Slashdot Mirror
Verizon Charged Marine's Widow an Early Termination Fee
In a decision that was reversed as soon as someone with half a brain in their PR department learned about it, Verizon charged a widow a $350 early termination fee. After the death of her marine husband, Michaela Brummund decided to move back to her home town to be with her family. Verizon doesn't offer any coverage in the small town so Michaela tried to cancel her contract, only to be hit with an early termination fee. From the article: "'I called them to cancel. I told them the situation with my husband. I even said I would provide a death certificate,' Michaela said."
Doesn't death let you out of any contracts you are in by law?
Yes, but that doesn't mean your estate is off the hook. If you have any assets in your name when you die, those assets must be applied to any outstanding debts. That is what probate is all about. The reminder goes to your heirs.
Except she (the contractee) didn't die. Her husband did.
As a general rule, most contracts have a military clause that extends to the spouse/family of the military member. The reason this clause exists is to protect them should they be required to move without notice, relocate to another area, or lose their spouse. This applies, to homes, cars, and many other things.
It's a good policy, and Verizon screwed up by choosing to ignore it. If Verizon stuck to their guns, she could easily have gone to family advocacy department in the USMC and they would have helped correct Verizon.
If nothing else, it highlights how we little people get treated by corporations in America every day.
I am open source, and Linux baby!
That being said, I believe in contracts. If you didn't want the contract, don't sign it.
A big part of the problem is that Verizon is allowed to unilaterally change the terms of the contract, but the consumer is not. In fact, it was such a change to the contract that led to this incident:
"Effective April the 26th, 2010 Early Termination Fees are no longer waived if a consumer moves out of our digital calling area coverage map. This means for customers whom have lost jobs and must relocate, people with immigration status and are liable to leave, or anyone who may otherwise relocate, is now subject to the ETF of $175 or $350, depending on device. " Source
Interestingly, there is an official exception for deployed military personnel, but (apparently) not for soldiers killed in action.
Of course, one could argue "don't sign a contract that allows Verizon to change the terms" but every consumer contract these days contains such a clause, so what do you do?
Let's say he's an E-2. According to the 2010 Military Pay Table located here he'd be making 1622.10 a month before the bonuses. His BAH (Basic Allowance for Housing) as an E-2 with a dependent is 619.50. Add to that his family separation allowance of $250 (since I assume he was away from his wife). According to the pay table, his hazard pay (assuming he wasn't on an air crew or in a submarine or something like that) is $150. The BAQ allowance would vary based on where he lives assuming his wife lived off base when he deployed. But that would essentially just cover housing costs. So he makes a grand total of approximately 2641.6 a month to defend our country, assuming he's an E-2 with typical years in service for an E-2. That sounds like a lot, but then let's look at the parent's claim that he makes less than a typical garbage man in a large city. Searched at random for a large city's sanitation work site, found this for New York. They start off making 31,200 a year. Assuming they get paid bi-monthly, that's 1300.00 every paycheck, or 2600 a month, right off the bat, and can increase to as much as slightly over 67,000. So right off the bat, a garbage man makes, without accounting for any benefits, just slightly less than an E-2 who is married, in a combat zone, and lives on base. As the increases for the sanitation workers is periodic, and judging the fact that within 5.5 years they are making near or at their cap (a cap that enlisted won't reach for some time even with benefits), I'd say that his claim is valid (and rather sad).
The important part isn't the death. The important part is that the contract she signed didn't have an ETF if she moved to an area without coverage. In April, Verizon announced they were reneging on their contracts and would no longer honor that clause. Their reason: "We have perfect coverage so not honoring our contract should not make any difference". This woman is moving to an area without coverage, which her signed contract says is allowed with no ETF. Verizon is refusing to honor the contract and sending collections agencies out for blood.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI