Walmart Goes After Infirmed

Wow...there's a reason I never shop there (plus the ghetto factor that seems to frequent their stores). They are well known to do their level best to ensure employees aren't covered by the company health plan - causing the state to subsidize their employee health care via Medicaid.

It's shit like this that is going to drive this country to socialist medical care.

You heard it here first.

This isn't new and it isn't Walmart. It is called subrogation, and it has been a principle of insurance for a long time.

In essence, if you insure a bit of property that you own and that property is tortiously damaged by a third party, you have two choices. Fix it yourself and sue the third party, or ask your insurer to fix it and give the insurer the right to pursue the third party (at least to the extent of the insurance payout).

In this case, WalMart (or more correctly, WalMart's insurer) was taking money from the person who injured Ms. Shank, not from Ms. Shank herself.

Now, society might decide that it wants to outlaw subrogation, and that is OK -- provided you realize and accept that this will quite correctly increase insurance premiums because it will increase the underwriters' aggregate loss. But it really isn't fair to bitch about subrogation in a case where it was a term of the policy in question and factored into lowering the premium.

The more I learn about Wal-Mart, the more I shop from the Mom & Pop's.

Originally Posted by Jose

It's shit like this that is going to drive this country to socialist medical care.

You heard it here first.

Jose, I'm a paramedic. You can't imagine what people call 911 and use the ER for. And guess who pays....

Originally Posted by RKG

..In this case, WalMart (or more correctly, WalMart's insurer) was taking money from the person who injured Ms. Shank, not from Ms. Shank herself...

I see the principle, but the article doesn't read exactly this way. AFAICT the settlement money had already been paid to Ms. Shank thus it is now her money, not the trucking company's, that they are going after. The settlement was for her portion of the medical expenses, her pain and suffering, not Wal-Mart's. Wal-Mart's claim should be separate. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Wal-Mart and/or their insurer to go after the trucking company for additional funds to cover their medical expenses.

Note: IANAL, and normal logic may not apply when it comes to The Law

Originally Posted by kevin9

I see the principle, but the article doesn't read exactly this way. AFAICT the settlement money had already been paid to Ms. Shank thus it is now her money, not the trucking company's, that they are going after. The settlement was for her portion of the medical expenses, her pain and suffering, not Wal-Mart's. Wal-Mart's claim should be separate. I think it would be perfectly reasonable for Wal-Mart and/or their insurer to go after the trucking company for additional funds to cover their medical expenses.

Note: IANAL, and normal logic may not apply when it comes to The Law

Agreed. That's how I read it too. If Wal-Mart want to also sue the trucking company to recover their expenses they should be allwed to.