I think it’s preposterous - just because something happened in a car doesn’t mean it’s related to the use of the car. She would have been in the same situation if every one of their sexual encounters took place somewhere other than the car,
Sure. It’s called umbrella liability insurance, not car insurance.
The current ruling (GEICO should have gotten involved at the arbitration stage) isn’t preposterous. If the federal court case (about whether getting an STD in a car should be covered) goes against GEICO, that will be kind of preposterous.
If it is preposterous that car insurance should cover this kind of liability, why is it reasonable that Geico should have paid counsel to defend at arbitration? Were the facts in dispute?
Or are you just saying - the appeals court were technically correct to uphold a non-appealable arbitration decision, however ridiculous? But on that basis, car insurers would have to pay to defend absolutely everything, even if it’s obvious that the liability is not covered on a vehicle policy, just in case the arbitration outcome is ridiculous. And again, the cost of that will be passed on in higher premiums. There really should be some mechanism to appeal egregiously bad arbitration decisions.
Oh, I’m sure that it would have been better for them and their insured if they had done that - but actually, the video did clear things up for me. Because what I really found confusing was all the “GEICO ordered to pay $5.2 million” headlines but at the end Lehto says it’s premature to say that. He said that GEICO has an action in Federal court which will decide if there is coverage, so right now, the woman has a $5.2 million judgement against the insured which GEICO may or may not to pay which makes a lot more sense to me .
I can’t see how M.O. ever could have forced GEICO to pay, which is how this is being reported. It seems to me that it would be up to the insured to force GEICO to pay. Any obligation they had was to him- whether to defend or pay.
The appeals court didn’t uphold the arbitration decision, per se. They upheld turning the arbitration decision into a judgment.
So what’s not clear to me is where the notion that Geico must pay this comes from. Wasn’t that part of the arbitration decision?
I didn’t see that in the decision - it seems like all the other stories were based on the incorrect version in the Kansas City Star
Correction: An earlier version of this story erroneously stated that the decision by the Missouri Court of Appeals meant insurance company GEICO must pay the judgment claim. The insurance company is still contesting the decision in federal court, arguing that the claim is not covered under the policy.
Although the correction doesn’t seem to be 100% accurate either - it appears GEICO filed a declaratory action, which is not actually “contesting a decision” as I understand it.
It wouldn’t be typically. The defendant who got the huge judgment against him would sue GEICO to make them pay.That’s probably the federal case (Although GEICO might have initiated it as a Dec Action)
So the woman catches an STD, perhaps through the reckless behavior her sexual partner who failed to disclose it. If the arbitration is solely to determine whether he is liable, it actually seems unethical for his car insurance to get involved in defending his despicable behavior, solely on the basis that they are the only deep pockets around and there is some remote chance that they might be forced to cover any liability. It seems more appropriate that the question of whether Geico must cover him for this is resolved separately between him and Geico.
The catch here seems to be that - according to the opinion linked upthread - the defendant and plaintiff entered into something called a “Contract to Limit Recovery to Specified Assets and Arbitration Agreement Pursuant to Section 537.065 RSMo.” This may (it is not entirely clear from the opinion) mean that the plaintiff has agreed to only attempt to collect from the insurance and that she won’t go after the defendant’s own assets.
This is not unusual.Basically the defendant “assigns” the bad faith claim to plaintiff and protects his personal assets.
It was indeed a Dec Action.
(The insurance company had filed to get a quick ruling in a federal court that the claim didn’t fall under their coverage.)
Extra contractual payments are the same thing as claims, from the perspective of insurance regulators. They are not going to make any such distinction (nor should they).
It’s worth being aware that insurance regulators don’t allow insurers to set rates too high, but they also don’t allow them to set rates too low either. (They are afraid that the companies might be unable to pay the claims if they don’t collect enough in premiums.)
If a precedent is set that auto insurers are on the hook for this type of damage, it would probably impact rates, though the extent of it would depend on how broadly that’s interpreted (e.g. if someone assaulted someone else while in a car, or the like).
The problem that raises is that no one has any real incentive to defend the lawsuit. The “defendant” doesn’t care, and might even prefer if he “lost” and his partner got to collect from Geico. And Geico doesn’t believe they should be involved at all. So the whole thing might have been rigged.
Florida and Texas exclude bad faith claims from losses and expenses in rate-setting, and Texas is (in addition) very clear that if it losses are not covered by the contract, they can’t be included. Not sure about other states.
You think damages from having sex in a moving vehicle will be covered? 
This is going to make for one of those “Do not insert gas pump into your rectum” stickers, I reckon. “Warning: Jar of peanuts contains nuts.”
I want to see the wording and absolutely want to see the little illustrations they have for people who can’t read.
Not any consequent STD, but damage the driver causes because he’s distracted by sexual activity while driving - yes.
As in, for example, the Fedex Sex Crash case.
Are we watching to see how that case plays out with somebody’s insurance?