Dollar Tree's Insurance Company Refuses To Pay For Taneka Talley's Death Because She's Black

Why won't they pay?
Because She was Black

www.digitaljournal.com...

In March 2006 Taneka Talley was stabbed to death while at work. The Fairfield, California Dollar Tree clerk left behind a son who should be getting death benefits. He's not because the man who killed his mother did so because she was black.

The insurance company claims that Talley's death has to do with the colour of her skin which isn't job related.

The man who killed the young mother had never met her before. The death was a random act of violence. It happened on the job. The insurance company, Specialty Risk Services, is taking the low road though and using the theory that had Talley been another race she would still be alive and therefore it's not work related

I believe this is another tactic to cheat the survivors of their insurance claims.

I'm sitting here wondering just how they intend to quantify this in front of a jury. In almost every state and for sure California, if your at work and something happens to you its their responsibility if its a burglary or any type of attack. The only out for them is in their fine print and that states if itssuicide or an act of war. I'm real interested in how they arive at this being a racial act. Of course, I have no love of insurance companies and their tactics to keep the bottom line intact!
Zindo

reply to post by imd12c4funn


I would like to see further proof of this explanation being true. It would be stupid of Dollar Tree to try this, given the horrendous PR that would result from it. I just don't see a company doing this, it's bad for their business in the long run, besides just being totally stupid for them to claim that.

I am not sure if they can even legally make such a claim and if they can I would be most interested to see how this will turn out in the end.


My guess is that if true the insurance company’s home office might see a large amount of picketing and protesting outside of their home office.


Raist

Edited because I am tired.
[edit on 12/5/08 by Raist]

[edit on 12/5/08 by Raist]

reply to post by imd12c4funn


Does this mean if Obama is killed from some nutjob klaner for being Black, the government I.E. the people wouldn't have to take care of Michelle and their two girls since they weren't killing the President because he was President but because he was black???

This is ridiculous and I really don't buy it is true, as someone else posted. It would be HUGE to the Jessie Jackson's and Al Sharpton's o this world to get their mugs on tv again and show the racism inherent in America. Of course they don't like it the other way around, Ole Jessie and Al never like people killing a black man and no getting hate crimes pushed against them...

You know what the more that I think about it I think it would be a GREAT stand for the insurance company to make. This really actually hits the nail on the head on Hate Crimes. If killing a black person is a special circumstance for the Hate Crimes why should the Store suffer because of something they couldn't control, if they didn't hire the blacks they would be accused of racism, so it's not their fault if she was killed because she was black in my opinion. This is another case of you can't have it both ways, it is no different than a muslim terrorist targeting infidels, an act of war on 911... If they can prove it was a race motivated crime they shouldn't have to pay death benefits and the victims family should sue the killer or his insurance or whatever.

Good find if it's accurate and I see I am the only one who could see a reasoning behind them denying the benefits if it was a hate crime, as I said 911 was a hate crime...

The insurance company, Specialty Risk Services, is taking the low road though and using the theory that had Talley been another race she would still be alive and therefore it's not work related

I'm taking the road where the theory is that had Talley not been at work she would still be alive and therefore it is work related.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
reply to post by imd12c4funn

 

You know what the more that I think about it I think it would be a GREAT stand for the insurance company to make. This really actually hits the nail on the head on Hate Crimes. If killing a black person is a special circumstance for the Hate Crimes why should the Store suffer because of something they couldn't control, if they didn't hire the blacks they would be accused of racism, so it's not their fault if she was killed because she was black in my opinion. This is another case of you can't have it both ways, it is no different than a muslim terrorist targeting infidels, an act of war on 911... If they can prove it was a race motivated crime they shouldn't have to pay death benefits and the victims family should sue the killer or his insurance or whatever.

Good find if it's accurate and I see I am the only one who could see a reasoning behind them denying the benefits if it was a hate crime, as I said 911 was a hate crime...

What the bloody hell; if the insurance companies refuse to insure a person because of race then comes age, ethnicity, gender and then no one is insured.

No matter what the reason is if they are trying to get out of it because she is black they are discriminating period; what if the same happen to a white, hispanic, asian, caucasan person etc would we be seeing the same results probably not. There is no question if this is due to her being black it is discrimination.

Another thing does this company have something in there policy about hate crimes , and if they didnt hire blacks because of hate crimes then that is a hate crime.

Originally posted by imd12c4funn
Why won't they pay?
Because She was Black

www.digitaljournal.com...

In March 2006 Taneka Talley was stabbed to death while at work. The Fairfield, California Dollar Tree clerk left behind a son who should be getting death benefits. He's not because the man who killed his mother did so because she was black.

The insurance company claims that Talley's death has to do with the colour of her skin which isn't job related.

The man who killed the young mother had never met her before. The death was a random act of violence. It happened on the job. The insurance company, Specialty Risk Services, is taking the low road though and using the theory that had Talley been another race she would still be alive and therefore it's not work related

I believe this is another tactic to cheat the survivors of their insurance claims.

This is obviously going to be overturned in court. It baffles me that this insurance company or Dollar Tree would even attempt to do something like this. I mean the negative press that they are/will be receiving from this will cost them far more money in terms of lost business than the death benefits the victim's child stands to collect.

Call me naive but is there a regulatory agency that overlooks insurance companies? What this company is trying to pull, aside from being unethical, seems illegal.

[edit on 5-12-2008 by zephyrs]

Wow!
If this turns out to be a 100% true story then I hope both Dollar Tree and Specialty Risk Services get sued so hard that they go out of business. I hope her son becomes a multimillionaire out of this deal.

If there were random acts of race related violence that claimed the lives of the CEO's of both Dollar Tree and Specialty Risk Services because of this, I would be VERY interested to see what happened to the death benefits their families are supposed to get.

These guys are clearly rascist pieces of trash.

Keep in mind that the Los Angeles riots of 1992 were sparked when a jury acquitted four white police officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King following a high-speed pursuit. Thousands of people in the Los Angeles area rioted over the six days following the verdict. Widespread looting, assault, arson, and murder occurred, and property damages totaled one billion dollars. Many of the crimes were racially motivated or perpetrated. In all, 53 people died during the riots.

I won't advocate violence here but I do hope that one way or another justice is served.

Can the reporter Bob Egelko find out the NAME of the insurance company? For this strikingly absurd decision, we need to name names and start a Christmas BOYCOTT of nasty Dollar Tree stores. I'm so sorry for the murdered woman's child. and that company needs to pay out just like any other employee death.

My question is how reputable is the source?

Just asking because if that was the case you would see nearly every dollar tree burned to the ground from masses of rioters of all color because it's such a stupid claim.

reply to post by Darthorious


the case is well-known and covered by local media.
and people of color know of the case and have not rioted the dollar tree outlet.
educate yourself.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by heather65]

The assailant's motives are immaterial.

The victim was at work performing her duties, which involved interaction with the public.

It matters not that she was murdered on the job because of her color, her gender, or because the assailant thought she was controlling his thoughts.

This kind of reasoning on the part of the insurance company is downright sociopathic and tantamount to claiming that one does not have to repay a debt because the borrowed money was stolen.

The insurance company should be fined double the amount of the pay out for the death of the employee.

The insurance company claims that the compensation law does not cover this case because:

The compensation law doesn't consider an on-the-job injury to be work-related if the motives were entirely personal - for example, if an estranged lover or spouse comes to the workplace and attacks an employee because of a private grudge.

/5dtr49

However, there was nothing personal about this attack at all. There is no indication that these people had any history at all.


[edit on 2008/12/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Darthorious
My question is how reputable is the source?

Here's another source:

Firm denies workers' comp in racial killing

[edit on 2008/12/7 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by heather65
reply to post by Darthorious

 

the case is well-known and covered by local media.
and people of color know of the case and have not rioted the dollar tree outlet.
educate yourself.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by heather65]

Now that makes more sense not because she was black but because it was a hate crime, I retract my other statement then due to mis-information in the media.

[edit on 7-12-2008 by Darthorious]

reply to post by imd12c4funn


Shame. Shame on you for such blantant race pandering.

Rest assured I believe that her family should get money but...

"Because she is black" is simply bold faced race baiting.

Their thinking is because it was a hate crime it is not work related which is twisted thinking no matter how you cut it.

But the person posting should be ashamed.

Dollar Tree has decided to pay the family of the slain victim in this case.

Three weeks after a slain woman's family went public with her employer's refusal to pay out death benefits because she was killed in a racially motivated attack on the job, the company offered a settlement to the woman's son.

In a statement e-mailed to ABCNews.com, Dollar Tree's vice president of investor relations, Tim Reid, did not detail why the company reversed its decision to deny death benefits to Taneka Talley's family, but said that Dollar Tree had offered the full worker's compensation benefit permitted by California law.

"While we were advised that the claim would not be covered under the state worker's compensation law," Reid wrote, "we feel this is the right thing to do for Taneka's son."

abcnews.go.com...

This is the logical and legal result of passing laws that are based on the idea that we can punish opinion.
Didn't anybody see this coming?
If you create laws that punish the hate and not the crime then lawyers everywhere will exploit it for their own gain.
Sorry. Race related. No settlement. We have legal precedent from hate crime laws.
This is disgusting.

There wont be a court in the entire USA that would reward such an outlandish excuse by the insurance company because the woman was black.

I be the same insurance company has a non-discriminatory policy in their insurance plans and company rules.

Besides, there is a federal law that prohibits discrimination due to race, religion, sex, marital status etc etc.

I wouldnt be surprised if the court not only rewards the death benefit payments, but discrimination judgement against the insurance company as well and rewards even more to the son.





Cheers!!!!