WTF...Woman wins $5.2 million from Geico after getting STD from unprotected sex with boyfriend in his car

[BackInTheGame78]

I mean I don't know where to begin...it's HPV, which is the most common STD there is...so common that pretty much anyone who has ever had unprotected sex has been exposed to it in all likelihood.

On top of that...how the hell is a car insurer liable for this type of behavior?? Are they going to have to explicitly write in their policies they have no liability now for sexual acts occurring in their vehicles? This could open a floodgate of similar lawsuits and jack up insurance rates.

It's completely ridiculous. She should be suing her boyfriend if anything. But let's be real...this skank has probably been exposed to it 10+ times already previously.

I mean what's next? Home or renters insurance companies being sued because you got an STD while having sex in their house or apartment?

Hotels and motels being sued because you got an STD in their hotel or motel?

AirBnb being sued because you got an STD while staying in one of their places?

Airlines being sued because you got an STD while trying to join the Mile High Club??

Geico ordered to pay Missouri woman $5.2 million after she contracted STD in a car | CNN

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.

www.cnn.com

 

[SW15]

I have no words about how ridiculous this is.

 

[corrector]

Another win for feminism! Like you said, more guys are happier because of feminism. This is good news, no?

 

[Who Dares Win]

It seems like a retard kid is playing sim city and out of boredom decided to try stupid things in his simulation.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Another win for feminism! Like you said, more guys are happier because of feminism. This is good news, no?

That has zero to do with feminism and everything to do with how courts view liability.

Come on man...stop trying to lump everything into feminism when topics have nothing to do with it.

 

[Kotaix]

This is exactly what is wrong with this fvcking country. Everything is outrageously expensive because of sue-happy morons.

On the other side of the spectrum, I was just in croatia where the court system is essentially non-functioning. You can sue someone, but the process is so slow that the statute of limitations (TEN YEARS) will be exceeded before the suit can even get to litigation.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

According to the articles, the dispute went to arbitration. so everything is left to one person with no guarantee of them being impartial and you don't have the same recourse you do in the courts.

This is the danger of arbitration. You get someone who loses their marbles and this is what happens. This arbitrator needs to be disqualified from ever arbitrating again.

 

[corrector]

That has zero to do with feminism and everything to do with how courts view liability.

Come on man...stop trying to lump everything into feminism when topics have nothing to do with it.

If the situation was reversed and a man made the same claim, do you really think he would have got that same judgment?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

If the situation was reversed and a man made the same claim, do you really think he would have got that same judgment?

Maybe, but a man is far less likely to try to play the victim in court.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Maybe, but a man is far less likely to try to play the victim in court.

If the situation was reversed and a man made the same claim, do you really think he would have got that same judgment?

According to the article this was an award not a judgement. As far as I know, courts generally don't reverse arbitration awards.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

This was my thought as well. "Oh some simp judge's stupid ruling".

Judges don't award damages, juries do.

 

[BillyPilgrim]

Again, guys this is an arbitration issue, not a court issue. Courts rarely overturn arbitration awards.

Can @LARaiders85 confirm?

 

[Bokanovsky]

I mean what's next? Home or renters insurance companies being sued because you got an STD while having sex in their house or apartment?

Hotels and motels being sued because you got an STD in their hotel or motel?

AirBnb being sued because you got an STD while staying in one of their places?

Airlines being sued because you got an STD while trying to join the Mile High Club??

Actually, this case is not as ridiculous as it may sound if you understand how legal claims work. The woman complained of being injured while in an automobile as a result of the negligence of the vehicle's owner. Her claim was denied by the insurer and then went to arbitration. For some reason, Geico decided not to defend (which is the legal equivalent of saying that you don't dispute the claim).

They could have defended and argued that the vehicle's owner was not negligent or that this type of injury is not covered by the policy. They could have argued that she contracted HPV before or after that one-time escapade in the car (how can she prove that she was infected on that specific occasion?) They also could have argued $5.2 million was a disproportionate amount. They didn't make any of those arguments at arbitration but wanted to re-litigate them on appeal. The court correctly dismissed the application.

Basically, the insurance company messed up.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Actually, this case is not as ridiculous as it may sound if you understand how legal claims work. The woman complained of being injured while in an automobile as a result of the negligence of the vehicle's owner. Her claim was denied by the insurer and then went to arbitration. For some reason, Geico decided not to defend (which is the legal equivalent of saying that you don't dispute the claim).

They could have defended and argued that the vehicle's owner was not negligent or that this type of injury is not covered by the policy. They could have argued that she contracted HPV before or after that one-time escapade in the car (how can she prove that she was infected on that specific occasion?) They also could have argued $5.2 million was a disproportionate amount. They didn't make any of those arguments at arbitration but wanted to re-litigate them on appeal. The court correctly dismissed the application.

Basically, the insurance company messed up.

So pretty much the lady won the lottery because the insurance company decided not to show up or she got lost in the legal shuffle

 

[corrector]

Actually, this case is not as ridiculous as it may sound if you understand how legal claims work. The woman complained of being injured while in an automobile as a result of the negligence of the vehicle's owner. Her claim was denied by the insurer and then went to arbitration. For some reason, Geico decided not to defend (which is the legal equivalent of saying that you don't dispute the claim).

They could have defended and argued that the vehicle's owner was not negligent or that this type of injury is not covered by the policy. They could have argued that she contracted HPV before or after that one-time escapade in the car (how can she prove that she was infected on that specific occasion?) They also could have argued $5.2 million was a disproportionate amount. They didn't make any of those arguments at arbitration but wanted to re-litigate them on appeal. The court correctly dismissed the application.

Basically, the insurance company messed up.

It was not a true appeal then, it was a judicial review by that court. In any judicial review, the court can examine any case, including arbitration, find something went wrong there and then overturn that decision. Judicial reviews are normally how tribunals, or other judicial agencies outside of the formal court process are appealed. Therefore the appeal court made a mistake and they should appeal that judicial review to the Supreme Court as it's a gross mistake.

 

[MatureDJ]

This guy must have had a huge umbrella policy. It's still obscene.

 

[SW15]

McDonalds coffee spill lady

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[HaleyBaron]

Just what we need, more lawsuits awarding women more money to waste.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Didn't that judgement get overturned on appeal tho?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Im pretty sure that woman got a couple mill. Maybe later? Not sure

Curiosity got the best of me...looked it up

She was awarded nearly $3 million by the jury, the judge reduced it by 80%, then to avoid years of appeals on both sides a confidential settlement was reached...nobody knows exactly how much but likely somewhere in the 500-750K range would made sense...