This is an emotional story, but for once, I'm actually on sleeze-mart's side. The "tiny clause" that allows an insurer to recoup money gained from a legal settlement in favor of the insured is completely standard. I don't know the legal nuances of the case, but what would be fair, imo, is to only allow the insurer a claim on the specific damages awarded for the same costs paid by the insurer. In other words, walmart paid out X dollars for specific medical bills. I'm guessing that does not include the chronic long-term care which Mrs. Shank needs. The settlement Mrs. Shank won would have specified dollar amounts for various aspects - immediate medical treatment, long-term care, lost wages, possibly punitive damages, etc. The only amount that Wal-Mart should be entitled to recoup is that which was paid out for the corresponding amounts specifically awarded. So, for instance, lost wages would never be recoverable by the insurer. But that's just my opinion. Not the law, or the opinion of the courts.

If Wal-Mart had been on the ball they should have told the lawyer that they needed $470k in the settlement, to wait until a few years after the settlement is finalized, and then just screw over their ex-employee is both incompetent and pretty fuck up.

Moral of the story: don't sign up for Wal-Mart's "benefit" package.

Pardon my legal ignorance, but shouldn't Walmart or their insurer (are they one in the same?) sue the trucking company to recoup their losses?

On that same note, shouldn't the Shanks' lawyers (at the cost of $283,000) have been aware of all of this and gotten the Shanks a lot more money? Even if they would have been able to keep the entire $700,000, and She lives to 80, that only works out to about $26,000 a year. That's not a very large amount for a regular person to live off of, let alone someone who is going to need constant medical care for the rest of her life.

Pardon my legal ignorance, but shouldn't Walmart or their insurer (are they one in the same?) sue the trucking company to recoup their losses?

On that same note, shouldn't the Shanks' lawyers (at the cost of $283,000) have been aware of all of this and gotten the Shanks a lot more money? Even if they would have been able to keep the entire $700,000, and She lives to 80, that only works out to about $26,000 a year. That's not a very large amount for a regular person to live off of, let alone someone who is going to need constant medical care for the rest of her life.

Moral of the story: don't sign up for Wal-Mart's "benefit" package.

Moral of the story: don't work for, or shop at Wal Mart, if you can help it.

I understand your point jonny, but I still like to hope that even Wal-Mart is better than suing someone for more than she recieved in the settlement. It seems brutal that they would take away her chance to live out her life.

I don't think Wal-Mart did sue for more than she received in the settlement. The news reports I heard about this said the trucking company settled the case for $700,000. (Note that that means the Shank's attorney took a 40% cut). As I understand it, Wal-Mart initially asked for less than they had paid out ($470k), but the Shank's (understandably) refused. That Wal-Mart sued for the full amount was most likely a legal tactic, and in fact, the court ruled that Wal-Mart would not be entitled to any more than was left in the trust (about $217k). Obviously, though, wiping out the remainder of the trust fund sucks.

I'm trying to find some more information on this, in particular what exactly was specified in the settlement. Like I wrote above, I'm pretty sure damages are awarded for specific claims in cases like this (medical, pain & suffering, lost wages, etc.), but maybe the settlement wasn't written that way. From an ethical or legal standpoint, I can't see how Wal-Mart would be entitled to any money other than that awarded specifically for those costs that Wal-Mart covered.

On a side note - this type of recoup clause is not particular to health insurance plans. Check your auto insurance and/or home-owner's insurance policies. You'll find a similar clause.

[edit] Doing some more research has yielded conflicting information. One source says the settlement was for $900k, another for $1 million, and the network news report I heard said $700k. I gotta say, the more I learn about this, the more I'm getting pissed at the Shank's lawyer.

*dead yet still breathing, Olbermann: complicit in the dumbing-down of N. America

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by choggie.

Awarding geo321 with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.