Geico ordered to pay $5.2 to a lady who caught an STD via car sex

[Anonymous]

WTF? The APPEALS COURT agreed with the original decision that the insurance company had to pay her even though she'd been having sex with this guy for a year and the guy TOLD HER he had HPV and she willingly had unprotected sex with him several different times, not just in the car. The STUPIDITY of this litigious society is extremely alarming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/09/geico-std-car-sex-missouri-insurance/

[Anonymous]

$5.2 MILLION

[Anonymous]

I don't want to read the link but what's GEICO's role?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTF? The APPEALS COURT agreed with the original decision that the insurance company had to pay her even though she'd been having sex with this guy for a year and the guy TOLD HER he had HPV and she willingly had unprotected sex with him several different times, not just in the car. The STUPIDITY of this litigious society is extremely alarming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/09/geico-std-car-sex-missouri-insurance/

The Court findings were that HE knew he was HPV positive but that he did not disclose that, which made him liable for her contracting HPV: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187183

I'm out of my depth when it comes to insurance law, but it seems like GEICO's problem here is that it didn't intervene at the proper time and instead waited until after an arbitrator had already determined the insured person to be negligent. There might have been a different outcome if it had done that, but it didn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't want to read the link but what's GEICO's role?

Isn't it obvious? They insure the owner of the car.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WTF? The APPEALS COURT agreed with the original decision that the insurance company had to pay her even though she'd been having sex with this guy for a year and the guy TOLD HER he had HPV and she willingly had unprotected sex with him several different times, not just in the car. The STUPIDITY of this litigious society is extremely alarming.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/06/09/geico-std-car-sex-missouri-insurance/

The Court findings were that HE knew he was HPV positive but that he did not disclose that, which made him liable for her contracting HPV: https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187183

I'm out of my depth when it comes to insurance law, but it seems like GEICO's problem here is that it didn't intervene at the proper time and instead waited until after an arbitrator had already determined the insured person to be negligent. There might have been a different outcome if it had done that, but it didn't.

Seems like shoddy lawyering in Geico's part more than anything else.

[Anonymous]

This mid characterized the proceeding. It was an arbitration between the two individuals to which GEICO was not a party. In fact, GEICO seemingly was not even made aware of the arbitration under after the award. Even if the woman may meet the technical fevenituon of “covered person” ondoffarvas she occupied the vehicle, I see no reasonable basis for imposing a duty to indemnify for the alleged “loss” in the absence of a covered “accident.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This mid characterized the proceeding. It was an arbitration between the two individuals to which GEICO was not a party. In fact, GEICO seemingly was not even made aware of the arbitration under after the award. Even if the woman may meet the technical fevenituon of “covered person” ondoffarvas she occupied the vehicle, I see no reasonable basis for imposing a duty to indemnify for the alleged “loss” in the absence of a covered “accident.”

^^^ technical … insofar as

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This mid characterized the proceeding. It was an arbitration between the two individuals to which GEICO was not a party. In fact, GEICO seemingly was not even made aware of the arbitration under after the award. Even if the woman may meet the technical fevenituon of “covered person” ondoffarvas she occupied the vehicle, I see no reasonable basis for imposing a duty to indemnify for the alleged “loss” in the absence of a covered “accident.”

Geico was sent a demand letter and declined to defend their insured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This mid characterized the proceeding. It was an arbitration between the two individuals to which GEICO was not a party. In fact, GEICO seemingly was not even made aware of the arbitration under after the award. Even if the woman may meet the technical fevenituon of “covered person” ondoffarvas she occupied the vehicle, I see no reasonable basis for imposing a duty to indemnify for the alleged “loss” in the absence of a covered “accident.”

Geico was sent a demand letter and declined to defend their insured.

And Geico is at fault because of MO law? Would this case have merit in MD or PA?

Maybe the women Bill Cosby assaulted should send a demand letter to BC's home insurance policy carrier...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This mid characterized the proceeding. It was an arbitration between the two individuals to which GEICO was not a party. In fact, GEICO seemingly was not even made aware of the arbitration under after the award. Even if the woman may meet the technical fevenituon of “covered person” ondoffarvas she occupied the vehicle, I see no reasonable basis for imposing a duty to indemnify for the alleged “loss” in the absence of a covered “accident.”

Geico was sent a demand letter and declined to defend their insured.

Although there are differences between policies and states there’s generally no duty to defend under circumstances where coverage is unambiguously excluded, as it would seem to be here.

[Anonymous]

So if I spill my overly hot McDonalds coffee on my lap in my car, I can both go after McDonalds and Geico? Sweet!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if I spill my overly hot McDonalds coffee on my lap in my car, I can both go after McDonalds and Geico? Sweet!

You really should read up on that hot coffee case. That was not a frivolous lawsuit. There’s a good episode on the podcast “you’re wrong about” if you’re interested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if I spill my overly hot McDonalds coffee on my lap in my car, I can both go after McDonalds and Geico? Sweet!

Oof, you tried. You should learn about that case before you make ignorant, flippant comments about it.

[Anonymous]

Guess she found a loop hole.

They both need to go (Ahem) viral