Full Story here

Brain-damaged woman at center of Wal-Mart suit

Sad story short, this woman Debbie was in an accident 8 years ago that claim pretty much everything but her life. She was awarded almost one million dollars, and after lawyers fees and court costs, was left with $417,000 in a trust for her long term health care.

She bought into the health insurance plan offered by Wal-Mart, where in the fine print they claim they can recoup any medical costs if there is a winning lawsuit. So, Wal-Mart sued this family and they won!

Wal-Mart demanded $470,000 for medical expenses paid, and have to date claimed about $200,000!

The family appealed and re-appealed, and have lost those appeals.

They took it to the Supreme Court, who has refused to hear the case!

What do you think?
Still gonna support Wal-mart by shopping there?

(This article brought to my attention by Bubba The Love Sponge)

This story disgusts me. I haven't shopped at BallsMart in ages because of all that crap with the Chinese made stuff and the underpaid workers. Walmart is a multi-billion dollar company and they're going to take this poor woman's piddling little settlement? What the f*ck?

Ugh. I'm disgusted and irritated now.

I'm glad you brought this up, Tam.  I don't think a sizable boycott is likely, but this is definitely one of the worst PR moments for Walmart ever.

Whoever allowed this to go public really dropped the ball.  Any intelligent management would have just settled out of court with these people.  To let the situation get this bad is just a tremendous embarassment for Walmart, but apparently, they have no shame....

It is a horrible story.  Regardless though, I only shop at Wal-Mart because they have such good prices on TV on DVD sets.  For all other things that I need, I will go to Zellers

I read about this yesterday morning. I won't boycott Wally World, but I will shop anywhere else (even if they are carrying the same cheaply made Chinese crap) before I go there again. Going into Walmart is like entering an alternate reality: at any given time, there's more oblivious people and stupid fudging kids running around per square acre than any other place on the planet. I'm not even going to get started on the employees (everyone needs a paycheck though, so I don't knock them for working).

I'll put it this way: if Al-Qaida blew up a Wal-Mart, after hours of course... well, I'm not saying I condone terrorism, but in that hypothetical case I would understand it. I think there's a secret part in everyone that would like to see Wal-Mart reduced to a smoldering pile of rubble... except my mom, wife and sister. Sometimes I think they love Walmart more than they love me.  :D

Ant

I'm glad you brought this up, Tam.  I don't think a sizable boycott is likely, but this is definitely one of the worst PR moments for Walmart ever.

Whoever allowed this to go public really dropped the ball.  Any intelligent management would have just settled out of court with these people.  To let the situation get this bad is just a tremendous embarassment for Walmart, but apparently, they have no shame....



I don't think a sizable boycott would happen either - but it makes you think about Wal-Mart doesn't it?

Seriously, I used to love the fact that Wal-Mart was a job creator, but anymore when you hear about how little their employess are paid and how they are treated, where they get their merchandise etc. and now this - it disgusts me to no end!


This story disgusts me. I haven't shopped at BallsMart in ages because of all that crap with the Chinese made stuff and the underpaid workers. Walmart is a multi-billion dollar company and they're going to take this poor woman's piddling little settlement? What the f*ck?

Ugh. I'm disgusted and irritated now.


I am with you Girl! If it weren't for the fact that we only have one pharmacy in our city, and the fact that Target is one of the smallest ones I have ever seen, I wouldn't be shopping at Wal-Mart. Thankfully, I am going to be out of this city by the summer and shouldn't have to worry about Wal-Mart anymore!


I read about this yesterday morning. I won't boycott Wally World, but I will shop anywhere else (even if they are carrying the same cheaply made Chinese crap) before I go there again. Going into Walmart is like entering an alternate reality: at any given time, there's more oblivious people and stupid fudging kids running around per square acre than any other place on the planet. I'm not even going to get started on the employees (everyone needs a paycheck though, so I don't knock them for working).

I'll put it this way: if Al-Qaida blew up a Wal-Mart, after hours of course... well, I'm not saying I condone terrorism, but in that hypothetical case I would understand it. I think there's a secret part in everyone that would like to see Wal-Mart reduced to a smoldering pile of rubble... except my mom, wife and sister. Sometimes I think they love Walmart more than they love me.  :D

Ant


They still love you Red Ant, they are just jaded right now.... that's all! ;D

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

They've apparently changed their tune now that they look like asses.

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

They've apparently changed their tune now that they look like asses.


Thanks for the update Jess!!

Go figure right!
I know they are finally doing a good thing, but only after the company has been torn apart by bloggers and CNN and other Radio personalities. It is still disgusting to me because had it not made it to the media as it did - you can bet your ass that Wal-Mart was planning to take all of their money back - no matter where it came from!

This is only one of the many, many reasons why I WILL NOT shop at Wal-Mart.



Cat

Kudos to Keith-O for pushing this story.  They changed their tune only because the facts of the case were so damned horrific.  The cherry on top was that her 18-year-old son sacrificed his life fighting for his country in Iraq.  Let's not extend too much credit to Wal-Mart.  They don't give a tinker's cuss about this woman; they're only figuring the bottom line.  They knew if they didn't hand the money back, they could lose hundreds of millions in sales. 
::)

Like Cat said, this is yet another reason among a hundred others not to shop at Wal-Mart.

Mind you, I don't begrudge anybody who has to meet a tight budget for shopping there.  You gotta do what you gotta do. 

Mind you, I don't begrudge anybody who has to meet a tight budget for shopping there.  You gotta do what you gotta do. 


Yeah, like I said last year, circumstances were forcing us to shop there. Things are better this year, so I'm avoiding it like the plague. If need be, I'll drive the 30 miles into Indiana and shop at the Kmart.

This is ridiculous, but I have a feeling every business would be like this, if it were possible.

This is ridiculous, but I have a feeling every business would be like this, if it were possible.


Not true at all.  Wal Mart goes out of its way to be the worst of the worst.  Compare them to Costco which is a very good employer.  They are the only big box store I know that closes its store here on holidays, and pays the employees for the day off. 

seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/166680_costco29.html

Not true at all.  Wal Mart goes out of its way to be the worst of the worst.  Compare them to Costco which is a very good employer.  They are the only big box store I know that closes its store here on holidays, and pays the employees for the day off. 

seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/166680_costco29.html


Yeah, I'm pretty sure Target didn't have a clause like that in their insurance coverage about recouping losses.

I'm not sure why this is a "Wal Mart" issue.  This is common practice for almost any insurance policy.

If my car is insured, and the insurance company pays my claim for damages, they have the right to sue the other party (if they are at fault) and the insurance company gets paid first.

If some bozo burns down my house and the insurance company pays me off, they can force me to sue the perp so that the INSURANCE COMPANY can get reimbursed for the damages (what they paid to me to rebuild my house).

Why should Wal-Mart be forced to pay for damages that were caused by the other party?  All they want is reimbursement for the damages THEY paid.  They are not asking the INJURED WOMAN to pay them money out of her pocket.  They simply want their reimbursement for the damages that they paid (the medical expenses).

Happens every day of the week and not just with Wal Mart.  Basic, centuries-old  insurance law and that is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

They're demanding 470,000 when she had only 417,000 leftover?

Don't they already have way more than enough money from all their sales?

I'm not sure why this is a "Wal Mart" issue.  This is common practice for almost any insurance policy.

If my car is insured, and the insurance company pays my claim for damages, they have the right to sue the other party (if they are at fault) and the insurance company gets paid first.

If some bozo burns down my house and the insurance company pays me off, they can force me to sue the perp so that the INSURANCE COMPANY can get reimbursed for the damages (what they paid to me to rebuild my house).

Why should Wal-Mart be forced to pay for damages that were caused by the other party?  All they want is reimbursement for the damages THEY paid.  They are not asking the INJURED WOMAN to pay them money out of her pocket.  They simply want their reimbursement for the damages that they paid (the medical expenses).

Happens every day of the week and not just with Wal Mart.  Basic, centuries-old  insurance law and that is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.


The companies have the option of recouping the losses, but it is not unusual for the company to not exersize the option in the cases of extreme hardship.  I know of a couple of cases, personally, where the companies didn't, one case where a young boy lost a limb and received a settlement that would go towards replacements as he grew.  Wal-Mart could, like many, decide not to pursue, it would be the right thing to do.

They're demanding 470,000 when she had only 417,000 leftover?

Don't they already have way more than enough money from all their sales?



Don't you understand, with Wal-Mart it is not only about the $$$$$$, it is about how many more people they can screw over-and if they can get more $$$$$$ in the process, well, that is just a bonus.



Cat

I'm not sure why this is a "Wal Mart" issue.  This is common practice for almost any insurance policy.

If my car is insured, and the insurance company pays my claim for damages, they have the right to sue the other party (if they are at fault) and the insurance company gets paid first.

If some bozo burns down my house and the insurance company pays me off, they can force me to sue the perp so that the INSURANCE COMPANY can get reimbursed for the damages (what they paid to me to rebuild my house).

Why should Wal-Mart be forced to pay for damages that were caused by the other party?  All they want is reimbursement for the damages THEY paid.  They are not asking the INJURED WOMAN to pay them money out of her pocket.  They simply want their reimbursement for the damages that they paid (the medical expenses).

Happens every day of the week and not just with Wal Mart.  Basic, centuries-old  insurance law and that is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.


You are correct Wal-Mart is legally within their rights to pursue this.  However Wal-Mart has such a bad reputation to begin with.  I think it would have been in they're best interest to have just let it go.  This is a publicity nightmare.  I do not shop at Wal-Mart because of issues other than this. 

Don't you understand, with Wal-Mart it is not only about the $$$$$$, it is about how many more people they can screw over-and if they can get more $$$$$$ in the process, well, that is just a bonus.



Cat


That didn't occur to me when I read it. I can see what you're talking about.

I'm not sure why this is a "Wal Mart" issue.  This is common practice for almost any insurance policy.

If my car is insured, and the insurance company pays my claim for damages, they have the right to sue the other party (if they are at fault) and the insurance company gets paid first.

If some bozo burns down my house and the insurance company pays me off, they can force me to sue the perp so that the INSURANCE COMPANY can get reimbursed for the damages (what they paid to me to rebuild my house).

Why should Wal-Mart be forced to pay for damages that were caused by the other party?  All they want is reimbursement for the damages THEY paid.  They are not asking the INJURED WOMAN to pay them money out of her pocket.  They simply want their reimbursement for the damages that they paid (the medical expenses).

Happens every day of the week and not just with Wal Mart.  Basic, centuries-old  insurance law and that is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

The Wally bangers had legal standing to do what the did, but it was morally the wrong thing to do.  Wal-Mart will keep rolling with their 11+ billiion dollar annual profits while this woman is permanently impaired and can never work again.  It was morally palatable to the company to sue this woman for every penny she's got plus $53,000 she has not.  That's what stinks!
::)

The Wally bangers had legal standing to do what the did, but it was morally the wrong thing to do.  Wal-Mart will keep rolling with their 11+ billiion dollar annual profits while this woman is permanently impaired and can never work again.  It was morally palatable to the company to sue this woman for every penny she's got plus $53,000 she has not.  That's what stinks!
::)


Which makes it a P.R. nightmare for Wal-Mart.  Yes, Wal-Mart should just drop the whole thing because they claim to help people with disabilities.  (Ever notice have most of the greeters are either Senior Citizens or Disabled.)  This also helps them avoid discrimination lawsuits.  Their policies only go as far as how much profit they can give back to their stock holders.  Cut corners, make people work through lunch breaks and holidays.  Most people who work at Wal-Mart on on Medicaid therefor they don't have to pay very much for employee health benefits.

You're right in saying the monetary value of the lawsuit is worth pennies to them but this woman's life is ruined.  Wal-Mart doesn't care about the woman however the negative publicity is something they don't want.

One word...

BOYCOTT!!!

One word...

BOYCOTT!!!


I'll fix it for ya.

Boycott!!!

Size modification and moving words don't seem to match.(I tried it as well)

Thankfully, I will continue my Wal-mart shopping restraint

I'll fix it for ya.

Boycott!!!

Size modification and moving words don't seem to match.(I tried it as well)


Oh, but they do!

(You have to do them in order of appearance in the post icons - move, then size, then color).

Ant

Oh, but they do!

(You have to do them in order of appearance in the post icons - move, then size, then color).

Ant


Something I didn't know.

Let me try something else.

Aiyah!

Color and size it looks like can go in any order though, I assume bold fits into this rule too.

I'm not sure why this is a "Wal Mart" issue.  This is common practice for almost any insurance policy.

If my car is insured, and the insurance company pays my claim for damages, they have the right to sue the other party (if they are at fault) and the insurance company gets paid first.

If some bozo burns down my house and the insurance company pays me off, they can force me to sue the perp so that the INSURANCE COMPANY can get reimbursed for the damages (what they paid to me to rebuild my house).

Why should Wal-Mart be forced to pay for damages that were caused by the other party?  All they want is reimbursement for the damages THEY paid.  They are not asking the INJURED WOMAN to pay them money out of her pocket.  They simply want their reimbursement for the damages that they paid (the medical expenses).

Happens every day of the week and not just with Wal Mart.  Basic, centuries-old  insurance law and that is why the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

In that case, the size of any settlement ought to include whatever the insurance may try and claim out of it: you can guarantee that whoever made a $1M settlement to cover future help and medical expenses may have known about half of it going in legal fees, but probably not about a potential suit for the other half.

Surely the health insurance company should be suing the other insurance company for their recompense, not trying to take away everything a victim has been awarded?  Except that possibly the other insurance company will have better lawyers, so it's cheaper to hit on the small guy?

, so it's cheaper to hit on the small guy?




That's it in the nutshell

Target is so much better than Wal-Mart. I don't say that I wish we had Target in Canada, because frankly I think the last thing we need is another big shot American company setting up shop... BUT, I wish Target had decided to come here instead of Wal-Mart.

I would say 'oh yeah, I shop at Zellers instead' or whatever, but really, Zellers is only like a fraction of a point better than Walmart. Target blows them both to smithereens. Seriously, I love Target. Whenever I go to the States, which is only about once a year, I make a special point to go to Target. 

Target is so much better than Wal-Mart. I don't say that I wish we had Target in Canada, because frankly I think the last thing we need is another big shot American company setting up shop... BUT, I wish Target had decided to come here instead of Wal-Mart.

I would say 'oh yeah, I shop at Zellers instead' or whatever, but really, Zellers is only like a fraction of a point better than Walmart. Target blows them both to smithereens. Seriously, I love Target. Whenever I go to the States, which is only about once a year, I make a special point to go to Target.   


I have shopped at Wal-Mart a few times, but after hearing this... never again.

I agree with you on Target, I've shopped their way more often.