re: Geico to pay 5.2M

AggieHank86's - you'd have a field day with a pot-hole...

quote:

---

that this is a simple question of contractual interpretation.

---

I have never, ever, seen any language remotely close to affording this type of coverage.

It certainly does not exist in the ISO which almost every policy is based on.

I’ve never seen it in any geico policy

As for the std my understanding is that men can’t be tested for that. Actually the cdc says there is no approved test.

quote:

---

that this is a simple question of contractual interpretation. I have never, ever, seen any language remotely close to affording this type of coverage. It certainly does not exist in the ISO which almost every policy is based on.

---

Good Lord.

No one is saying that the contract includes an STD clause.

The question is whether the the pleading was drafted in such a way as to come within the primary coverage provision. Apparently, the court ruled that it was.

quote:

---

Who the hell gets over $5 million in liability coverage?

---

maybe an umbrella, or maybe the boyfriend assigned a bad faith failure to defend claim to the girlfriend, if the primary or carrier refuse to defend the STD case. policy limits go out the window on a failure to defend case.

That’s gotta be one for the greatest legal performances of all time by that attorney. You just gotta admire the rabbit hole he dug from nothing, leading nowhere.

quote:

---

As for the std my understanding is that men can’t be tested for that. Actually the cdc says there is no approved test.

---

First, the insured knew he had HPV due to a throat issue. He was fully informed via his doctors and that was part of the record.

quote:

---

I have never, ever, seen any language remotely close to affording this type of coverage.

---

It likely doesn't exist in any auto insurance policy in the US. The key is the arbitrator found the policy did not exclude this type of tort. Contracts don't have to make common sense. In the case of an auto policy the carrier/underwriter drafts the entire contract, it is in essence unilateral so it will be construed against the drafter (the contra proferentem rule). The tie goes to the runner if you will. The insurance company has teams of in-house and external attorneys to catch these issues but they often have lived inside the box so long they forget how to think outside it. This along with the fact most contracts have pages and pages of boilerplate that attorneys sometimes miss seeing the ambiguities or contradictions the boilerplate causes.

It also appears that Geico's attorneys didn't do a complete job at protecting their client's rights at and after the district court hearing that reduced the arbitration findings to a judgment.

They will live and learn and correct their contracts deficiencies as will every other insurance carrier/underwriter in the country.

Geico made their bed and will have to lie in this one, they just ran into an attorney sharper and more dogged than their team(s).


BTW this case is quite a bit more complicated than the media has represented, they generally aren't attorneys and they aren't writing for attorneys. The way this played out under some specific Missouri law provisions make the hairs on my neck tingle in that there could have been some collusion between the parties. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the arbitration transcripts.

quote:

---

It likely doesn't exist in any auto insurance policy in the US.

---

That should be the end of the discussion

I don’t know Missouri law but I’m positive this gets nowhere in Florida. I’m also pretty sure there is no ambiguity created regarding this.

I would love to see the arbitration award and the court upholding.

The only thing I can see is if the appeal would only be technical and not in the merits

Ok ETA

I read the decision… should have before. In a nutshell geico denied coverage and did not participate in their insured defenses. Too bad for them. The appeal is about them trying to intervene later and court said no - proper ruling.

Geico filed a separate declaratory judgment action regarding coverage

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

---

Another problem is there's a vaccine for HPV. She willingly engaged in high risk behavior (unprotected sex) AND wasn't vaccinated against the disease she contracted.

quote:

---

I have never, ever, seen any language remotely close to affording this type of coverage.

quote:

---

It likely doesn't exist in any auto insurance policy in the US. The key is the arbitrator found the policy did not exclude this type of tort. Contracts don't have to make common sense

---

---

Exactly.

Here is the form Missouri car insurance policy from GEICO.

“We will pay damages which an insured becomes legally obligated to pay because of bodily injury (defined elsewhere as “including …sickness, disease or death”) sustained by a person ….”

quote:

---

”The little whore was asking for it.”

OK.

---

So if someone refuses the Covid vaccine and goes to a mass gathering with no mask, and contracts the WuFlu as a result, it's everyone else's fault and they should get paid?