#1 2007-11-21 04:26:06
Apparently if you're injured by someone else and use the health insurance you pay for through work and then win a settlement over it, Wal-Mart reserves the right to take all of your lawsuit money.
To be fair I don't know if the money was awarded to repay them for current medical expenses or to pay for future care, but this sounds like the kind of thing that could easily lead to abuse. I'm curious now how common this clause really is.
Offline
#2 2007-11-21 15:59:55
Maybe we'll get a very bored and possibly drunk HKgirl in here to better explain subrogation and "equitable remedy" but, in short, it's legal (and I only say "bored and drunk" because I can't think of another reason why she'd want to detail such a dastardly practice, and it may not even be her flavor o' law). It doesn't seem to be exercised often, for the obvious reasons that it sounds rapacious and leaves the injured without means. But considering who's doing it, does that really surprise you?
I'm not surprised.
I also think that misuse of the remedy will lead to catastrophically large settlements, as people are forced to double their damages in the fear that employers might do this. It also sounds contrary to common sense...for the injured, at least. To the companies and their insurers, it's a windfall, but you can bet they'll keep raising the paycheck deductions anyway.
Because they suck.
Offline
#3 2007-11-21 16:26:44
Sad story, but completely legal. That just means that settlements will have to get larger to cover the subrogation claims, something that those screaming for tort reform don't want.
Offline
#4 2007-11-21 17:58:02
Oh, I have no doubt that it's legal. It's mostly cruel because I bet almost 100% of people who fall under these clauses have no idea.
Offline
