Mayo v. Hartford Life Insurance

1. Why did Wal-Mart, like many other companies at the time, take out significant amounts of life insurance on its rank and file employees? Does it provide any extra concern that the life insurance continued even after the employee stopped working at Wal-Mart?

2. Why didn't Wal-Mart argue that Mayo could not recover because this was not really life insurance at all: the program, after all was supposed to be "mortality neutral"?

3. Is the right test whether Wal-Mart was unjustly enriched by this particular insurance designation or whether it was unjustly enriched by the program as a whole? Should those close to the employee who died have any better claim that those of the employee who lives?

4. Various convenience stores were big purchasers of COLI. Does that provide any special concern?

5. Putting aside the Restatement, whose law should govern this dispute: Texas where the employee resided or Georgia the place designated in the contract. Is it unfair if other states permit this transaction and thereby bar recovery whereas Texas would allow it? Does the unfairness leave you in tears?

6. Congress got rid of the sort of tax advantages that Wal-Mart attempted to exploit here, but COLI is still in significant use. It has various cousins such as BOLI.

7. Does it really cause an employee any harm if, unbeknownst to that employee, their employer takes out a, say, $100,000 life insurance policy on their head?