Marine Widow Battles Verizon Over Cancellation Fee

[douglas9]

COPPEROPOLIS, Calif. (CBS13) A local family is fighting a battle
they never expected after their loved lost his life on the front lines in the war in Afghanistan.

Michaela Brummund is a young widow going through the most difficult time in her life, burying her husband Lance Corporal Gavin Brummund, a marine killed in action.

Michaela and her family say a cell phone company is making this time even more difficult.

"The remote detonated IED, one of those went off, and he took full force," explained Michaela surrounded by pictures of her husband and flowers, still fresh, from his recent funeral. "He died on the chopper on the way to the field hospital."


http://cbs13.com/local/marine.widow.verizon.2.1772409.html

[unhappycamper]

1. Ivan's gotta get those bucks regardless. n/t

[walldude]

2. Verizon is awful. As soon as my "contract" is up with them I'm getting

new service. I have never been treated so poorly by a company as I have with Verizon.

[shanti]

15. they're better than t-mobile and att

i've had (and been screwed) by both of them, and now have verizon. what choice do we really have? :shrug:

[emilyg]

46. Right. Tried them all and

went back to Verizon.

[proud2BlibKansan]

59. I've had great service from AT&T but Sprint sucked

LOL

Plus AT&T is the only carrier that employs union workers.

[quiller4]

86. I've had great luck with T Mobile and negotiated with them

successfully when a change in circumstance forced my young nephew to cancel service-one request to customer service was all it took to waive both late charges and cancellation fees. At the time, he was a wounded warrior in a local Army hospital. I was impressed by the gracious and caring manner of the customer service staff.

On the other hand, I fought a three-month battle with Verizon when I cancelled my service with them at the expiration of my contract. I won the battle but should never have had to fight. Now I use T Mobile prepaid.

[onehandle]

92. They all suck. All cell phone companies are horrible, restrictive and abusive.

They all screw you. I've been with all the major carriers and the only reason I'm with AT&T is that they have the iPhone and I happen to live in their best network city.

If Verizon gets the iPhone, I doubt I'll switch.

[Swamp Rat]

99. yep

I'm waiting for Verizon to get the iPhone, but I wouldn't bother switching to another carrier as they ALL suck.

If I 'switch' to anything else, I'll buy a disposable pay-as-you-go phone.

[Dr.Phool]

24. Try Straight Talk.

It's a joint venture between Walmart and Tracphone. But, it's on Verizon's network, so wherever Verizon has service, so do you.

$30 per month for 1,000 min, 1,000 texts and 30mg data.
$45 per month unlimited everything.
Decent phones for $29-100, and one smart phone for about $300.

AND NO FUCKING CONTRACTS!!!!!!!!

You can't get a Droid (yet), but who cares?

[Sebastian Doyle]

96. Too bad it involves WalMart

otherwise it might be something I might look into. Verizon has the best network, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to avoid dealing with their horrible corporate practices, by dealing with WallyWorld's horrible corporate practices. :evilfrown:

[Stargazer09]

33. Make sure you cancel the day your contract is up

They will try to force you to pay for the next month's service if you aren't careful about when you cancel.

[DawgHouse]

58. My son has worked for all the majors.

As he says, "they're all crooks."

[Liberal_in_LA]

73. unethical company

[lame54]

74. try credo - we have it and love it.

http://www.credomobile.com/

[hobbit709]

3. Some of the comments in the article are amazing.

[NorthCarolina]

4. Wait until they are victorious over Net Neutrality. Things will get really dicey then. eom

[USArmyParatrooper]

5. K&R to expose Verizon

If I was the Verizon rep and the boss wouldn't let me reverse the charges I would quit right there on the spot, and I'd say "go fuck yourself" on the way out the door.

[pintobean]

6. Too late, the damage is done.

CBS13 contacted the Verizon Public Relations Department for the family, and the company responded saying, " Verizon Wireless has long supported our troops and worked with members of the armed services with flexibility. Once we understood this Marine's widow's circumstances, we quickly resolved the situation. We regret any undue frustration we may have caused the Brummunds. Our thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Brummund and her family."

[droidamus2]

7. Not surprising

I bought my first cell phones and service from Verizon when I moved from California to Vermont primarily for possible emergency use during the trip. I figured I would just be able to continue using them when I finished moving. It turned out that the small town of Bakersfield, Vt is in a location that doesn't have Verizon wireless service. It took me four or five times of calling the customer service and explaining that I wanted out of my contract with no charge because of lack of service which they had already admitted was their policy. Each time they had to 'have their technicians verify that my phone really didn't work in that location'. I guess I was a liar just trying to get out of the contract. Eventually they did cancel the contract at no additional cost to me but they did everything they could to frustrate me in the process. My guess is they do this because some people just give up (figuring they can still use the phones other places) and just keep paying for the service. One trick I have found that sometimes works is if you are getting the answers from their front line service people ask to speak to their supervisor. The supervisors have more authority and sometimes can take care of the problem immediately. In many cases the first people you talk to just work of a script, have no real authority and are just there for public relations or to tell you NO if it is something the company doesn't really want to do.

In general I think these companies have looked at the numbers and realize they can piss off a large number of people and it really doesn't effect their bottom line so they see no real incentive to give good customer service. They also seem to believe that them making a completely maximized profit (as opposed to a fair profit) is the most important thing in the world so screw the customer whenever possible (especially if your PR people can convince the customer that they aren't really getting screwed).

[TheDebbieDee]

8. I'm not understanding...........I'm sorry for this family's loss, but

the reason for this woman to decide to move to a region where Verizon does not provide service should have nothing to do with her getting out of paying a cancellation fee. She's CHOOSING to move (regardless of the reason) to an area where Verizon does not provide service!

This family is needlessly using a soldier's death to get out of paying a measly $350 cancellation fee (granted, I hate big companies, too). A soldier's life and death should be worth much more than that.

And Verizon, to avoid looking like the bad guy, has capitulated to this soldier's family.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[datasuspect]

18. yes, but that doesn't relieve her from her obligation to perform according to the terms and

conditions of a legally binding contract.

dying in service to your country doesn't change your legal relationship with creditors.

[11 Bravo]

38. Considering a career in public relations?

Forget it.

[TheDebbieDee]

60. But his death has nothing to do with the contract she signed

with Verizon. His death and the reasons for her moving have been thrown in as a smokescreen to get out of paying the $350 cancellation fee.

The overly "righteous" on this board seem to think that it is okay to get out of your debts because a loved one has passed away.

[datasuspect]

76. that's my point

and people think that expecting her to pay her bill because she signed a contract is lacking in compassion.

but i wonder what they think about people who break immigration laws because of extenuating circumstances

[CreekDog]

94. You think she moved to get out of a Verizon contract --after her husband died?

That is worse than ANYTHING written in this thread that you are complaining about.

:wtf: :banghead:

[Swamp Rat]

101. She is moving "to get out of paying the $350 cancellation fee?"

How do you know? Maybe because it's because her husband just died, and that's all there is to it?

Whether or not this applies to you personally, the 'overly righteous' comment belies a lack of sympathy, not only on this message board, but in our society in general.

Corporate entities have no souls, but we humans do.

[TheDebbieDee]

23. "SHE'S MOVING BECAUSE ............."

Verizon has nothing to do with the reason she is moving. Where she lives is her choice.

And there is nothing wrong with me. I'm just still not understanding why she shouldn't pay the cancellation fee if she's closing the account early....whatever the reason.

[CreekDog]

95. There is something wrong, note your use of the word "smokescreen" in reference to husband's death

"Michaela has decided to move back to Copperopolis in Calaveras County to be closer to family. But her Verizon cell phone does not have service in the small town. But the cell phone company is not showing any compassion for the war time widow."

http://cbs13.com/local/marine.widow.verizon.2.1772409.html

What you've written is so incredibly callous, I just can't get past it.

You wrote: "...with Verizon. His death and the reasons for her moving have been thrown in as a smokescreen to get out of paying the $350 cancellation fee."

You know she did ask them to give her a break --is that so bad? Given the circumstances? :wtf:

[AnArmyVeteran]

13. Do you work for Verizon??????????

[TheDebbieDee]

25. No, I don't work for Verizon. And I am a veteran, too, thank you.

But I don't understand why she shouldn't pay the cancellation fee if she is cancelling the account. The fact that she is a veteran's widow is extraneous, irrelevant and "button-pushing" info that appears to be clouding the judgement of some people.

Regardless of the reason she is cancelling the account, she is cancelling the account. Why shouldn't she pay the cancellation fee?

[pintobean]

40. .

:rofl:

[TwilightGardener]

16. I can see this from two ways--the wife should have not expected

Verizon to just ignore the terms of their agreement out of pity, and Verizon could have used this opportunity to build goodwill and avoid bad publicity. It does leave a bad taste in my mouth, though, for a family to point to the husband's death as a reason not to have to pay. I say that as the wife of a serviceman. I would have written a check and not expected special treatment.

[totodeinhere]

67. I feel for this family. But before you sign a cell phone contract you need to do your homework.

In some cases, if you pay market value for your phone instead of letting them give you a subsidized one, then you are not obligated to sign a contract. If they give you a smart phone that costs them $300 for $50, then they have to make that money back somehow.

But having said that, I think that in this case they should show some compassion under the circumstances and let her out of the contract.

[pinboy3niner]

75. Airlines offer compassionate "bereavement" fares...

...to those traveling for a death, or impending death, in the family. Companies give special consideration ALL THE TIME to people in difficult circumstances.

Regardless of the contractual requirements, Verizon comes off as Scrooge.

(BTW, after I cancelled, Verizon suddenly discovered it had a bunch of lower rates to offer--none of which they told me about when I was a customer...)

[davidinalameda]

21. she moved to be closer to family

it's not like she moved in order to screw Verizon

measly $350?

$350 may not be a lot of money to you but it is to a lot of people

[TheDebbieDee]

27. And Verizon has nothing to do with the reason she is moving.

Why shouldn't she pay the cancellation fee?

The fact that she is a war widow is clouding your judgement. The family thought this fact should have leverage with Verizon but it has nothing to do with the contract that was signed.

Something tells me that this family is NOT above using this soldier's death to avoid forfeiting the deposit on the apartment that this widow will soon be breaking the lease on either.

[Barack_America]

51. Not big on sympathy are you? nt

[TheDebbieDee]

56. The woman lost her husband and for that I have sympathy.

But I don't have any sympathy for someone trying to get out of paying a cancellation fee and using the death of a loved one to justify it.

For crap's sake, it's only $350 cancellation fee. When she signed the contract, did she think she was going to live wherever she was forever?

[Stargazer09]

36. Last time I checked,

It's a free country, and the widow is entitled to move wherever she chooses. If Verizon doesn't offer service in her new area, then Verizon needs to let her out of the contract without a cancellation fee. It isn't fair to her to have to pay for service that she is no longer able to use.

And as a military spouse, and a veteran myself, there's no way in hell I'd stay where we're stationed if something happened to my husband. My home is NOT where the military sent us.

For many families, $350 is not a "measly" amount of money.

[TheDebbieDee]

42. This woman being a Marine widow has nothing to do

with her getting out of having to pay a cancellation fee. Point blank.

This whole story, the way it is written, does nothing but push the buttons of veterans and families of veterans, but this issue of cancellation fees really has nothing to do with veterans issues.

The story does show the extent to which a family will go to; that's of dragging a deceased family member out of the grave to justify/mitigate getting out of paying a comparatively "measly" $350 cancellation fee.

Edited because spelling counts.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheDebbieDee]

63. I wouldn't have wanted to be in any military that would have let you into it.

Consider yourself left on that battlefield!

[BlueCollar]

62. $350.00 is measly...?

Good to know.

[USArmyParatrooper]

72. Her husband was an E3. He made peanuts

[BlueCollar]

78. Former enlisted myself...

I know what it's like to live on E3 pay.

:hi:

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mika]

9. I wonder if Verizon phones were used to detonate the IED that killed him.

Sad for the unnecessary loss of this man. :(

---

[SmileyRose]

10. I'm sorry for her loss, truly - but IMHO Michaela is in the wrong, not Verizon.

When I opened this I assumed Verizon was hammering her for the termination fee on HIS cell contract. Which would be idiotic.

She has a contract with Verizon. She's still alive to use the service. Verizon is willing and able to continue to provide the service she contracted for. Verizon may or may not suck but they are honoring their side of the bargain. If Mrs. Brummund wants out of her contract she'll have to pay the termination fee just like everyone else. I truly ache for her loss, but this doesn't entitle her to a free ride the rest of her life.

[jgraz]

12. Excepting the fact that these contracts are anti-competitive and illegal

They should have been stopped years ago as an illegal restraint of trade.

[AnArmyVeteran]

19. They were ruled illegal by a California court last year

But I'm not sure of what is going on with the appeal. I'm so surprised at how many people want to victimize this widow and place even more burdens on her in her time of great loss and sorrow. The cancelation fees cell companies create are completely arbitrary. There appears to be no limits to what they can charge. I suppose they could even raise them to $5,000 or $50,000 or even seize your firstborn male child. Just because a 'godly' company creates a rule doesn't make it just, fair, ethical or moral. And supporting such corporate tyranny will eventually destroy this country.

[Tesha]

84. Roughly speaking, the early-termination fee matches what the carrier paid to...

..."subsidize" (discount) the price you paid for your phone.

If you don't want a contract, feel free to pay full rack price for the phone
instead of getting it "free", getting it for 1 cent, or $15. (You don't really
think the cell phone only costs $15, do you?)

Tesha

[AnArmyVeteran]

85. Anytime you make any changes to your account they suck you into another contract w/o phones.

I've had my carrier extent the term of the contract for just about every reason, even if you didn't buy a phone. A new price plan = a new contract. I understand about the phone subsidies, but a lot of carriers lock you in with contracts for a lot of other reasons too. And btw, I thought the phones cost $16, not $15 :)

[Tesha]

87. You can frequently fight back against contract extensions that aren't related...

...to some sort of discount from the carrier (such as a subsidized phone).
Alternatively, if they're going to insist on a contract, you can often insist
on a new cheap (subsidized) phone. As yet another alternative, you can
bounce from carrier to carrier with every contract expiration, possibly
with the new carrier paying any "early termination" fee from the old
carrier.

You can often "work the system" if you wish, but you have to know
to ask/being willing to negotiate as if it were a bazaar.

Tesha

[AnArmyVeteran]

88. Thanks Tesha!

[SmileyRose]

35. I agree the termination fees are abusive.

Mrs Brummond is not saying that the fee is generally abusive. She's saying she deserves special treatment because her husband is dead. I don't agree with her.

[Tesha]

83. If you're willing to pay the full retail price for the cell phone, you can avoid a contract.

But if you want the carrier to "subsidize" your phone (by offering you
a several-hundred-dollar discount on the price of the phone), then
the carrier will expect to somehow be repaid.

For example, you can buy an iPhone for $199 with a two-year AT&T
contract or you pay $599 and not be obliged to sign a two-year
contract with AT&T.

Tesha

[AnArmyVeteran]

14. Im so tired of people dumping on victims...

[TheDebbieDee]

29. There are no victims here...........except for the poor dead soldier.

But his death should have nothing to do with his wido NOT paying a cancellation fee.

[USArmyParatrooper]

54. The wife isn't a victim?

I know service providers are used to hearing every excuse in the book, but this goes about a mile past the threshold for being an extenuating circumstance. Her husband is dead and you can bet she's stuck in some shit military town with no family and no support. Yeah yeah, legal contract but any company who's not willing to show humanity such an extreme circumstance deserves the bad publicity.

If I was the customer service rep I would have quit before being made to tell her no.

[Swamp Rat]

102. Man, I am glad we can agree something

I gave you a hard time in another thread or two, but I am totally with you on this one.

[SmileyRose]

34. Verizon did not victimize Mrs. Brummond's husband.

Nor Mrs. Brummond. I don't blame her for wanting her pound of flesh but she's fighting the wrong "bad guy".

[EFerrari]

48. She has to move to a town they do not service.

[SmileyRose]

82. 2 points

1. It's not true that she HAS to move to a town they do not service. She's choosing to move and quite frankly I'd probably make the same choice.

2. Verizon did not have anything to do with her loss. If she agreed to an early termination fee with her cell contract rather than use other options (like prepaid service that requires no contract) then she's stuck.

All that said, now that she decided to scream to the media Verizon will probably decide to waive the fee. IMHO they shouldn't or else every time someone decides to move to an area they don't service they risk going through this all over again. The contracts are stupid. If it costs $350 to get someone set up on cell service and takes the entire contract to make it back then just charge the fees up front and be done with it. It DOESN'T cost that much. They are just trying to recoup profit they'll never get because you terminated early - which means their fee structure is idiotic in the first place.

[EFerrari]

93. Maybe I'm just not understanding you.

Verizon has waived the fee. As they should because they do not service the community where she will be living. even if you ignore the whole part about why she's moving.

[SmileyRose]

97. No, I think you got it.

The last paragraph on the story was not there when I initially read it and I knew Verizon would be forced by bad PR to waive the fee. The fees are idiotic period. The fact her husband died in the service of this country doesn't make the fees more idiotic.

[EFerrari]

98. Got it, thanks. n/t

[datasuspect]

17. when you sign a contract, that means you are legally obligated to perform according

to the terms and conditions of the agreement.

is she the one who signed the legally binding contract? or was it her husband's bill?

if it were her husband's contract, Verizon could press a claim against his estate.

if it's her bill, well, by jiminy, she has to follow the law. and we can't have people breaking laws or violating terms of agreements can we?

[depakid]

31. And Americans wonder why they're continually taken advantage of by corporations right and left...

by abusive corporations who would breach a deal without a second thought.

Frankly, I applaud this family- both for persisting with their claim and for having the good sense to contact the media about the situation:

CBS13 contacted the Verizon Public Relations Department for the family, and the company responded saying, " Verizon Wireless has long supported our troops and worked with members of the armed services with flexibility. Once we understood this Marine's widow's circumstances, we quickly resolved the situation. We regret any undue frustration we may have caused the Brummunds. Our thoughts and prayers are with Mrs. Brummund and her family."

[TheDebbieDee]

44. I condemn this family.........for dragging their poor, dead loved one

out of the grave and into the fray, all in an effort to get out of paying a measly $350.

Will the family go to the media again when this widow wants to get out of forfeiting her deposit when she breaks her lease to move home?

Will the family go to the media again when this widow decides she doesn't need all the furniture she bought on a payment plan now that she's moving away?

I mean, where does it end?

Let's face it - this family may be working the deceased soldier angle.........and some of us are falling for it!

[depakid]

45. Wow.

Proof positive of my post above- with a bit of mean spiritedness to boot!

I don't suppose the fact that these fees are exorbitant and have apparently been ruled on as a violation of California law makes any difference.

You know- American once upon a time had not only a better sense of fundamental fairness and the ability to see the right thing to do, but weren't so eager to support corporations reaping windfalls at other people's expense.

Unfortunately, they grew out of it- and hence the sorry situation you all are in.

[TheDebbieDee]

52. I still say the death of her husband has nothing to do

with her NOT paying these cancellation fees.

[Stargazer09]

80. I agree

The widow was moving out of Verizon's realm of service. Regardless of her reasons, she should not have to pay the cancellation fee if Verizon can't be bothered to provide service at her new home.

[haele]

64. Actually, in many contracts, a lease can legally be broken due to death in the family or job change

or if a crime against the household has been committed and they no longer feel safe to stay.
It happens all the time. Most contracts have riders that describe how and what methods a person can use to legally cancel it - and in most cases, this is so the company or corporation providing the service has a way out or a method to change the terms whenever they want to.
Besides, do you know if she was on a month-to-month only requiring a 30-day notice. Apartments and most other rentals in most military towns don't usually do year-long leases due to the constraints of deployments - mainly because the majority single enlisted, who don't want to keep an apartment for their "stuff" when they're going to be gone for six months to a year, when they could just put it all in storage and find a new place when they get back.

As was mentioned above, most cell phone services do have an opt-out due to a move to an area with no coverage - that issue went to court and was settled long ago. All she'd probably have to do would be to make arrangements with an area supervisor - of course, she could have been stonewalled and either through an overheard bitch session or by her own initiative, the media got involved.
After all, Verison can't live up to their end of the contract if she moves to an area with no coverage because that's where her surviving family lives, and she can't bear to or afford to live where her husband's job left them before he was killed. They've already gotten "burned" by class-action suits for unfair contract terms and stipulation back in the 90's; even so,the cell phone and cable industry is still notorious for not making all the terms and conditions clear when they sell their services.
Heck, Verison went after us because back in 2003, we had gotten a one-year contract with them just one week before they started requiring two-year contracts, even though we had lived up to our end and canceled as soon as our term was up, for years they kept send us to collections for the $500 early cancellation fee - even after we produced copies of our contract several times over.

Haele

[USArmyParatrooper]

55. The difference between legality and morality

Sometimes the contrast is clear.

[datasuspect]

77. then why can't people have similar compassion for other people who break laws or agreements

because of extenuating circumstances?

[Fastcars]

20. If You Don't Want To Sign A Contract...

Don't take the "free" or reduced priced phone. Obviously if a company "gives" you a phone there has to be some way for them to recoup the costs.

[haele]

70. She probably didn't expect to lose her husband and move back home.

They would have probably continued to pay the bill on time if he had survived.
This is not the same as someone signing a contract for a cool freebie and then reneging on it and skipping town.
Even though there are many in this thread that appear to suggest that's what she was attempting.

Blame the media for it getting out, and seeming as if a scamming widow was attempting to bilk a poor, abused Telecommunications company, but frankly, I have little support for Verison in this and can see where she's coming from. If I died or became incapacitated, I'm pretty sure my husband couldn't afford to pay even an extra $150 to cancel a service he doesn't need or will be able to use just because he has to move back to where he has support and can get some form of life back. He couldn't afford to live here, and we don't have enough saved up that he can settle things, pay the last month's rent, pack up, and move cross-country where he'll have to start over. Even if the insurance company managed to cut the survivor's check before he left. Without my income, he, the kidlet, and the critters would be starving and on the street within a month - he'd have to move back just to survive.

That's probably what she was facing - after all, he wasn't making that much - and his pay and any allowances they might have had for housing and family maintenance ended the day his death was recorded. She would only be entitled to the pro-rated pay and allowances for that month, the widow's benefit (I think that's still only $20K or $25K) and one moving allowance to either get her out of military housing if she wants to stay in the area, or send her back to her home of record - where she came from when he enlisted or when she married him. $25K plus another couple hundred on back pay owed is not a lot of money to start over with, even if the move was paid for.


Haele

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bitwit1234]

26. But remember a clerk can't cancel the fees. If she

head went thru the main office and they still refused to cancel the fee then we could be outraged. Because any company will do just about anything to improve their PR and if something like that would happen to me I would go straight for the highest higher ups and mention I would go to the TV and media. They love stories like this.

[SoCalDem]

28. or.. Marine widow moves out of coverage area & expects to have contractual fees waived....n.t..

[TheDebbieDee]

30. "Marine widow" info is completely irrelevant to the story!

It's just thrown in there to cloud people's judgement.

And apparently it works!

Post # 28 nails it on the head.

[xocet]

41. Irrelevant...?

Would she be moving to an area with no Verizon service if her husband had not been killed?

Out of curiosity, do you happen to be an authoritarian follower?

[TheDebbieDee]

43. She is choosing to move to an area that Verizon doesn't

service, whatever the reason. Why shouldn't she pay the cancellation fee?

She apparently has asked to have the cancellation fee waived, but if I'm Verizon, why should I waive the fee?

I'm not a person that comes up with endless excuses of why I can't do something I previously agreed to so, No! I'm not an authoritarian follower. Are you?

[USArmyParatrooper]

57. I'm sensing a bit of disdain for the Marine from you

Kind of like he got what he deserved? Deep down am I warm?

[TheDebbieDee]

68. You're reading all kinds of crap into it that isn't there!

As simply as I can put it, the woman signed a contract agreeing to $350 cancellation fee if she closed the account early.

She is closing the account early, for whatever reason. Why shouldn't she pay the cancellation fee that she agreed to?


I live in Missouri and in January I sign a contract to make payments on a thermal winter coat. In March, I decide to move to Hawaii. Should I be allowed to nullify the contract for making payments on the coat?

[xocet]

71. Amazing...

The response that you provided to my rhetorical question is a non sequitur followed by a standard children's retort. Here is the book that defines authoritarians and authoritarian followers so that you will know better of what you speak in the future (http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/).

As to the situation in the OP, this woman's life changed fundamentally because her husband was killed serving this country. As a result of that, she chose to move back to an area where she had family. This is likely, because it would be difficult to go through the experience of the sudden loss of a loved one if one were totally alone. That much should be self-evident to you.

At no point were endless excuses offered. That is hyperbole on your part.

Additionally, one should keep in mind that her husband was also indirectly defending Verizon's interests. Thus, Verizon should respect that fact and waive the fee without question and immediately.

In toto, your analysis and response consist of the following:

A) a non sequitur,
B) a simplistic jibe,
C) no empathy or appreciation of the depth of the situation,
and
D) a hyperbolic statement.

Anyway, from your argument it is clear that you support corporations and black-and-white corporate contracts over troops and their families.

[howard112211]

91. Would you agree if the tax-payer paid the cancellation fee?

I'm asking this, because on a broader note, how should one deal with keeping systems in place that are of a common good?

This is an individual case, but let's say we implement a general system to deal with such cases, how should such a system look like? Should companies always terminate legal contracts in case of death of a soldier? If yes, then would this not create a disincentive to enter into a contract with a soldier in a capitalist economy?

I think, if anything the cancellation fee, provided it was legal to have it in the first place, should be paid by the tax-payer. If society has an interest in providing relief to military families then society as a whole needs to shoulder the costs, not the individual company that has entered into the legal contract.

Essentially, such cases call for a "socialist" solution, where the collective agrees to pay for the relief, not a market based one where we ask companies to make random policy decisions that place them at a competitive disadvantage.

[BuddhaGirl]

81. I'm glad I don't live in such a black and white

world... :-(

[Stargazer09]

32. Verizon is absolutely horrible

My husband was overseas last year, and I switched to AT&T when I bought an iPhone. I cancelled our joint account right after the billing period ended, and they sent me a bill for the full amount of the monthly bill AFTER I cancelled. Apparently, their policy is to bill you a month in advance, and if you don't cancel before the month rolls over, you owe the next month's amount in full. They absolutely refused to prorate the bill; I wouldn't have had any problem paying for the portion of the month (something like 3 days) that I actually used, but that wasn't good enough for them.

I will never, ever recommend Verizon to anybody ever again. Their customer service is HORRIBLE.

ETA: It's sad that it took a news outlet's intervention to make Verizon show a modicum of compassion to that widow. Sad, but typical for Verizon.

[kiranon]

37. Compassion is not a widely held trait. Cancel the contract.

There is the law and then there is justice under the law. Law not tempered by compassion equals a Republican/corporate world in my opinion.

[lpbk2713]

39. Verizon employees are threatened and disciplined if they give customers a break.

I read that in a post here in GD fairly recently. If they tell a customer how they could save money with a better plan or with better options they get chewed out by upper mgmt. So the best way to get anything out of Verizon is to talk to someone several levels upward because the lower level employees are not empowered to make decisions.

[GaYellowDawg]

79. No, they're not.

The poster was wrong. Verizon gave my mom a tremendous break. During the last month that my father was alive, she went way over her allotted minutes, and had a huge bill. I called Verizon and explained what happened - that she had to be in the nursing home and then in the hospital with my dad - and they said that given the situation and because she'd never gone over her minutes before and because she'd paid on time every month, they took every single penny of extra charges off. It was somewhere in the neighborhood of $120. I called asking if they could give her some kind of break on the bill, and they gave her more than I asked for. This decision was made one level up from the person on the phone.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

47. Meh. Maybe she should get used to people not giving a shit about her.

I hate to say it but it's true. When the funerals are over and the bugle stops, she'll be on her own with a dead husband pushing up daisies. All she'll have left is lip-service from politicians and some ribbon magnets on freeper SUVs.

50,000 plus dead in the Viet Nam war - for what? The communists took over anyway and the world didn't come to an end. Now you can enjoy a nifty vacation in Viet Nam. While you are there you can enjoy Kentucky Fried Chicken and wash it down with a Coke and a smile.

[GoldenOldie]

49. Going from a "I'm sorry for their loss, BUT..."

to the "I condemn this family" Years ago a friend advised me to read between the lines when anyone attempts to clarify their first response by use of a "BUT." It usually means their initial comment was a lie.

Having a grandson that served in Iraq and now in Afghanistan and a statement he made to me during an R&R home visit, that most Americans just don't care what is happening on the battlefield or to the soldiers and their families. We go about our daily activities,totally oblivious of the pain and suffering of others. It is reflected in the BP oil disaster....from those who ignore the plight of the NOLA and Gulf people and feel that BP is being scammed???? It is also reflected by those who state that our soldiers knew what they were getting into and should never have enlisted, therefore they have no compassion for their wounds or death. We know nothing about this young war widow nor the difficulties she maybe experiencing, yet we are willing to condemn her and offer a corporation as the victim.

Coming from a long line of war veterans, I thank you for your service. Yet who among you have actually lost a spouse, parent or child from a war???

[unc70]

61. Marine widows, telephone charges -- June 1967

During the summer of 1967, I was employed in the Public Works Department at MCAF New River, now MCAS New River. One of my reponsibilities was private telephone billing on-base. New River Air Facility was the helicopter field for Camp Lejeune, and had a modest amount of on-base housing for families.

One of my tasks was to TYPE the individual phone bills, manually combining the fixed charges for local services (in-house by PW) with the long-distance charges provided by AT&T or CT&T. Using a Selectric typewriter and an adding machine, I manually cranked out hundreds of phone bills, retaining the back carbons for later use collecting the payments (another task), and reconciling the whole mess. Hard to believe it was that crude, took 2-3 days/month.

On 23 June 1967, a Huey taking off collided with a 53 "Sea Stallion" on runway 23, a couple of blocks from my office, killing 22 and seriously injuring several others. I did not hear the crash, but we went outside when all the sirens went off at once. Could see the crash in the distance. Not the first fatal crash I had seen, not something I will forget.

Because of my job, I felt like I was intruding in the lives of the widows and families of those killed that day. I saw and processed all their long-distance bills for that period, until they were forced out of base housing at the end of July (no longer qualifying as "dependents"). This was back when long distance calls were really expensive, but a dollar was worth a lot. I remember many phone bills of $500 plus, some more than $1000 in a month.

Since they came by PW to pay their bills and to arrange vacating housing, I saw most everyone involved several times over the following couple of months. I had previously met many of them. While it has been a long time and I don't remember the individual people, I remember their losses.

[proud2BlibKansan]

65. Talk about misleading!

When I read the title of the article I figured Verizon was making her pay for her husband's cell phone until the contract is up even though he is dead. But that's not the deal at all. She's moving and there's no Verizon service where she is moving.

IMO, these contracts should be illegal anyway. But in the meantime there should be an allowance for cancellation when you move to a non covered area.

So I read the whole article and at the end there is a statement from Verizon that worked with the family to solve the problem.

In other words, game over. No story.

A couple bad guys here:
1. The media for making this a story when it is not.
2. The widow for expecting a break because her husband died.

But not Verizon.

[tammywammy]

66. Totally agree. n/t

[Old Troop]

69. The last sentence of the Verizon statement is odd, "our thoughts

and prayers are with...". Do they plan to have a mass prayer session involving all Verizon employees?

[onehandle]

89. Scum. nt

[howard112211]

90. Here's my take on this:

First of all, I think the company has a right to demand that a legal contract that was signed be upheld. If that were not the case then the whole concept of having a contract would be pointless.

Second, I do think that personal circumstance may sometimes warrant an opt-out of a contract. However, I think that in such a case the tax-payer should compensate the company. Here is why: I think if society has an interest in something that is viewed as a common good, then society should shoulder the costs, not an individual company that happens to be in the position of losing a contract due to circumstance. If granting military spouses a waiver for fees in case of death of the soldier is viewed as a policy that is a common good, then society needs to agree shoulder the costs.

Anything else creates incentives for companies to avoid risk groups. And they would be right to do so, since loss of profit in a capitalist economy usually means falling behind the competition.

I essentially view this the same way as, say, maternal leave. I think people should have the right to maternal leave. I think since this is something that lies in the interest of the common good, society should shoulder the costs of keeping the system in place. Individual companies should not be penalized by loss of profit for their choice of hiring someone in reproductive age, thus there should be compensation from the tax-payer.

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. So in the end they "fixed it."

Anybody thinks this would be different if it was any other company?

[Swamp Rat]

103. Nope, because corporations, like most politicians, have only shame.

[NeedleCast]

105. She should have to pay...

I say this as a veteran with a combat tour in Afghanistan. It's tragic what happened to her husband but why does that absolve her from a contractual debt? Should she not have to pay for her car anymore because her husband was killed? Where's the line on what contracts should no longer have to be paid after the death of a spouse?