DC Tom Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Didn't read all of the posts so sorry if this has already been covered; Walmart Relents I'm willing to bet that if this hadn't received national attention that they would still be pursuing the money. I also can't believe they only got $1 million from the trucking company. With all the frivolous lawsuits that get huge rewards this seems to require more. This woman will need care for about 40 years and $400,000 won't cover it. Of course they'd still be pursuing it. The only reason the story got national attention is because the family realized they wouldn't win in the courts but had public opinion on their side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Of course they'd still be pursuing it. The only reason the story got national attention is because the family realized they wouldn't win in the courts but had public opinion on their side. So they screwed up their lawsuit against the trucking company, but hey, Wal-Mart has deep pockets and lots of people have an irrational hatred of them. Why not extort them with bad publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I'm willing to bet that if this hadn't received national attention that they would still be pursuing the money. I also can't believe they only got $1 million from the trucking company. With all the frivolous lawsuits that get huge rewards this seems to require more. This woman will need care for about 40 years and $400,000 won't cover it. So we should use bullsh-- awards in frivolous lawsuits as a guide for all lawsuits? Holy assbackwards logic Batman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So they screwed up their lawsuit against the trucking company, but hey, Wal-Mart has deep pockets and lots of people have an irrational hatred of them. Why not extort them with bad publicity. It's the American way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 So they screwed up their lawsuit against the trucking company, but hey, Wal-Mart has deep pockets and lots of people have an irrational hatred of them. Why not extort them with bad publicity. How did they "screw up" their lawsuit against the trucking company pray tell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So we should use bullsh-- awards in frivolous lawsuits as a guide for all lawsuits? Holy assbackwards logic Batman! I think he was saying that with all the ridiculous amounts awarded for ridiculous suits, it's pretty unfair that a non-frivolous suit isn't awarded enough to cover costs. Or, in other words...does it seem right that a lady gets $3m for spilling coffee on herself, but these people get $700k for getting hit by a truck? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 How did they "screw up" their lawsuit against the trucking company pray tell? Her lawyers through due diligence should have known that her insurance contract had the subrogation clause in it, and should have tied that clause to the trucking company's ongoing liability. Who knows, but sounds like her original lawyers were lazy or incompetent to separate the ongoing payments for her continuing care from the immediate medical payments needed to save her life (that were paid by WalMart's health plan) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjamie12 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Didn't read all of the posts so sorry if this has already been covered; Walmart Relents I'm willing to bet that if this hadn't received national attention that they would still be pursuing the money. I also can't believe they only got $1 million from the trucking company. With all the frivolous lawsuits that get huge rewards this seems to require more. This woman will need care for about 40 years and $400,000 won't cover it. And health care costs for all Wal-Mart employees just got more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 And health care costs for all Wal-Mart employees just got more expensive. And more people won't choose it, and Walmart will continue to get in trouble for not providing insurance for free, because they a big bad mean evil company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 How did they "screw up" their lawsuit against the trucking company pray tell? Did she get enough money to take care of her ongoing health care costs? If not, they screwed up. I know it's not as trendy as "Wal-Mart hates crippled people" but at least it is based on facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I think he was saying that with all the ridiculous amounts awarded for ridiculous suits, it's pretty unfair that a non-frivolous suit isn't awarded enough to cover costs. Or, in other words...does it seem right that a lady gets $3m for spilling coffee on herself, but these people get $700k for getting hit by a truck? But $3MM for spilling coffee on yourself is irrelevant to the discussion of whether $700K is or is not the correct damage amount for getting hit by a truck. Let's fix the $3MM for spilling coffee on yourself problem, not justify it by basing valid lawsuits on that result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Since I am going through something similar personally, it is my understanding that there aren't many health insurance policies these days that DON'T have a subrogation component written into them. How many people here can say definitively right now that they know if their health insurance policy has a subrogation clause and what the terms of that clause are? Read the fine print in your policy. Also we can't know to what extent her lawyers "screwed up" unless we know more facts, namely what the policy limits were for the trucking company. A $1MM policy limit for a trucking company does seem awfully low, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere as to what the limits were. I think the best outcome from this is that Wal-Mart is altering their thinking to review each situation on a case by case basis. It was pretty clear that in this case that this woman is going to need every dime of that settlement and then some to provide for her ongoing care. Politics aside, this was the right thing for Wal-Mart to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Politics aside, this was the right thing for Wal-Mart to do. Why? Why didn't her church, friends, parents, teacher, grade school, high school, kntting circle? It's bull sh-- that people think that a company who gave you a job, offered insurence, etc... should be on the hook anytime something bad happens to you. They are in business to make money, not be your personal lifetime provider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HereComesTheReignAgain Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Why? Why didn't her church, friends, parents, teacher, grade school, high school, kntting circle? It's bull sh-- that people think that a company who gave you a job, offered insurence, etc... should be on the hook anytime something bad happens to you. They are in business to make money, not be your personal lifetime provider. Wal-Mart should now be given credit for GIVING this woman a few hundred thousand dollars for medical expenses since they had no obligation to do so. How many of the whiney anti-Wal-Mart crowd sent this woman money to pay for her medical expenses? If every self-rightous "I never shop at evil Wal-Mart" internet poster sent her a dollar, she would be set for life. Hopefully this woman can now pay for the care she needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Also we can't know to what extent her lawyers "screwed up" unless we know more facts, namely what the policy limits were for the trucking company. A $1MM policy limit for a trucking company does seem awfully low, but I haven't seen it reported anywhere as to what the limits were. We can guess that the lawyers screwed up, because it's their job to find out all these things during due diligence. That's why you hire a lawyer and don't go to trial on your own. If you say that subrogation claims are common in health contracts and you know about it from your case, it's unconscionable to me that her lawyers missed it, since they should know about it if their specialty is personal injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanNC Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 We can guess that the lawyers screwed up, because it's their job to find out all these things during due diligence. That's why you hire a lawyer and don't go to trial on your own. If you say that subrogation claims are common in health contracts and you know about it from your case, it's unconscionable to me that her lawyers missed it, since they should know about it if their specialty is personal injury. I don't think they missed it, they knew it was there as I recall from reading the initial story. Her attorney's point was that Wal-Mart shouldn't be asking for every last dime of it back. Again it is my understanding that in these types of cases insurance companies will negotiate with the PI attorney to determine what is a fair amount to pay back. If they had negotiated like that from the beginning they would have recouped at least some of the costs and would not have ended up losing in the court of public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I don't think they missed it, they knew it was there as I recall from reading the initial story. Her attorney's point was that Wal-Mart shouldn't be asking for every last dime of it back. Again it is my understanding that in these types of cases insurance companies will negotiate with the PI attorney to determine what is a fair amount to pay back. If they had negotiated like that from the beginning they would have recouped at least some of the costs and would not have ended up losing in the court of public opinion. Timeline doesn't stick. Sounds like CYA that they missed the clause. According to them, Walmart didn't start pursuing the cash until well after the initial case. If her attorneys were in contact with WalMart earlier on (which should have been their job upon reading her health benefit plan, again, part of the $400K they got paid for) they would not have been so surprised when WalMart came knocking for reimbursement. It wasn't WalMart's responsibility to negotiate with her lawyers, since the contract is clear that they're entitled to full reimbursement. It's not the poor woman's fault that she didn't read nor understand the fine points of her contract. It's her lawyers' fault for missing a standard clause and not protecting their client. If there's a case here, it's against her lawyers for screwing up the initial case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booster4324 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 But $3MM for spilling coffee on yourself is irrelevant to the discussion of whether $700K is or is not the correct damage amount for getting hit by a truck. Let's fix the $3MM for spilling coffee on yourself problem, not justify it by basing valid lawsuits on that result. Of course you are mangling that story. BTW her reward was reduced to less than 500K. She also contacted McDonalds first and asked them to only pay her medical bills. They refused and two years later McDonalds killed themselves in court with their attitude and the revelation of how many others had been burned, yet they planned to do nothing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Of course you are mangling that story. BTW her reward was reduced to less than 500K. She also contacted McDonalds first and asked them to only pay her medical bills. They refused and two years later McDonalds killed themselves in court with their attitude and the revelation of how many others had been burned, yet they planned to do nothing about it. McDonald's should have asked WWFLPD? and they would have come to their senses much earlier. But of course, you know that already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 McDonald's should have asked WWFLPD? and they would have come to their senses much earlier. But of course, you know that already. You've been posting an awful lot lately. Didn't you know baseball season started this week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts