Walmart is disgusting

Not open for further replies.


There is no "I" in Ameraucana
Jan 18, 2008
Newman Lake, WA
I'm going to play Devil's advocate here and say her attorney dropped the ball. Being a former insurance company employee, the first law suit regarding the accident should have included this lady's bills and should have been part of the settlement.

I don't believe "Walmart The Retail Store" that sued her, it was the insurance company.

This is a very sad story.


11 Years
Feb 29, 2008
Cartersville, GA
I agree with the above post. I was in a settlement years ago that involved a shattered arm in a car accident. The settlement had to be made in two different parts. One part for the medical bills (which had to go directly to my insurance company) and one part for pain and suffering and future medical bills. I believe that most insurance companies have this rule and must be paid back if a settlement arises.


12 Years
Nov 7, 2007
yo. ohio
Yes that was how my settlement went, I had to pay insurance back, and then with what was left my attorney got his share and I got the rest, said to say my portion was the least, my attorney made more than I did, and I'm the one who has to deal with all the pain!!!
Still is sad for those people.


12 Years
May 17, 2007
I used to like Wal Mart because I could buy stock in the company on a small time drip investment program. But being a stock company, it appears that most of the ownership is now overseas. Look at where the mechandise is made, CHINA.

It is better to buy something used in the second hand store than to buy a new item made in CHINA.

For what it is worth, I believe the only real American owned company on that wall of shame is Ford. The rest are mostly foreign owned. Merke is German I think, Nestle is French, Halliburton is Abu Dubai. I am not sure about Kimberly Clark.



12 Years
Aug 13, 2007
near Charlotte NC
I too agree that this is unfair news article slanted to malign walmart. It is absolutely standard practice that if your medical insurance pays out for injuries/bills due to an accident where there is another party responsible, then your insurance company will recoup from the settlement. Otherwise it's double dipping - you are getting reimbursed twice for the same bills.

I only see two problems here...

1 - her attorneys were crappy. If they knew what the bills were, they should have sued for WAY more than 1 million, or appealed the 1 million settlement. You notice that they only put about ~400K in the trust fund....where do you think the other part went??? In the ATTORNEY'S pocket, or a least the largest chunk of it. Attorneys fees usually range from a minimum of 25% to 35% or more of the settlement. That's why they are willing to take your case on a 'you don't pay unless we win' basis. Knowing she was going to be permantely disabled, and require life long nursing care, they should have gotten a WAY bigger settlement.

2- Walmart's insurance company should have asked for the money a long time ago instead of waiting.

They are making walmart look like the bad guys here, and (as much as I hate to defend walmart) that is not fair. They make a valid point - their insurance company has to do what is in the best interest of ALL their member, not just one person.

This is not a workman's comp case - she was NOT injured on the job. She was injured off hours in a 'private' car accident - had nothing to do with her job at walmart other than she had health insurance through them as her employer.

I was involved in an accident a few years ago where we had about $1200 in medical bills. My insurance refused to pay the emergency room bills UNTIL the settlement was reached with the responsible party's insurance company. Then I was required to pay the bills out of that settlement. I had notification within a couple weeks of the ER visit with forms to fill out to let them know if my ER visit was the result of an accident, and if so, what was the situation. It VERY CLEARLY said that they would NOT pay if I was entitled to a settlement from someone else's insurance or even my own homeowners/auto policy. In the article the attorney even states that they KNEW they would want the pay back.

I think this is a typical 'attack big business' story that is being put out there to force Walmart's insurance to write off her treatment as a loss as opposed to having bad PR.

Walmart has a reputation of fighting slip and fall claims, and other insurance fraud. I wouldn't expect them to just let this one go either. They just should have claimed the money a long time ago before it was all spent. Now they will have to write it off either way since these folks don't have the money to pay it.


Chicken Beader
11 Years
Mar 20, 2008
NW Kentucky
I boycotted Wal-Mart in 2001 and Sears years ago solely because of the way they treat their employees, their policies and their politics.

In this case, the attorney dropped the ball. In most states, you get one shot at the apple and when you reach verdict or settlement, you waive any further claims.

However, Wal-Mart is sad.

Edit: Sears recently did a good thing for its employees that were called to active duty...if there is a salary difference between the employees normal salary and the military pay, Sears is paying the difference in order to keep the employee paid at the same level. They have redeemed some of their quality with me but not enough for me to spend my money there.
Last edited:
Not open for further replies.

New posts New threads Active threads

Top Bottom