[Rainger99]

Last summer, GEICO was ordered to pay $5,000,000 because a woman contracted a sexually transmitted disease while having sex in a car that was insured by GEICO.

That decision has been reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court and has been sent back to a lower court for further proceedings.

This is the initial story.

Geico ordered to pay $5.2M to woman who contracted STD in car

This is the story stating that it was reversed.

Geico off the hook in $5 million payout to woman who got STD in car - CBS News.

A copy of the Missouri Supreme Court decision is below.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191589

[LuvNH]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Last summer, GEICO was ordered to pay $5,000,000 because a woman contracted a sexually transmitted disease while having sex in a car that was insured by GEICO.

That decision has been reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court and has been sent back to a lower court for further proceedings.

This is the initial story.

Geico ordered to pay $5.2M to woman who contracted STD in car

This is the story stating that it was reversed.

Geico off the hook in $5 million payout to woman who got STD in car - CBS News.

A copy of the Missouri Supreme Court decision is below.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191589

Another case of "what the hell is wrong with this country". Madness.

[blueash]

This is not over Read the link provided to the decision by the appeals court. This is a narrow finding that says that the insurance company filed a timely request to be involved in the case and that the original court went ahead without allowing Geico an opportunity to participate.

GEICO was statutorily entitled to intervene in the pending lawsuit between M.O.
and M.B. because GEICO filed the motion to intervene, prior to entry of judgment, and
within the 30 days of notice. Because GEICO was not afforded the opportunity to intervene
before judgment was entered, the circuit court's judgment is vacated, and the case is
remanded.

Remanded means the court must reconsider all the facts with all parties involved, including Geico. So at this point Geico is off the hook, but only temporarily should the rehearing go the same way. The trial court or arbitration could this time come with the same, a lower, or a higher dollar finding. Or a no cause of action or zero dollar award.

[fdpaq0580]

OMG! Totally asinine, imHo. Should have been thrown out, the litigants fined for wasting the courts time, and the (jackazz) attorney barred from practicing for a year.

[Taltarzac725]

Not sure what driving a car has to do with other activities in the back seat or wherever. Maybe if they were doing something while driving and crashed the car because of the distraction.

[Battlebasset]

And people wonder why insurance rates keep going up.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Not sure what driving a care has to do with other activities in the back seat or wherever. Maybe if they were doing something while driving and crashed the car because of the distraction.

The issue, still unsettled under Missouri law, seems to be whether automobile insurance covers all injuries which result from the use of that vehicle. There is no controversy that the car was used and during that use HPV was transmitted. Using the broadest interpretation of use, the arbitration officer allowed the plaintiff and defendant to agree that whatever the verdict, Geico would be responsible for coverage. Geico was never given an opportunity to argue that having sex was not a covered use for purposes of the insurance. Does Geico say that it will cover all claims which occur from the legal use of your car? This was a legal use of the car.

The court document online does not cite the exact wording of the insurance contract. My opinion is that this award should not be covered by Geico, and I question why catching HPV which is a known risk of sexual activity is worth 5 million dollars. And even more, what evidence is available to make the finding by a preponderance of proof that the transmission occurred as a result of activities in the car versus elsewhere or with other partners. Although a car does have a transmission, so there it that fact.

Should this claim become allowed, that transmission of disease is an automobile insurable event, we may see a large number of cases where claims are made for catching other illnesses. I wonder if hotels will have to cover STI cases when it seems their beds were the location of the transmission. Looking forward to the added wording in my future car insurance which excludes coverage for such events.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by blueash

The issue, still unsettled under Missouri law, seems to be whether automobile insurance covers all injuries which result from the use of that vehicle. There is no controversy that the car was used and during that use HPV was transmitted. Using the broadest interpretation of use, the arbitration officer allowed the plaintiff and defendant to agree that whatever the verdict, Geico would be responsible for coverage. Geico was never given an opportunity to argue that having sex was not a covered use for purposes of the insurance. Does Geico say that it will cover all claims which occur from the legal use of your car? This was a legal use of the car.

The court document online does not cite the exact wording of the insurance contract. My opinion is that this award should not be covered by Geico, and I question why catching HPV which is a known risk of sexual activity is worth 5 million dollars. And even more, what evidence is available to make the finding by a preponderance of proof that the transmission occurred as a result of activities in the car versus elsewhere or with other partners. Although a car does have a transmission, so there it that fact.

Should this claim become allowed, that transmission of disease is an automobile insurable event, we may see a large number of cases where claims are made for catching other illnesses. I wonder if hotels will have to cover STI cases when it seems their beds were the location of the transmission. Looking forward to the added wording in my future car insurance which excludes coverage for such events.

It defies logic that this would be covered by car insurance. Medical insurance, maybe. And negligence or some other tort against the person who caught the disease and then passed it on. Can You Sue a Partner for Infecting You with an STD? | LegalMatch

[Taltarzac725]

Do auto policies cover STDs contracted in a vehicle? | PropertyCasualty360

There are probably more extensive discussions of this on Law Blogs.

[MrFlorida]

Where do these judges come from ? No common sense anymore.

[Robbb]

How can she prove she caught it in the car? If she caught it in a hotel could she sue the hotel? How do cases like this ever get to trial?

[Michael G.]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

No common sense anymore.

I'd say for the last 15 years.

[Chi-Town]

A tune for the defense:

https://youtu.be/vGAePNzQIuo

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by LuvNH

Another case of "what the hell is wrong with this country". Madness.

LAWYERS. They will sue for any reason.

[TimeForChange]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

Last summer, GEICO was ordered to pay $5,000,000 because a woman contracted a sexually transmitted disease while having sex in a car that was insured by GEICO.

That decision has been reversed by the Missouri Supreme Court and has been sent back to a lower court for further proceedings.

This is the initial story.

Geico ordered to pay $5.2M to woman who contracted STD in car

This is the story stating that it was reversed.

Geico off the hook in $5 million payout to woman who got STD in car - CBS News.

A copy of the Missouri Supreme Court decision is below.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191589

Been with GEICO for over 40 years for car insurance. Glad to hear this. That means they won't increase my car insurance.