re: Woman gets STD from boyfriend after car sex, Geico ordered to pay $5.2 million

quote:

---

Then why is the $5.2 not exclusively on the individual but rather on the insurance company? I read the rest of your explanation and I appreciate the legal breakdown but by all intents and by common sense the insurance company for VEHICLE insurance should not cover this.

---

The simple answer is Geico insured him with a policy that covered this type of liability, though they almost certainly did not mean to do it. To comment more I would have to see the language of the policy the plaintiff relied upon. While I haven't looked deep into the case I looked at it quickly this morning when I got to the office and the process was significantly different than I had thought. It was not an arbitration required and/or agreed to by the insurance company but rather one allowed and sanctioned by MO code.

quote:

---

Wrong.

Read it again.

---

If you read the appeals court's opinion they dealt with mainly procedural issues surrounding Geico's motions to vacate the reduction to the judgment of the arbitration findings. In my cursory look at the opinion it did not seem to set any new precedent it just ruled on a lot of procedural matters and it looked like Geico's attorneys dropped the ball in handling the matter whether or not their due attention would have changed the outcome.

I don't see any precedent set. It is clear that the 537.065, RSMo based arbitration found the "loophole" exploitable but I see nothing that showed the trial court or appellate courts did anything more than rubberstamp the arbitration findings using the codified bar which is extremely low. Insurance companies will move to close this loophole at the earliest possible time. There will be some claims made looking back and some made for incidents prior to the insurance companies being able to change the policy language but this is not something that will upset the insurance apple cart. By the time every similar policy renews in the country that liability will be written out of the policies.

quote:

---

15 minutes

---

humble brag

quote:

---

They were in a relationship since 2017 and she found out in 2021, so in 4 years she is saying they only had sex in his car. What about the house.

---

Where do you see this? The incident(s) that caused transmission purportedly happened in "November and Early December of 2017".

Without knowing what testimony was given at the arbitration we simply can't opine on much of the facts. There are certainly fact patterns that could by a preponderance of evidence show the transmission occurred during sex in the car. Unless you can show otherwise I think you are assuming facts not in evidence.

Watch her go after Hyundai now.

I'm far from one to defend insurance companies and I think everyone here agrees this is bullshite, but this is such a huge factor in why so many of our insurance costs, health, whatever are so high. The legal department requirements so many places have to have to deal with shite like this constantly balloons admin departments everywhere. Our litigious culture is a cancer.

Below quote & article is from October 2021 and before the article in OP.

Starting daring in November 2017, tested positive sometime in 2018 (if in high school I would buy most sex happening in car, but I don’t think that the case here), still dating in 2021 when this process started, and still dating at least up to 2021 agreement between the 2 in state court that she could collect $5.2 million from insurance.

Some reform was passed around time of arbitration ruling, but I don’t know if it fixed others abusing “loophole” similarly afterward reform became effective or not.

Also Not sure what happened with the federal case mentioned in older article.

quote:

---

The insurance company has since filed a counter suit, and has accused the pair - who have elected to remain anonymous during court proceedings - of colluding for a massive payout.

GEICO is now challenging the couple's court-given right to stay anonymous throughout upcoming federal proceedings.

The woman, referred to as M.O. in court documents, filed a liability suit against the popular agency - whose ads feature a mild-mannered, anthropomorphic British lizard - after having unprotected sex with the man, labeled M.B., in the backseat of his 2014 Hyundai Genesis in 2017, and testing positive for HPV as a result.

The car is covered by an insurance policy in M.B.'s name.

At that point, the woman, without GEICO's knowledge, entered legal talks with her then-lover, and reached an agreement in state court where she would receive $5.2 million, that she 'can collect, if at all, only from GEICO,' court documents concerning the case reveal.

… The woman is now threatening to sue for damages relating to her 2018 diagnosis.

The case has since become a federal matter, presided over by the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

---

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10064853/Woman-sues-GEICO-1M-claiming-got-HPV-having-sex-car-insured.html

quote:

---

The incident(s) that caused transmission purportedly happened in "November and Early December of 2017".

---

How can she say for sure when she got it or where she got it. Also, as this is not in the inteded operation of the car how is it Geico's fault?

quote:

---

Geico constructed a sloppy policy contract

---

Big if true.