Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Attorney: Wal-Mart Collected On Deaths [Life Insurance Policies on People Without Telling Them]
Tampa Tribune ^ | Jul 3, 2007 | ELAINE SILVESTRINI

Posted on 07/03/2007 8:28:15 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity

TAMPA - When Karen Armatrout died in 1997, her employer, Wal-Mart, collected thousands of dollars on a life insurance policy the retail giant had taken out without telling her, according to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court.

Armatrout was one of about 350,000 employees Wal-Mart secretly insured nationwide, said Texas attorney Michael D. Myers, who estimated the company collected on 75 to 100 policies involving Florida employees who died.

Myers is seeking to make the Armatrout lawsuit a class-action case on behalf of the estates of all the Florida employees who died while unwittingly insured by Wal-Mart.

"Creepy's a good word for it," Myers said. "If you ask the executives that decided to buy these policies and the insurance companies that sold them, they would say this was designed to create tax benefits for the company, which would use the benefits for benevolent purposes such as buying employee medical benefits.

"If you asked me, I would say they did it to make more money."

Wal-Mart spokesman John Simley said he could not comment because the company has not been served with the lawsuit.

The company settled two lawsuits with employees represented by Myers in Texas and Oklahoma, one for about $10 million and one for about $5 million. He said Karen Armatrout came to his attention when Wal-Mart mistakenly gave her husband's phone number to an Oklahoman who called the retailer inquiring about the settlement.

Myers said he also has filed a lawsuit against Wal-Mart in Louisiana.

Payouts Up To $80,000

Richard Armatrout, who is retired, does not want to speak publicly about his case, Myers said. Armatrout did not respond to a message left by the Tribune.

Karen Armatrout was 50 when she died of cancer, said Myers, who said she had worked several years in the pharmacy of the store on West Waters Avenue.

Myers said the policy payouts ranged from $50,000 to $80,000, depending on the person's age and gender. They were taken out on all full-time Wal-Mart employees who, in December 1993, were between ages 18 and 70 and participated in the medical benefits plan.

He said the company stopped taking out the policies in 1995 but continued to receive payouts on employees who died, even those who had left Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart, which said it canceled its policies in early 2000 because it was losing money on the arrangement, says the program was intended to reduce its income taxes to help pay rising employee health care costs. Workers were notified and given the opportunity to opt out, the company said.

The Armatrout lawsuit says the policies were all written in Georgia, where the laws allowed such policies to be obtained.

The lawsuit says Wal-Mart used confidential information it received from employees for use in their employment, such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth, to obtain the life insurance policies.

Myers said this corporate practice is not uncommon. He estimates that up to 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies have taken out such policies on employees. The vast majority of the time, the employees didn't know, Myers said.

The practice evolved over time, Myers said. Corporations started by taking out large life insurance policies on key executives, getting tax breaks when they paid the premiums and collecting the payouts.

IRS Not Pleased, Attorney Says

The amounts of those policies grew to the point that Congress limited how much a company could insure an individual for, Myers said. Insurance companies then suggested buying lots of small policies on companies' work forces, the attorney said. He said the Internal Revenue Service has labeled the practice a sham and has successfully litigated the issue against several corporations.

Myers said his law firm has sued corporations for the practice, including Winn-Dixie and Fina Oil and Chemical. The latest case is its first in Florida.

The practice spread beyond top executives in the 1980s when the industry successfully lobbied states to allow employers to claim an "insurable interest" in the lives of rank-and-file workers.

Many employers seized on the practice because they could borrow against the policies, and the interest paid was tax-deductible. Congress closed that loophole in 1996, but COLI - corporate owned life insurance - remained a popular investment strategy.

The chief appeal was that interest accrues over time on the money in such policies. When a worker dies, the employer collects without paying taxes on the gain.

In 2001, premiums on such policies swelled to $2.8 billion from $1.5 billion the year before, according to a report by CAST Management Consultants of Los Angeles.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report. Reporter Elaine Silvestrini can be reached at (813) 259-7837 or esilvestrini@tampatrib.com.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: buymorejunk; chinamart; itscrapjustbuyit; lifeinsurance; walmart
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 last
To: HamiltonJay

You mean my Kelloggs Frosted Flakes are from China and not BC, MI?


101 posted on 07/03/2007 2:49:19 PM PDT by art_rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Scythian
What a cute, but thoroughly naive little opinion you have there.
102 posted on 07/03/2007 2:51:28 PM PDT by Clam Digger (Have a safe & happy 4th!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: art_rocks

The vitamins sprayed on the flakes ARE from China.


103 posted on 07/03/2007 2:58:03 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: discostu

“...the Internal Revenue Service has labeled the practice a sham and has successfully litigated the issue against several corporations.”
***************************
discostu:I’m not saying they weren’t shunting income to non-taxable streams, I’m saying that’s not illegal. Tax avoidance is not illegal, you are allowed to use every loophole in the code, that’s why they’re there.
***************************
the IRS says otherwise... insurance must have a legitimate purpose.


104 posted on 07/03/2007 3:11:42 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

“tax exempt nature of of insurance benefits”.

I’m just sayin’. If it was your business you were running, with thousands of employees or whatever, I’d bet you would think it’s a great idea. Corporations do all kinds of things you and I can’t really do, I’ll give you that. Depreciation is actually income, etc.


105 posted on 07/03/2007 3:19:31 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Then let them go after WM. At that point WM will pay, either way I don’t really give a crap. It is everyone’s duty to pay as little in taxes as they can legally get away with, I don’t have a problem with anyone that does that, if they crossed the line into illegality then the IRS can go bust them.


106 posted on 07/03/2007 3:23:25 PM PDT by discostu (indecision may or may not be my biggest problem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Funny, I had no idea that this sort of thing was standard practice for businesses. And if there’s nothing wrong with it, then what’s the current lawsuit about? And why would Wal-Mart be settling $5-$10 million lawsuits instead of fighting it?

Lots of unanswered questions here and a guy sure can’t trust the media to present it without bias.


107 posted on 07/03/2007 3:24:32 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Sharpei diem -- Seize the wrinkled dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: art_rocks

“Despite protestations from the community and workforce, the historic hometown plant in Battle Creek was closed and 550 jobs were eliminated.” http://www.answers.com/topic/kellogg-company?cat=biz-fin .

They had recently closed part of the plant, firing about half of the employees. The 550 were what was left after that.

“...Kellogg took the extra step of scrutinizing the ingredients it does import from China, such as vitamins, honey, cinnamon, water chestnuts and freeze-dried strawberries.” http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003769764_chinaprod01.html .

Enjoy!


108 posted on 07/03/2007 3:26:45 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Freedom4US

If it’s ethical to take out life insurance policies on employees without their knowledge or consent, is it also ethical to take out life insurance policies on customers without their knowledge or consent? Walmart has a bigger financial interest in any given customer than they do in an employee. How much revenue do they lose when a customer dies?

Notice I’m not asking what the law allows. The debate all along has been the ethical implications. Let’s stick to that.


109 posted on 07/03/2007 3:30:44 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: miliantnutcase
I agree. However, I think these people probably signed something in their hiring process that agreed to this. Who really reads the fine print anyway!

I have worked for wal mart for the last 4 years.

The info has its own paragraph and is quite clear on my hire packet. And yes! There is a little box next to it.

110 posted on 07/03/2007 3:48:09 PM PDT by wanderin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

How many people wouldn’t be bothered by somebody taking out life insurance policies on their kids? No big deal, right? (Until it starts hitting close to home.)

The Privacy Act of 1974 says that I have to be notified in writing of the use of my social security number. Wal-Mart had better have letters via registered mail on file. They already settled one lawsuit for $5 million and another for $10 million, so I’m finding it hard to believe that nothing wrong is being done here.


111 posted on 07/03/2007 4:08:18 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Sharpei diem -- Seize the wrinkled dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I think you’ve got a point there. Hm.

Like someone else mentioned too, I don’t trust a news organization to soundbyte this even remotely correctly, either.


112 posted on 07/03/2007 4:08:22 PM PDT by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wanderin
The info has its own paragraph and is quite clear on my hire packet. And yes! There is a little box next to it.

Not according to Myers:

He said the company stopped taking out the policies in 1995 but continued to receive payouts on employees who died, even those who had left Wal-Mart.
If Walmart is still doing this, why would Myers (who is suing them) claim they've stopped?
113 posted on 07/03/2007 4:29:06 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
If Walmart is still doing this, why would Myers (who is suing them) claim they've stopped?

Per Myers client: “The Armatrout lawsuit says the policies were all written in Georgia, where the laws allowed such policies to be obtained. “

Different state laws plus a decade of new laws on or off the books. That they insure me doesn't bother me a bit.

114 posted on 07/03/2007 4:41:08 PM PDT by wanderin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

I smell attorneys wanting money for nothing.


115 posted on 07/03/2007 5:03:26 PM PDT by WildWeasel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

You work for them so of course you will defend them, your paycheck depends on it. (/WM basher logic)


116 posted on 07/03/2007 5:05:16 PM PDT by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
The debate all along has been the ethical implications. Let’s stick to that.

Then the ethical thing is to question any and all companies that participate in this practice and not just single out WalMart. Of course doing that would take some ethics on the part of the writer and the lawyer and would take all the fun out of WalMart bashing..........

117 posted on 07/03/2007 5:11:14 PM PDT by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

Yes, they should have named the other companies that conceal this practice from their employees. The author’s failure to name them doesn’t make it ethical to take out insurance policies on people without their knowledge or consent.

Most people would probably consent to the insurance policy. But it is still unethical to take out a policy on someone’s life without their consent. It is even more unethical to conceal the policy from them.


118 posted on 07/03/2007 6:07:19 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: wanderin

Interesting non-response. Does Walmart still take out policies on their employees, or not? According to the lawyer suing them, they don’t. I doubt he would lie to cover for them.


119 posted on 07/03/2007 6:10:10 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I agree it would be unethical to do it without consent, but according to the article and at least one WM employee on this thread the employees are/were told and did have to consent to it.

What bothers me here is that although the article states that at least 25% of Fortune 500 companies engage in this practice, the article and many people on this thread just automatically pile on WalMart.


120 posted on 07/03/2007 6:16:23 PM PDT by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

The Walmart bashing bothers me too, but not nearly as much as the practice of taking out life insurance policies on people without so much as telling them. This thread is swamped with people defending the practice, as though it’s perfectly ethical. It’s not.


121 posted on 07/03/2007 6:24:18 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Gabz

According to the lawsuit, the employees were not informed.

Even if some of these details turn out to not be what was reported, I still say the practice described is unethical. And several posts on this thread defend the practice. That’s where I have the problem. If Walmart engaged in it, it was wrong. If they didn’t engage in it, the practice described is still wrong. And I have a real problem with people who think it’s okay to do it.


122 posted on 07/03/2007 6:28:59 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
The debate all along has been the ethical implications. Let’s stick to that.

And thus we have a she said/he said type situation.

As I said, such a practice without consent is unethical, however, I'm going to take the word of an employee that actually signed such a consent form over that of a lawyer who makes his living seeking publicity for his practice of filing such lawsuits.

Why is this article focusing on WalMart, the reason is right in the article if you read btween the lines. To avoid lengthy litigation and bad PR, even unwarranted PR, this shark in a suit is looking for WM to settle out of court. On a scale of unethical behavior, I think that is even worse.

123 posted on 07/03/2007 6:38:41 PM PDT by Gabz (Don't tell my mom I'm a lobbyist, she thinks I'm a piano player in a whorehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
As I said, such a practice without consent is unethical...

I'm glad to see you say that (but I'm not at all surprised you have those values).

You and I are in agreement, but concerned about different things. I agree that Walmart was unfairly singled out, and might not even be guilty of the practice at all. It's just another opportunity to bash Walmart.

But what bothers me even more, are the FReepers who say it's ethical to take out life insurance policies on people without their knowledge. Do these people have any moral code at all?

124 posted on 07/03/2007 6:48:28 PM PDT by BykrBayb (This tagline in memory of FReeper 68-69TonkinGulfYachtClub ~ )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

Maybe the problem is they had KEYMAN insurance on a woman ?

;-)


125 posted on 07/03/2007 7:07:59 PM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

“If you asked me, I would say they did it to make more money.”

Then the insurance underwriter for the insurance policies did it to lose money?


126 posted on 07/03/2007 7:11:54 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

They don’t have to net the expenses with proceeds? I’m calling B.S.


127 posted on 07/03/2007 7:15:35 PM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace

Yeah, big surprise on the money-making part, like they’d purposely do something to lose money?


128 posted on 07/03/2007 7:32:54 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Sharpei diem -- Seize the wrinkled dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: ItisaReligionofPeace

Expenses and proceeds are basically a wash ... this is more or less money laundering , turning taxable into non-taxable based on a fraudulent use of insurance which does not have an otherwise meaningful purpose.


129 posted on 07/03/2007 10:31:39 PM PDT by Neidermeyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer

Hmmm, interesting.


130 posted on 07/04/2007 5:58:58 AM PDT by ItisaReligionofPeace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Neidermeyer
we (yes you too) pay more on our taxes as a result..

we (consumers) pay all the taxes anyway. You think prices wouldn't go up if they were not sheltering income?

131 posted on 07/04/2007 6:28:47 AM PDT by LearnsFromMistakes (Member VRWC - Volvo-owning right-wing conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
“If you asked me, I would say they did it to make more money.”
******************************************************************************************************************8
And what is wrong with that. Isn’t that what people are in business for, to make money. But if it is Wal Mart that is different, they are supposed to make less money?
132 posted on 07/04/2007 6:28:48 AM PDT by John D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintons Are White Trash
Key employee insurance for employers is nothing new - can’t they find something else to complain about?? I know...it’s Walmart!

Exactly. Companies routinely do this to cover expenses replacing the worker. I don't see any ethical problems here...

133 posted on 07/04/2007 6:33:18 AM PDT by John123 (Bill barely mentions Hillary in his memoirs... I will now light myself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

Better check closely, I would wager that this policy originated while Hitlery was on the board. Double check to see if she was a beneficiary through stock options.


134 posted on 07/04/2007 6:36:30 AM PDT by Steamburg (If we don't want our nation bad enough to protect it, it won't be ours long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clintons Are White Trash

However, “Key-employees” usually know that they are insured by the company. This smacks of Hitlery redirecting the money to her “benevolent” benefit.


135 posted on 07/04/2007 6:38:55 AM PDT by Steamburg (If we don't want our nation bad enough to protect it, it won't be ours long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
It should be against the law for anyone to take out insurance on you without your knowledge - pure and simple.

What difference would it make if you knew?

136 posted on 07/04/2007 6:40:50 AM PDT by John123 (Bill barely mentions Hillary in his memoirs... I will now light myself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mr. K

“KEY-MAN insuran”

350,00 Key employee’s WOW! I would like to find just one when I need help inside their lousy stores...


137 posted on 07/04/2007 6:42:38 AM PDT by e_castillo (We should fear the Environmentalist Inquisition...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
Ho ‘bout the fact it was done without people’s knowledge? Would you want your employer taking out a policy on you without telling you about it?

Companies do lots of things without your knowledge. They spy on your emails, they do credit checks and criminal checks.

Welcome to the modern world...

138 posted on 07/04/2007 6:43:38 AM PDT by John123 (Bill barely mentions Hillary in his memoirs... I will now light myself on fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Clintons Are White Trash

If insuring people without their knowledge and consent is such a good thing, then states should buy insurance on plane loads of people and sell the premiums as lottery tickets. Or hadn’t you noticed that they no longer sell those insure anybody policies at vending machines in airports.

Key employees know that they are insured by the company and give their consent.


139 posted on 07/04/2007 6:46:28 AM PDT by Steamburg (If we don't want our nation bad enough to protect it, it won't be ours long.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
The practice spread beyond top executives in the 1980s when the industry successfully lobbied states to allow employers to claim an "insurable interest" in the lives of rank-and-file workers.

Does the insurance remain in force even after the employee is outsourced?

If so, we're literally worth more to them dead than alive.

140 posted on 07/04/2007 6:50:17 AM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Another anti-Walmart screed which no doubt originated with a disgruntled union rep:

Wal-Mart, which said it canceled its policies in early 2000 because it was losing money on the arrangemen, says the program was intended to reduce its income taxes to help pay rising employee health care costs. Workers were notified and given the opportunity to opt out, the company said. Myers said this corporate practice is not uncommon. He estimates that up to 25 percent of Fortune 500 companies have taken out such policies on employees. The vast majority of the time, the employees didn't know, Myers said.

141 posted on 07/04/2007 6:54:42 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
Ho ‘bout the fact it was done without people’s knowledge? Would you want your employer taking out a policy on you without telling you about it?

From the article:

Workers were notified and given the opportunity to opt out, the company said.

142 posted on 07/04/2007 6:58:06 AM PDT by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

Ding-ding-ding! We have a winner.

I believe most of the problems we have in this country stem from nosey people so busy minding others’ business that they end up letting their own go.


143 posted on 07/04/2007 7:00:42 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: monday

Ding-ding-ding! Another winner.

Somehow not that many get it.


144 posted on 07/04/2007 7:02:49 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Keith in Iowa
Would you want your employer taking out a policy on you without telling you about it?

Meh...don't care.

145 posted on 07/04/2007 7:04:16 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Publius Valerius
...let's say your boss walks into your office today and says, "hey, by the way, Keith, we've got a $500,000 insurance policy on you."

How would this effect you at all?

All of a sudden, I would have a great deal more confidence in my job security.

146 posted on 07/04/2007 7:08:31 AM PDT by ExGeeEye (Any means, fair or foul, to defeat the islamic filth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

The part that has me questioning Wal-Mart’s fair play here is the fact that they’ve been successfully sued over this. I’m not sure if it’s legit or they got an O.J. jury. To me, there’s a lot of unanswered questions.


147 posted on 07/04/2007 11:18:02 AM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Sharpei diem -- Seize the wrinkled dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-147 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson