Geico ordered to pay Missouri woman $5.2 million after she contracted STD in a car. *Can of worms opened*

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,300
126

A Missouri woman was awarded $5.2 million in a settlement from insurance company GEICO after contracting a sexually transmitted disease from her partner in his vehicle, which was insured by the company, court documents show. The Missouri Court of Appeals upheld that award this week.

The woman, a Jackson County resident, said she contracted Human papillomavirus (HPV) from her partner, according to court documents. On Tuesday, the Missouri Court of Appeals filed an opinion confirming the initial Jackson County Circuit Court arbitration award finding against GEICO.

In February 2021, the woman -- anonymously identified in documents as M.O. -- submitted a petition to GEICO directly. She alleged that her sexual partner negligently caused or "contributed to cause to be infected with HPV by not taking proper precautions and neglecting to inform and/or disclose his diagnosis," according to court documents, and that his "insurance policy provided coverage for her injuries and losses."

The arbitrator determined that "there was sexual activity in (insured's) automobile" that "directly caused, or directly contributed to cause" the woman to be infected with HPV, despite her former partner's knowledge of his positive HPV diagnosis, according to the filing.

The arbitrator subsequently submitted that $5.2 million would fairly compensate the woman for damages and injuries. GEICO then appealed the Jackson County Circuit Court's confirmation of the arbitration award, asserting that the court didn't give GEICO "a meaningful opportunity to defend its interests," the filing stated.

The three-judge panel responsible for reviewing the appeal confirmed the circuit court's settlement decision of $5.2 million, despite GEICO's appeal efforts, according to Tuesday's filing.

"At the time of Geico's intervention, liability and damages had been determined by an arbitrator and confirmed by the trial court. GEICO had no right to relitigate those issues," the opinion stated.


Wow @ the arbitrator.
I agree with the appeals court that since it went to arbitration, the arbitrator's decision is final. Thus why it's arbitrator and not mediator.

but wow @ the arbitrator that car insurance pays for damages from STD contracted in car o_O
 

sao123

Lifer
May 27, 2002
12,648
201
106
I agree with the appeals court that since it went to arbitration, the arbitrator's decision is final. Thus why it's arbitrator and not mediator.

An odd opinion given that the third judge on the appeals panel said GEICO hadn't been given a "meaningful opportunity to participate in the suit" before the judgment was rendered.
How does an arbitrator make a decision while denying one of the parties due process?
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,272
10,777
136
Car "insurance" is mostly a freaking scam now too just like the vast majority of mandated "insurance".

How in the actual fvck is THE CAR or anything remotely to do with driving it responsible for some dude giving a woman genital warts?

Who makes these absolutely retarded decisions? :oops:
 

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,514
2,713
136
If I had to guess I'd say that the GEICO policy in question was using too general of a term such that it covered "injuries" sustained by others in the car and then didn't define "injuries" well enough such that someone could argue that an infection was an "injury."
 

JEDI

Lifer
Sep 25, 2001
30,160
3,300
126
If I had to guess I'd say that the GEICO policy in question was using too general of a term such that it covered "injuries" sustained by others in the car and then didn't define "injuries" well enough such that someone could argue that an infection was an "injury."
after all the decades that car insurance has been in use, surprised this type of claim is the 1st time it's been brought up.

or if it's been brought up before and denied, how did case law fail in this case?
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,357
5,111
136
I wonder what the arbitrators connection to the woman is? Or if it was just a scam they cooked up on the spot?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,007
26,887
136
There was a similar case in Madison, Wisconsin back in the 70s. The Park Street underpass had extremely low clearance, so low that truck accidents were fairly common. Anyway, a van with a long CB antenna went through the underpass and the CB antenna snapped off and struck a pedestrian, causing a laceration. The EMTs were called and patched up the wound. Later, the wound became infected and the pedestrian ended up going to the ER where the doctor diagnosed the infection as the worst case of van aerial disease he had ever seen.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,168
19,644
136
It's amazing that we get a dumb ruling like this that is clearly wrong, but the car insurance companies often get away with screwing people all the time, outside and inside their cars.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,272
10,777
136
That's also why any time I get the SLIGHTEST bit of flack from an "insurance" scammer/company my first thought is "lawyer". (It didn't used to be this way)
 

Torn Mind

Lifer
Nov 25, 2012
11,635
2,649
136
I need to the see the details of the policy.

Lawyers may give nonsensical rulings on its face but one should NEVER attribute such rulings to stupidity. They had to drown themselves in logic games to get that juris doctorate or equivalent. So if you confront them, you'll get a sensible-sounding answer if you are a normal lay person.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,567
29,171
146
fuck it. I love it. awesome

toss a firehose of dickery into the insurer for neglecting to protect themselves against the....lack of others' protection in this case. verbally.

awesome. Make those assholes pay billions for neglecting about one sentence in their policy. I fucking love it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uclaLabrat

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,567
29,171
146
It's amazing that we get a dumb ruling like this that is clearly wrong, but the car insurance companies often get away with screwing people all the time, outside and inside their cars.

no, it sounds completely correct. Because, as you said, the insurers finally had their fuckwhittery catch up to them, no?
 

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
7,400
2,437
146
Seems a bit silly, but then, if there is insurance coverage, may as well use it. Good for the woman to get money from Geico.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
58,128
12,314
136
Car "insurance" is mostly a freaking scam now too just like the vast majority of mandated "insurance".

How in the actual fvck is THE CAR or anything remotely to do with driving it responsible for some dude giving a woman genital warts?

Who makes these absolutely retarded decisions? :oops:
FYI, there's more to worry about than warts: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/infectious-agents/hpv-and-cancer
HPV-related cancers include:
And for those of you out there still sexually active with multiple partners, there is a vaccine available, so you can prevent spreading it to partners (if you're 45 or under).

No, I'm not saying it's logical for the insurance to have to pay out for this prick :p
Just spreading awareness. I have a friend who got throat cancer from it, and one of my daughter's friends got cervical cancer from it.