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

[DURHAM D]

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/09/us/geico-insurance-std-settlement-missouri/index.html

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."
She made a final settlement offer of $1 million to resolve her claims, the documents say.

What should I make of this?

[EYESORE 9001]

1. I've seen this posted at least a dozen times now

and I’m no closer to understanding why the insurance company is paying than the first time I saw it.

[DURHAM D]

2. Posted here on DU?

Should I remove it?

[question everything]

6. Here. And amazingly many here cheered

https://democraticunderground.com/100216776490

[EYESORE 9001]

7. Nope. Not the point I was trying to make.

It’s just that every news story about it has failed, IMO, to explain exactly why an insurance company has to pay for this. I can’t imagine, no matter how hard I try.

[mhendrick]

10. You must defend yourself

Mostly because they refused to participate in any part of the process. They never defended their client or themselves.

[EYESORE 9001]

11. Arbitration. Sheesh!

I’ve seen crazy-ass arbitrations, so GEICO should have shown a minimum amount of concern.

[JohnSJ]

3. This is bullshit. This isn't due to an act of nature or a car accident, or theft. It is due to

actions between consenting adults, and one of those adults transmitting a STD to his partner.

[Ilsa]

4. I'm imagining teen girls suing insurance for child support

since they got pregnant in the back seat.

[DURHAM D]

5. lol

[RockRaven]

8. If this holds up, car insurers are going to start demanding access to your medical records

and social media/dating apps/etc to examine your sexual history on the grounds that they need that information to set your rates.

[CrackityJones75]

13. Correct!

They may or may not have created this backdoor to your info but they will use it and probably sell it.

[sarisataka]

17. It will be easier for them

To just add an additional exclusion to the policy for harm resulting from consensual activity.

[Bev54]

9. How are we supposed to take the US court system seriously when stupid

shit like this happens. SMH.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

12. As I understand it.

Geico originally sent this to arbitration, as is the norm for them. They failed to send a representative to the arbitration and a default judgement was entered against them. Geico then tried to go to the courts to toss the arbitration out. The court said no. At least this is the quick explanation I got from a friend. I haven't read into it to much. So it's not that the court awarded the money for this, they just upheld the arbitration result. A result that was entirely Geicos fault for not representing themselves or their customer.

[Hav]

16. Thanks for the explanation

If that explanation is true, it makes much more sense. It was simply a case of Geico not participating in the process and getting burned for it.

[Buns_of_Fire]

14. We already know the lizard doesn't wear pants.

It's probably safe to assume he doesn't wear a condom, either. Shameless.

[relayerbob]

15. HOw is this Geico's responsibility?

She should be suing her "partner". Oh, wait, deeper pockets.

[Happy Hoosier]

18. Presumably, the policy covers injuries received without the proper exclusion.

I mean, it's nuts, but that's why contracts are legal documents.