is a captive market to them. Their expenses are nowhere near $100 a barrel, but since that is what they want, that is what we pay.

Now, just like with insurance we could just not drive. Take public transportation, bum rides, take a bike, walk. That is not practical for the majority of the people in these United States. So we are forced, by law, to pay whatever they wish.

I do however agree with you that it was a net gain for the people probably. I just hate captive markets. But it did create an insurance mafia with our government as the henchmen.

Jon, I generally agree with you re government intervention and that we have too much of it. But zero government intervention (i.e. no laws) means anarchy, and that's hardly preferable.

As for insurance premiums, between my husband and myself, we pay about $1000 per year for our two cars. In California. Comprehensive. I don't think it's a bad deal at all.

It's true that when you have a monopoly or oligopoly that you can have price fixing. But there's this thing called the anti-trust law which disallows competitors from conniving and price fixing. The only groups exempted from anti-trust litigation are professional baseball and health insurance companies. Why do you think that four corner gas stations have to vary their prices by at least a few cents from each other?

In the California market, we have many car insurers. The mere presence of a law requiring car insurance does not necessarily mean that prices have to go through the roof. In fact, in a healthy competitive market, the insurance companies will try to get your business by offering the lowest prices, the best services or both. It's the markets that limit access to start up a business through licensing or some such that see an increase in prices because you have, effectively, a protected class. Not so true in robust markets.

And just as a by-the-way, that public transportation is subsidized by tax dollars. That is one place where more competition and private enterprise would probably yield better results.

Just wanted to add: OPEC does not set oil prices directly, although they affect it because they control the supply. Oil prices are set by commodity traders bidding on oil futures, and their prices are based on many factors including current supply, oil demand (travel forecasts for summer and weather forecasts for winter determine that), and our US reserves. It doesn't help that the dollar has lost a lot of its value because it is used as the currency for trade. I read that many oil producers are trying to shift to euros.

[Schleeper]

Ms. Fuhrmans sure hit the trifecta with that article! Yes, this family has gone through a terrible ordeal, but what really made the piece print-worthy was, it let us take shots at 3 of our favorite punching bags: large corporations, insurance companies, and lawyers. There wasn't nearly enough factual information in the article to determine where the fault lies, but that's not the writer's job. She gets paid to write articles that help sell papers, and if this article is any indication, she's very good at what she does.

When you go to the doctor or the hospital, complaining of an injury, have you ever had to fill out a form that asks how you sustained the injury? They're attempting to find out who may be responsible for paying the claim. If it's a motor vehicle accident, payment may be made under the personal injury coverage of your own policy, or the liability coverage of the other driver. If you get hurt on the job, it could be a workmen's comp claim. If you get hurt on someone else's property, payment may come from that person's homeowner and/or umbrella policy. You may even be covered under two medical insurance plans. Benefits must be coordinated so that the service provider is paid without the chance of anyone "double-dipping." The rationale behind subrogation is the same: for the insurance mechanism to work properly, an insured must never be in a position to benefit financially from an insured loss.

Mrs. Shank paid three months of medical insurance premiums, and WalMart never balked in paying $470,000 for her medical bills. However, they notified the Shanks that they were to be contacted prior to the settlement of any lawsuit, and that directive was apparently ignored. Instead (probably after finding out how little insurance the truck driver had,) they tried to make it look like the settlement was for something other than incurred medical expenses. They had the court disburse the money directly to a trust, in a deliberate attempt to place it beyond the reach of any subrogation attempt by WalMart. The courts saw through it, and handed down the correct decision.

Had I been in the Shanks' shoes, I probably would have instructed my attorney to roll the dice, too. What did they have to lose? Unfortunately, WalMart had no other option but to go after the money. You see, they're not just the employer, they're also the insurer. Companies that large have self-insured plans; they just contract with an insurance company to administer it. The premiums employees pay are actuarially calculated, no doubt including a factor for subrogation so as to keep costs down. Had they chosen to not recover the funds from the Shanks, it would have resulted in a premium increase for all the WalMart employees covered under the medical insurance plan. The alternative would have been to reimburse the insurance fund from earnings, which would have had to be disclosed to stockholders in the annual report. (Oh, to be a fly on the wall at THAT stockholder's meeting!) And the next time something like this happened (and odds are it will be someone with more than 3 months service time) they would be locked in to treating them the same.

I feel sorry for these folks as much as anyone else, but there's no reason for pointing fingers at anyone. Perhaps Ms. Fuhrmans' fine article will attract the attention of someone in a position to help.

[Black wallnut]

What is not mentioned in the news story is the exact details of the accident. I wonder whose fault the accident was. I wonder what the traffic infraction was that resulted in the accident. Studies have been done that tried to find the causes of truck v car accidents and 75% of the time the car is at fault; what is not told is if this may be the case. Even if the truck was at fault did the lady do anything to avoid the accident? How can you miss seeing a truck?

I agree that her attorney did a poor job in at least not also striking a deal with her insurance company but since the article does not give enough detail of the actual incident he might very well have won a case that likely does not make sense, i.e. a long shot.

I.e. a company I once worked for had a driver that was legally parked at a red stop light. A woman driver that was not paying attention failed to stop and ran into the back of our trailer. The court battle was settled by a judge that ruled that we (the trucking company) was at fault since if we were not there the accident would not have happened. Our (the trucking companies) liability insurance carrier decided to cut its losses and pay without appeal. I kid you not!

[jonmulzer]

I never implied public transportation was the answer to that problem. I am not willing to do it, so I do not expect others. It was just one of many options to get out of paying car insurance. 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.

And OPEC controls oil prices, don't believe otherwise. They want more money, they produce less oil and tighten the supply. They may not be the one who said yesterday that oil will be $98.42 a barrel, but they controlled every event that led up to that price. They have a near monopoly on the matter. If there were other areas of this world that could provide enough oil to power this world, there would be a lot less palaces in the middle east.

[jonmulzer]

What is not mentioned in the news story is the exact details of the accident. I wonder whose fault the accident was. I wonder what the traffic infraction was that resulted in the accident. Studies have been done that tried to find the causes of truck v car accidents and 75% of the time the car is at fault; what is not told is if this may be the case. Even if the truck was at fault did the lady do anything to avoid the accident? How can you miss seeing a truck?

I agree that her attorney did a poor job in at least not also striking a deal with her insurance company but since the article does not give enough detail of the actual incident he might very well have won a case that likely does not make sense, i.e. a long shot.

I.e. a company I once worked for had a driver that was legally parked at a red stop light. A woman driver that was not paying attention failed to stop and ran into the back of our trailer. The court battle was settled by a judge that ruled that we (the trucking company) was at fault since if we were not there the accident would not have happened. Our (the trucking companies) liability insurance carrier decided to cut its losses and pay without appeal. I kid you not!

Sadly, I believe you without question. I wish we were in a world where upon hearing that my reaction would be, "BS! I demand proof!" but this is not that world and I don't doubt you a bit. We are turning into a world where your birth certificate is proof of guilt.

[billwmeyer]

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