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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Maybe the problem is they had KEYMAN insurance on a woman ?
;-)
“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?
They don’t have to net the expenses with proceeds? I’m calling B.S.
Yeah, big surprise on the money-making part, like they’d purposely do something to lose money?
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.
Hmmm, interesting.
we (consumers) pay all the taxes anyway. You think prices wouldn't go up if they were not sheltering income?
Exactly. Companies routinely do this to cover expenses replacing the worker. I don't see any ethical problems here...
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.
However, “Key-employees” usually know that they are insured by the company. This smacks of Hitlery redirecting the money to her “benevolent” benefit.
What difference would it make if you knew?
“KEY-MAN insuran”
350,00 Key employee’s WOW! I would like to find just one when I need help inside their lousy stores...
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...
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.
Does the insurance remain in force even after the employee is outsourced?
If so, we're literally worth more to them dead than alive.
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.