Skreddy wrote:Um. If Shank were at fault, how is it she prevailed in her lawsuit against the other driven then?
It is obvious that Walmart went after somebody else's meager pain and suffering remuneration through a boilerplate clause in their health-insurance coverage. Another typical example of global-hypercapitalists farming humans for profit.
iembalm wrote:Californians who have been outraged enough to mobilize against the insurance industry in their state, whether with legislation or ballot measures or what have you, even to the extent that they have in the past amended the state constitution to keep the insurance vampires in check, have historically then been fucked in the ass by the judicial branch.
To understand this, you need to understand subrogation. Subrogation is a process under common law wherein Party X, after having paid for Party Y's damages (generally in the form of an insurance company (X) covering their insured's (Y's) claim expenses), is also entitled to all of Party Y's legal remedies available to recover damages from negligent tortfeasor Party Z. Subrogation in and of itself is a morally sound principle, since from a legal standpoint, X acted as an advocate on behalf of Y by assuming Y's financial burden, so X is not encroaching on what Y could have recovered had X not been in the picture.
So, here's the scenario as best as I'm clued in: Shank was offered a settlement by Wal-Mart. I can guess with 99.999% certainty that Wal-Mart is self-insured in every single line of risk, so this settlement could be pursuant to either a workers' compensation claim, since egress from her job was seen as within the course and scope of her employment, or as a settlement from the accident claim since only Wal-Mart trucks deliver to Wal-Mart. The latter can be ruled out, however, since a judgement was later sought by Wal-mart against Shank, meaning somehow Shank was seen as a tortfeasor-- and being broadsided in a car accident usually stems from failure to yield right-of-way, so it's reasonable to assume that Shank was at fault.
A self-insured business is legally required to function as an insurance carrier in every sense, in full compliance with all state laws that apply to insurance carriers. So, Wal-Mart legally wears different hats as workers' comp carrier, auto liability carrier, general liability carrier, Longshore carrier, etc. etc. etc.
So, the most plausible scenario is as follows: leaving her shift, Shank was involved in an accident with a Wal-Mart truck, consequently bringing a workers' compensation claim under which Wal-Mart, acting as a workers' compensation carrier, accepted liability and settled. Wal-Mart the workers' comp carrier subrogated and recovered against Wal-Mart the truck driver's auto carrier, since the truck driver was partially negligent. Wal-Mart the truck driver's auto carrier subrogated against Shank's auto insurance, but with Shank's shitty Wal-Mart wages, chances are likely that she is uninsured or underinsured, so Wal-Mart's staff attorney brought a complaint in civil court and won a judgment. All in a day's work at Wal-Mart.
...which is not how the law is supposed to work.
Workers' comp laws are supposed to be no-fault, meaning any negligence on Shank's part is not grounds for denial. Thanks to almost every state's workers' comp laws and auto liability laws almost always existing completely independent of one another, Wal-Mart exploited a loophole in the subrogation system betweeen the sets of statuts in order to legally get out of paying Shank. The law simply made them give her the money before letting them take it back.