Jump to content
Villanelle

Does Woman Who Sued Geico After Contracting STD Have a Case?

 Share

15 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Timeline

There appears to be more to the story about the Missouri woman who filed suit against Geico after she contracted a sexually transmitted disease (STD) as a result of unprotected sex in another person's Geico-insured vehicle. The coverage question is more complicated than it first appeared.

As was noted in the article, “Geico Sued by Woman Who Contracted STD in Car Insured by Carrier," the ISO personal auto policy PP 00 01 09 18, would likely not provide liability coverage for this loss. The insuring agreement in the liability coverage part of the form limits coverage to damages for which an insured becomes legally responsible because of an auto accident.

There seems to be little doubt that the plaintiff suffered a bodily injury, as the form defines that term with “bodily harm, sickness or disease." However, the plaintiff does not allege that her illness resulted from an auto accident.

 

https://www.iamagazine.com/viewpoints/does-woman-who-sued-geico-after-contracting-std-have-a-case

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Timeline

This case has been floating around the news for a while. Apparently a couple had unprotected sex in his 2014 Hyundai. (Classy). He knew he had HPV but said nothing. So logically she submits a claim to Geico. They denied it and sent it to arbitration. The arbitrator found that "the man and woman had sex inside his vehicle that “directly caused, or directly contributed to cause” the HPV infection. The man was found liable for not disclosing his infection status and the woman was awarded $5.2 million for damages and injuries to be paid by GEICO." https://www.kansascity.com/news/article262267902.html

 

 

Geico promptly filed a motion to vacate the judgment and was denied. Court said nope, it was all proper.  https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10897967/Woman-claims-got-STD-ex-awarded-5-2-million-insurance-company.html

 

So how in the world does this happen? Apparently Geico had poor wording and IDK forgot to include some key words in their policies in that region like 'auto accident'. But to be fair the company is run by a 5 inch talking lizard so I guess he tried his best? 

 

Very strange case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline

Very interesting case.  Apparently Geico is paying more for marketing than the lawyers used to review their policy verbiage.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline

I am surprised the policy had that sort of Limit of Indemnity.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think people should stop having sex in cars. :idea:

Our Journey Timeline  - Immigration and the Health Exchange Price of Love in the UK Thinking of Returning to UK?

 

First met: 12/31/04 - Engaged: 9/24/09
Filed I-129F: 10/4/14 - Packet received: 10/7/14
NOA 1 email + ARN assigned: 10/10/14 (hard copy 10/17/14)
Touched on website (fixed?): 12/9/14 - Poked USCIS: 4/1/15
NOA 2 email: 5/4/15 (hard copy 5/11/15)
Sent to NVC: 5/8/15 - NVC received + #'s assigned: 5/15/15 (estimated)
NVC sent: 5/19/15 - London received/ready: 5/26/15
Packet 3: 5/28/15 - Medical: 6/16/15
Poked London 7/1/15 - Packet 4: 7/2/15
Interview: 7/30/15 - Approved!
AP + Issued 8/3/15 - Visa in hand (depot): 8/6/15
POE: 8/27/15

Wedding: 9/30/15

Filed I-485, I-131, I-765: 11/7/15

Packet received: 11/9/15

NOA 1 txt/email: 11/15/15 - NOA 1 hardcopy: 11/19/15

Bio: 12/9/15

EAD + AP approved: 1/25/16 - EAD received: 2/1/16

RFE for USCIS inability to read vax instructions: 5/21/16 (no e-notification & not sent from local office!)

RFE response sent: 6/7/16 - RFE response received 6/9/16

AOS approved/card in production: 6/13/16  

NOA 2 hardcopy + card sent 6/17/16

Green Card received: 6/18/16

USCIS 120 day reminder notice: 2/22/18

Filed I-751: 5/2/18 - Packet received: 5/4/18

NOA 1:  5/29/18 (12 mo ext) 8/13/18 (18 mo ext)  - Bio: 6/27/18

Transferred: Potomac Service Center 3/26/19

Approved/New Card Produced status: 4/25/19 - NOA2 hardcopy 4/29/19

10yr Green Card Received: 5/2/19 with error >_<

N400 : 7/16/23 - Oath : 10/19/23

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

Everybody should be vaccinated against Geckopox.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline

Another entry in the "ridiculous legal decisions" notebook.

If at first you don't succeed, then sky diving is not for you.

Someone stole my dictionary. Now I am at a loss for words.

If Apple made a car, would it have windows?

Ban shredded cheese. Make America Grate Again .

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.  Deport him and you never have to feed him again.

I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.

I went bald but I kept my comb.  I just couldn't part with it.

My name is not Richard Edward but my friends still call me DickEd

If your pet has a bladder infection, urine trouble.

"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow."

I fired myself from cleaning the house. I didn't like my attitude and I got caught drinking on the job.

My kid has A.D.D... and a couple of F's

Carrots improve your vision.  Alcohol doubles it.

A dung beetle walks into a bar and asks " Is this stool taken?"

Breaking news.  They're not making yardsticks any longer.

Hemorrhoids?  Shouldn't they be called Assteroids?

If life gives you melons, you might be dyslexic.

If you suck at playing the trumpet, that may be why.

Dogs can't take MRI's but Cat scan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
8 minutes ago, Neonred said:

Another entry in the "ridiculous legal decisions" notebook.

Geico will probably be issuing warning labels to be attached to vehicles they cover telling people not to take part in coitus in the vehicle.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love she who spoils all the fun, to comment on this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I would love she who spoils all the fun, to comment on this 

As you know, NB, every time I am invoked a small gong is struck in my infernal lair to alert me to a summoning. I would have been here earlier, but the wages of sin are earned through typing way too many emails on exceedingly boring topics. Also we had pastries in the office kitchen today, which was distracting.

 

I am afraid that I am here to spoil the fun, yet again. What if I were to tell you that this case boils down to some of the most dull topics conceivable for a Friday night, specifically the enforceability of arbitration awards through the courts, statutory interpretation, and the rights of a third party in intervention? I read the actual opinion, which is 15 pages of my eyeballs' reading life I will never recoup. (Sadness.)

 

It's fairly easy to understand why the court did what it did, although there is the question of what precisely was in the insurance policy, as it apparently was not in the record reviewed by the appeals court. Anyway, here's how we got here:

  • Fun fun sexytimes in the back of a Genesis lead to HPV when the driver knew he had the virus but failed to tell his partner. This is literally the most exciting part of the case and frankly, yeeeuuucccccccch. 
  • Partner gets HPV, and before filing an action for damages, presents a claim in settlement to GEICO. GEICO tells her to go away, the policy doesn't cover the claim, and she needs to take it up against the insured. This is crucial! 
  • Partner and insured enter into a special agreement under Missouri law (California has a similar law I am aware of) wherein the parties agree to limit damages to whatever the insured defendant's limits are if the insurer has refused to provide coverage. The agreement also provides that the dispute shall be handled through arbitration, and not through the courts.
  • The statute also requires that a notice be given to the insurer within 30 days of entering into such an agreement, which the parties deliver. The insurer then has the opportunity to intervene in any litigation that results from the arbitration. 
  • After a full hearing during which both partner and insured presented evidence and gave testimony, the arbitrator made a finding that the insured was negligent leading to the partner's damages. The parties agree that they will not dispute the finding, and will file a new action in court to enforce the judgment as soon as possible.
  • One week after the arbitration award, the partner files a lawsuit to affirm the arbitration award so that it becomes a judgment that is enforceable at law. This way she can collect from GEICO who is the insurer of, uh, the insured. Courts are pretty much required to affirm arbitration awards in the absence of corruption, fraud or undue means. It's a statute that says "shall" rather than "may" affirm. Not much wiggle room for what is essentially a ministerial act, and the court reduces the award to a judgment.
  • Shortly thereafter, GEICO seeks leave to intervene after the judgment has been entered. They argue that they were not given any real opportunity to argue that the policy does not extend to the passing of naughty diseases in the back of a car, so the award should be vacated so they can make their arguments.
  • But..... GEICO did have such an opportunity when the partner presented her claim in settlement, but they told her to get lost. They could have said they would defend in any such action but they passed. Too bad, so sad.
  • Furthermore, when an intervenor comes into an action, like GEICO did in post-judgment proceedings, they take the case where it currently stands. In the case, a judgment had already been entered. They had no right as a third party to disturb the judgment in the absence of any fraud/collusion/etc., and GEICO failed to provide evidence of such. There was no right to relitigate when GEICO had the opportunity but said "nah, brah" and noped out.
  • GEICO also pointed to a part of the statute that said a party has 90 days after receiving notice of the award to challenge the award prior to entry of judgment, and therefore they could go in and argue their case. Court said no, you were not a party to the case when the partner sought confirmation of the award or at any prior time. Sorry!
  • Finally, GEICO's arguments that they had no opportunity to defend and litigate their own interests in violation of the US and Missouri Constitutions held no water. They passed when given the chance. Not only that, GEICO had also filed a separate action in federal court for declaratory relief to determine its obligations to the insured under the policy -- so they had a forum in which to litigate their interests.

The decision was correct and the reasoning is very sound. It is important to note that while the judgment is currently enforceable against GEICO, the outcome of the federal dec relief claim may mean that they in fact have no obligation to pay. This is where the mysterious agreement comes in -- there is no copy out there that I could find, just a lot of people guessing that poor draftsmanship led to this result. 

 

I'd say watch this space, but really, do any of us want to watch venereal disease in action? I apologize if I inadvertently kink-shame anyone by that question.

 

Now do I get admitted to the damn platinum plan??????????

larissa-lima-says-who-is-against-the-que

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline
57 minutes ago, elmcitymaven said:

Now do I get admitted to the damn platinum plan??????????

Not without comprehensive mention of tortfeasin', Maven ma'am.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

As you know, NB, every time I am invoked a small gong is struck in my infernal lair to alert me to a summoning. I would have been here earlier, but the wages of sin are earned through typing way too many emails on exceedingly boring topics. Also we had pastries in the office kitchen today, which was distracting.

 

I am afraid that I am here to spoil the fun, yet again. What if I were to tell you that this case boils down to some of the most dull topics conceivable for a Friday night, specifically the enforceability of arbitration awards through the courts, statutory interpretation, and the rights of a third party in intervention? I read the actual opinion, which is 15 pages of my eyeballs' reading life I will never recoup. (Sadness.)

 

It's fairly easy to understand why the court did what it did, although there is the question of what precisely was in the insurance policy, as it apparently was not in the record reviewed by the appeals court. Anyway, here's how we got here:

  • Fun fun sexytimes in the back of a Genesis lead to HPV when the driver knew he had the virus but failed to tell his partner. This is literally the most exciting part of the case and frankly, yeeeuuucccccccch. 
  • Partner gets HPV, and before filing an action for damages, presents a claim in settlement to GEICO. GEICO tells her to go away, the policy doesn't cover the claim, and she needs to take it up against the insured. This is crucial! 
  • Partner and insured enter into a special agreement under Missouri law (California has a similar law I am aware of) wherein the parties agree to limit damages to whatever the insured defendant's limits are if the insurer has refused to provide coverage. The agreement also provides that the dispute shall be handled through arbitration, and not through the courts.
  • The statute also requires that a notice be given to the insurer within 30 days of entering into such an agreement, which the parties deliver. The insurer then has the opportunity to intervene in any litigation that results from the arbitration. 
  • After a full hearing during which both partner and insured presented evidence and gave testimony, the arbitrator made a finding that the insured was negligent leading to the partner's damages. The parties agree that they will not dispute the finding, and will file a new action in court to enforce the judgment as soon as possible.
  • One week after the arbitration award, the partner files a lawsuit to affirm the arbitration award so that it becomes a judgment that is enforceable at law. This way she can collect from GEICO who is the insurer of, uh, the insured. Courts are pretty much required to affirm arbitration awards in the absence of corruption, fraud or undue means. It's a statute that says "shall" rather than "may" affirm. Not much wiggle room for what is essentially a ministerial act, and the court reduces the award to a judgment.
  • Shortly thereafter, GEICO seeks leave to intervene after the judgment has been entered. They argue that they were not given any real opportunity to argue that the policy does not extend to the passing of naughty diseases in the back of a car, so the award should be vacated so they can make their arguments.
  • But..... GEICO did have such an opportunity when the partner presented her claim in settlement, but they told her to get lost. They could have said they would defend in any such action but they passed. Too bad, so sad.
  • Furthermore, when an intervenor comes into an action, like GEICO did in post-judgment proceedings, they take the case where it currently stands. In the case, a judgment had already been entered. They had no right as a third party to disturb the judgment in the absence of any fraud/collusion/etc., and GEICO failed to provide evidence of such. There was no right to relitigate when GEICO had the opportunity but said "nah, brah" and noped out.
  • GEICO also pointed to a part of the statute that said a party has 90 days after receiving notice of the award to challenge the award prior to entry of judgment, and therefore they could go in and argue their case. Court said no, you were not a party to the case when the partner sought confirmation of the award or at any prior time. Sorry!
  • Finally, GEICO's arguments that they had no opportunity to defend and litigate their own interests in violation of the US and Missouri Constitutions held no water. They passed when given the chance. Not only that, GEICO had also filed a separate action in federal court for declaratory relief to determine its obligations to the insured under the policy -- so they had a forum in which to litigate their interests.

The decision was correct and the reasoning is very sound. It is important to note that while the judgment is currently enforceable against GEICO, the outcome of the federal dec relief claim may mean that they in fact have no obligation to pay. This is where the mysterious agreement comes in -- there is no copy out there that I could find, just a lot of people guessing that poor draftsmanship led to this result. 

 

I'd say watch this space, but really, do any of us want to watch venereal disease in action? I apologize if I inadvertently kink-shame anyone by that question.

 

Now do I get admitted to the damn platinum plan??????????

Yes Platinum plan indeed. Thanks 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: K-1 Visa Country: Wales
Timeline

I would love to know the back story behind this, certainly there is an implication of collusion between the parties, not the car, and the utilizing of badly worded legislation and presumably policy wording for a nice pay off.

 

There is certainly an implication that the policy limit was $1m but I also could not find reference to the policy, and it’s coverage. So how can Geiko be held liable for a sum significantly more than the policy limit. Assuming their policy did cover this event.

 

It does raise a number of other questions for example if this tactic could be used in other incidents.

 

Only in America 

 

 

Edited by Boiler

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...