Anonymous
06/14/2022 00:26
Subject: Geico ordered to pay $5.2 to a lady who caught an STD via car sex
Anonymous wrote: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.
What type of insurance coverage? Do car insurances cover illnesses?
Is that the same for home insurance? If I get infected while having sex at my boyfriend's place, I could file a claim with the home insurance?
This is silly.
Anonymous
06/13/2022 18:05
Subject: Geico ordered to pay $5.2 to a lady who caught an STD via car sex
Anonymous wrote:...
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.
The funny thing about this case, from a legal standpoint, is that insurance companies commonly force plaintiffs to enter arbitration in random places and with arbitrators of the insurance company's choosing, and the insurance companies regularly win when plaintiffs try to appeal paltry arbitration awards because the arbitration is binding. The appeals court likely was thrilled to use Geico's own prior decisions against them.
Anonymous
06/09/2022 19:59
Subject: Geico ordered to pay $5.2 to a lady who caught an STD via car sex
Anonymous wrote: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.
If a court found coverage and an appellate court affirmed the finding one cannot call it unambiguously excluded.
And from all appearances, Geico declined to defend. They should have defended under a reservation of rights.