- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Geico to pay 5.2M
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:32 am to Barneyrb
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:32 am to Barneyrb
quote:Apparently, the woman was suing for recovery of damages arising from a negligent act (engaging in sexual intercourse with full knowledge that he was contagious with an STD) by the insured (the then-boyfriend) in the insured vehicle. Geico was the boyfriends insurance company, with regard to damages caused by him in the operation of his vehicle.
woman has sex in a car with boyfriend and catches HPV and then sues Geico.
Full credit to her attorney… It was a novel, clever theory. That does not necessarily mean that these particular damages were covered by the insurance policy. Apparently the court ruled that they were. We would need to see the relevant language from the insurance policy in question, in order to evaluate whether we agree or disagree that this was a covered claim. Without seeing both the coverage language AND the pleading, everyone screaming about the inequity of this ruling is just pulling it out of their asses.
The fact that the girlfriend sued the insurance company directly (as opposed to suing her then-boyfriend and having him defended by his insurance company) means that she probably lives in a “direct action“ state. Louisiana is such a state, whereas Texas is not. Here, she would’ve been required to sue the boyfriend. In Louisiana, she could’ve sued the insurance company directly.
Direct action states include Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. LINK
In Missouri, it is also possible that the boyfriend agreed to a judgment favorable to the girlfriend AND to her claim against the insurer and then assigned his contractual rights to the girlfriend as part of a "friendly suit" settlement of a claim directly against him. That was once not uncommon, but less so as the insurance industry adapted to the practice.
quote:Is she a slut in general, or is there something about car sex that offends you. Do you have a list of approved locations for sex?
It's not their fault she's a slut
Edit
I actually love all the down votes from idiots who seem to not understand that this is a simple question of contractual interpretation. The language of the insurance contract either covers his claim or it does not. There is nothing remotely political about it.
If this holds up (and perhaps even if it does not), the insurance industry will simply change the standard language in such a way that this sort of claim is precluded from coverage.
They probably wrote the revised language the day after they got this demand letter, because it is a clever approach.
This post was edited on 6/11/22 at 11:40 am
4
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:39 am to Barneyrb
This is the same kind of shite like suing a gun manufacturer because someone used their products for a school shooting.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:41 am to Barneyrb
This would be absolutely detrimental to everyone's car insurance rates.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:42 am to Barneyrb
When I first read this yesterday, I thought the Babylon Bee was up to it's tricks... turns out they need to step-up their game.
Hope this gets overturned by someone sensible.
Clown World.
Hope this gets overturned by someone sensible.
Clown World.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:43 am to imjustafatkid
quote:Except that the coverage language will be rewritten with a quickness.
This would be absolutely detrimental to everyone's car insurance rates.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:45 am to Warfarer
quote:No, it is not remotely similar. The insurance company was sued in its capacity AS AN INSURANCE COMPANY for the insured tortfeasor. It is a very nature of an insurance contract that the insurance company provides defense and indemnity for the actions of the purchaser of his insurance product. A gun manufacturer does nothing of the sort.
This is the same kind of shite like suing a gun manufacturer because someone used their products for a school shooting.
You probably do not live in a direct action state and simply do not know about this sort of lawsuit. Most people in states that do not allow such direct action against insurance companies would also be confused.
When I handled my first Louisiana cases, after a decade practicing solely in Texas, I was absolutely baffled to see insurance companies named as defendants in tort cases. Some states simply see it as a more efficient system. (It is certainly more efficient for the personal injury plaintiff's attorneys).
This post was edited on 6/11/22 at 11:16 am
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:45 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Except that the coverage language will be rewritten with a quickness.
Does not matter. This will be greatly detrimental to everyone's car insurance rates. Now they have to insure against some sleazeball lawyer coming up with a "novel approach" that only a complete loser of an attorney would ever consider worth pursuing.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:49 am to imjustafatkid
quote:every year, clever attorneys come up with new causes of action in an effort to get insurance coverage for a particular tort claim. Every year insurance companies amend the language in their policies to address those innovative claims. It has been happening every year since the beginning of insurance regulation.
This will be greatly detrimental to everyone's car insurance rates. Now they have to insure against some sleazeball lawyer coming up with a "novel approach" that only a complete loser of an attorney would ever consider worth pursuing.
This claim is no different, other than the fact that it involves sexual intercourse, which makes the SoCons get all up in arms.
This post was edited on 6/11/22 at 10:50 am
Posted on 6/11/22 at 10:49 am to Barneyrb
quote:
How many daddies are lining up because Sally got knocked up in a car?
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:02 am to AggieHank86
quote:
every year, clever attorneys come up with new causes of action in an effort to get insurance coverage for a particular tort claim. Every year insurance companies amend the language in their policies to address those innovative claims. It has been happening every year since the beginning of insurance regulation.
This claim is no different, other than the fact that it involves sexual intercourse, which makes the SoCons get all up in arms.
Every single frivolous claim that makes news makes everyone get up in arms. You just like to pretend you know things so you make up nonsense like this.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:12 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
You just like to pretend you know things
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:17 am to Barneyrb
So don’t bitch and complain when your insurance doubles or when you think it’s too. It’s a culture problem in Louisiana and the Louisiana legislature encourages it. Personal injury lawyers gonna lawyer.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:21 am to Godfather1
quote:We don't have the trial testimony. Maybe the testimony showed that the car was their "go to" location for sex.
An arbitrator later found that the couple’s sex in the vehicle “directly caused, or directly contributed to cause” the HPV infection.quote:
I don’t see how you can prove that, nor the relevance of it. He could’ve just as easily banged her on the sofa and given it to her.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:22 am to Barneyrb
karma for this bitch is very strong
ah, KC , western court of appeals
the fact that this case was even heard, show how dangerous libtard judges are to all americans and their freedoms.
ah, KC , western court of appeals
the fact that this case was even heard, show how dangerous libtard judges are to all americans and their freedoms.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:30 am to SeeeeK
quote:Why?
the fact that this case was even heard, show how dangerous libtard judges are to all americans and their freedoms.
What is the language of the insurance contract? What was the language in the girlfriend's pleading? Did she plead a claim within the coverage?
If so, how do you suggest that the court could have refused to hear the case?
and WTF relevance does "liberal" or "conservative" have in a simple case of contractual interpretation?
This post was edited on 6/11/22 at 11:32 am
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:32 am to Barneyrb
Some attorneys will lose their contracts with Geico over this.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:40 am to AggieHank86
I'm not going to argue with your legalese and talking down to the fine people on this board. This is why 80+% of people in general hate lawyers until they need one.
That said let's just look at this in terms of common sense. Is it reasonable under the law of common sense to expect that a car insurance company that insures a car based on normal use of said car would pay a woman that got an STD because she willingly had sex with a man in a car that they insure? Not in my world.
Now let me ask you this are you going to be as pissed about asking people for their STD status to get car insurance as you are about car insurance running people's credit (speaking of Louisiana here)? I mean hell if I'm expected to pay for your potential STD spreading I sure as hell want to know if you have one before I insure you.
I'm certain you'll say that all the company has to do is put a standard exclusion on all policies covering this....BUT my thing is that they shouldn't even have to.
I know as well as the next guy that the insurance companies are in business to make money and taking care of their clients is way down the list. BUT....this right here shows you why insurance companies are they way they are.
That said let's just look at this in terms of common sense. Is it reasonable under the law of common sense to expect that a car insurance company that insures a car based on normal use of said car would pay a woman that got an STD because she willingly had sex with a man in a car that they insure? Not in my world.
Now let me ask you this are you going to be as pissed about asking people for their STD status to get car insurance as you are about car insurance running people's credit (speaking of Louisiana here)? I mean hell if I'm expected to pay for your potential STD spreading I sure as hell want to know if you have one before I insure you.
I'm certain you'll say that all the company has to do is put a standard exclusion on all policies covering this....BUT my thing is that they shouldn't even have to.
I know as well as the next guy that the insurance companies are in business to make money and taking care of their clients is way down the list. BUT....this right here shows you why insurance companies are they way they are.
This post was edited on 6/11/22 at 11:41 am
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:47 am to LSU316
quote:Car insurance contracts are not interpreted under "common sense" (whatever that means). They are governed by a few simple rules of contractual interpretation. Without seeing the pleading and the contractual language, I cannot express any opinion as to whether THIS contract requires defense and/or indemnity for THIS claim.
Is it reasonable under the law of common sense to expect that a car insurance company that insures a car based on normal use of said car would pay a woman that got an STD because she willingly had sex with a man in a car that they insure? Not in my world.
Would most people EXPECT it to provide that coverage? Probably not, but I doubt that one person in 100 has ever even read the Coverage Part of his car insurance policy.
quote:If that were to happen, it would make that car insurance company VERY unpopular. As you surmise, the insurance company will just add some language to clarify that the contract does not provide coverage for a type of claim that most people would never expect it to cover anyway. Very few people will be upset by the added language.
Now let me ask you this are you going to be as pissed about asking people for their STD status to get car insurance
quote:And lawnmower manufacturers shouldn't HAVE TO put a warning on their product that it should no be lifted off the ground and used to trim hedges, but ... companies adapt.
BUT my thing is that they shouldn't even have to.
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Is she a slut in general, or is there something about car sex that offends you
Nothing about car sex offends me, did it often when I was young and in school, it was the only place I had then. What does offend me is the lack of responsibility in our society today.
If she doesn't want to catch a STD then she needs to keep her clothes on, did Geico help in removing her panties? Was Geico responsible for her removing her panties? If they would have gone to a Holiday Inn would she have sued them? It's all a crock of shite IMHO.
What is wrong in doing the right things in life?
Posted on 6/11/22 at 11:59 am to Barneyrb
quote:You didn't read anything that I wrote about the nature of this claim, did you?
did Geico help in removing her panties? Was Geico responsible for her removing her panties? If they would have gone to a Holiday Inn would she have sued them?
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News