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??
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.
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.
Warning!
Do not subscribe to The SoSuave Newsletter unless you are already a chick magnet!
The information in each issue of The SoSuave Newsletter is too powerful for most guys to handle. If you are an ordinary guy, it is not for you. It is meant for the elite few. Not the unwashed masses.
If you know you can handle it...
If you already have girls calling you at all hours of the day and night, showing up at your door, throwing themselves at you everywhere you go...
Then sign up below.
But if you're just an average Joe, an ordinary guy, no one special – then skip this. It is not for you.
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.
>>his insurance policy provided coverage for her injuries and losses.
I've worked in law as a paralegal and have a bit of experience interpreting insurance policies; they can be tricky to understand sometimes and ambiguous.
BUT this just seems bizarre, over and above what any auto insurer shouid be liable for and would love to read that policy language.
Something sounds terribly off or is missing, makes no sense.
Anyway, HPV is the virus that can cause cervical cancer in some women, but $5.2 million is outrageous!
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.
Well, judges do have the ultimate say, and can overturn jury verdict. Either way, I guess I should have said "court". As we know, most men are simps, and the majority of females are incapable of accountability when it comes to negative consequences regarding relations... Which mean, if the roles were reversed, Corrector's assumption is probably correct.
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.
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.
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.
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.
www.cnn.com
