i can't believe walmart

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

when does reality and common sense set in with industry giants.

obviously never. society has failed us, our government has failed us, big corporations failed us.

reasone 234456262 to move to thailand.
 
It sounds like Wall Marts health plan is self insured, even still if Wall mart wants to subrogate they should seek indemnification against the trucking company, not the victims family.

BTW, we're missing out on a villain here. do the math

family was awarded 1,000,000
but only had $417,000 to put towards care

where's the majority sum of $583,000 that's missing?

legals fees

that's right the lawyers made more then the victim in this case, I work in insurance and this isn't uncommon at all. There was a bill in the works in Oregon that would limit legal fee's to 25%, I really doubt they had any problem getting the petition filled but for some reason it wasn't on the ballot...
 
most legal fees are 30-35%.
then there's court fees, all the title fees, and all that
then there's taxes on the income.

the layers didn't get 583. they got probably 300
 
In one of the articles I read about this, it said that after the 400k for medical bills, the rest was placed in a trust to cover all of the future medical expenses for her. Walmart is acting like that 400k worth of medical cured her forever, when in reality shes probably going to need a lot more than that to care for her for the rest of her life.
 
B said:
most legal fees are 30-35%.
then there's court fees, all the title fees, and all that
then there's taxes on the income.

the layers didn't get 583. they got probably 300
Click to expand...

I would have sued for an amount to include taxes and legal fees leaving me with 1,000,000, personal injury attorney's don't deserve more then 25% tops

even if they only received 300K, the client only took 417K and she's going to be disabled for the rest of her life, it doesn't add up
 
How can't you believe Walmart?

It says it in their legal policy. You guys are ready to tar and feather the wrong person.

The family's legal counsel took them for more than half of the settlement and gave poor legal advice - they should have sued for a structured settlement that included future loss of wages or they shouldn't have sued at all.

Walmart has done nothing wrong. The policy is explicitly stated and if they were to wave the policy it only set president for future cases of walmart employees. Sure, this is only $400,000 now but what happens when years down the line, based on this court ruling someone sues for $2million, $4million, $XXX million.
 
Dustin_m said:
In one of the articles I read about this, it said that after the 400k for medical bills, the rest was placed in a trust to cover all of the future medical expenses for her. Walmart is acting like that 400k worth of medical cured her forever, when in reality shes probably going to need a lot more than that to care for her for the rest of her life.
Click to expand...

No, Walmart is acting as though they are following the insurance procedure they have set. If Walmart's insurance pays out a claim and then you sue and recoup the claim, you cannot double dip and you have to return the original settlement to Walmart's insurance company.

Just where in the hell is the problem here fellas?

Read the articles and comments, Walmart execs said its a said situation and they wish it was under different circumstances but that they have to follow company procedure (i.e., for fear of repercussion from future settlements, or levied premiums from the insurance company that represents Walmart).
 
totalburnout said:
No, Walmart is acting as though they are following the insurance procedure they have set. If Walmart's insurance pays out a claim and then you sue and recoup the claim, you cannot double dip and you have to return the original settlement to Walmart's insurance company.

Just where in the hell is the problem here fellas?

Read the articles and comments, Walmart execs said its a said situation and they wish it was under different circumstances but that they have to follow company procedure (i.e., for fear of repercussion from future settlements, or levied premiums from the insurance company that represents Walmart).
Click to expand...

They are not double dipping. They are going to need that money in the long run for medical expenses.
 
totalburnout said:
Just where in the hell is the problem here fellas?
Click to expand...
you're right. the problem starts with the lawyers for the victims. there are a lot of steps here that could have helped the victims get more money. it's just a bad situation all around. the only winners here are the attorneys.

the victim, wal-mart, the trucking company and insurance companies are all losers.
 
i thought the same thing about taxes at first, but an insurance claim for injury is not taxed

i think the lawyer fucked up big time here

the lawyer should have looked into the health insurance contract with walmart
the trucking companies insurance should have handled all medical bills
the 1mil should have only been punitive damages, in addition to the medical costs

i can see an insurance company going after an award to recoup medical costs they have incurred and paid, but they wouldn't be able to place a claim against punitive damages


if the lawyer didn't fuck them over they should still have money left for her care
more than 50% on a vehicular accident claim is astounding
 
They are not double dipping. They are going to need that money in the long run for medical expenses.
Click to expand...
the article does not specify if this woman is still being covered under walmarts insurance
ie: they're still paying on this claim
 
reckedracing said:
i thought the same thing about taxes at first, but an insurance claim for injury is not taxed

i think the lawyer fucked up big time here

the lawyer should have looked into the health insurance contract with walmart
the trucking companies insurance should have handled all medical bills
the 1mil should have only been punitive damages, in addition to the medical costs

i can see an insurance company going after an award to recoup medical costs they have incurred and paid, but they wouldn't be able to place a claim against punitive damages


if the lawyer didn't fuck them over they should still have money left for her care
more than 50% on a vehicular accident claim is astounding
Click to expand...
time to get a new lawyer and sue the old one.
 
reckedracing said:
i thought the same thing about taxes at first, but an insurance claim for injury is not taxed
Click to expand...

I didn't want to point this out and potentially be wrong, but this is the impression I was under.

i think the lawyer fucked up big time here

the lawyer should have looked into the health insurance contract with walmart
the trucking companies insurance should have handled all medical bills
the 1mil should have only been punitive damages, in addition to the medical costs
Click to expand...

Absolutely. What kind of legal counsel, especially legal counsel that cost the plaintiffs so much money, would advise their client to sue without first examining the health insurance policy? The lawyers should be the ones being sued.

i can see an insurance company going after an award to recoup medical costs they have incurred and paid, but they wouldn't be able to place a claim against punitive damages
Click to expand...

Businesses are in the line of business. As far as the insurance company is considered, their financial liability was met when they covered the medical costs. The lawyer then went and advised the plaintiff to sue the trucking company for those same medical costs. Of course the insurance company is going to see this as double dipping; they just awarded the woman medical costs, and then she turns around and sues the trucking company for the same cost.

Recked hit the nail on the head when he said about punitive damages. Future medical costs, pain and suffering, and loss of wages should have been the largest sum of this settlement. Instead, they foolishly sue for current medical expenses that were already covered.

Fault the legal counsel, not Walmart.
 
oh, lets not forget that walmart always likes to flaunt how the give back to the community in the form of charitable donations. She seems like a perfect case for a charitable donation. Also it said in the article that the couple had to divorce for financial reasons. So why not pay the husbuand (they are still together just not legally) what ever remains of the settlement for being a "long term care provider" and screw walmart out of the money.


BTW walmart = self insured.
 
Regardless of whether they're self insured or not, if they make an exception in this case, it will be expected in future cases.

It would be a nice, generous thing to do but legally its not the most intelligent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top