STD Judgment vs GEICO Reversed by State Sup. Ct.

[@nathanwoodruff82]

Her: "Do you have protection?" Him: "No, but I have full coverage."

[@clamshell99]

Of all the comments on this channel, that's the most hilarious.

[@maxsdad538]

Definitely one of the best!

[@kenpeterson327]

@@clamshell99 Best one!

[@chrisflach5911]

Brilliant

[@jonkeau5155]

I feel like the state Supreme Court having such a short opinion on the case is their way of calling the lower courts idiots

[@bmacd2112]

As well they should've!

[@charlesphilhower1452]

That is because the initial ruling was made by idiots.

[@scottlemiere2024]

I'm waiting for a higher court opinion that is just, "Are you fucking kidding me?"

[@blainelytle341]

Well said ! That's how I'm reading it too.

[@jamesweekley1087]

The Supreme Court may not have had that intention, but that is the effect.

[@Hawkeye2001]

If this stands: I can see a lot of cases where Insurances Companies are on the hook for Child Support.

[@andrewholdaway813]

Public transport insurers will be bankrupted overnight.

[@SwapPartLLC]

Someone: Name something you get from unprotected sex that you can't get rid of. Me: Children!

[@davidturk6170]

Great response! Should be used in defense.

[@larrybe2900]

If only I had known.

[@maxsdad538]

God knows insurance companies don't use protection when they #$%^ US!

[@techserviceondemand9409]

The first question I had when I first heard this was how they can prove definitively (without reasonable doubt), STD was caught in the vehicle and not somewhere else? How can they prove that they never had sexual act other than in the vehicle? This sounds more like insurance scam with a new twist.

[@charlescurran1289]

I agree, sounds like a scam.

[@charlescurran1289]

Don’t most insurance policies have clauses where they don’t pay for intentional negligence? This would be like a guy deliberately crashing his car with the girlfriend’s encouragement.

[@techserviceondemand9409]

@Not Me Yes, to get this thru, the other party must provide support that "this can only happen in this car, which is insured", that is why I think it must be a scam.

[@davidhoward4715]

If you watched the video, you would know this judgment was *_not_* about the case itself. I'm betting you are one of those people who believes no one should be allowed to sue anyone for anything (i.e. a corporate shill).

[@SiriusMined]

@Not Me right, but if they had sex any other time, then it was just as likely to have happened somewhere else as in the car

[@edfrawley4356]

Trying to get this past Geico after the fact sounds like a major fraud case, with the assistance of the court.

[@mrwonk]

I was thinking the same thing.

[@TheRealScooterGuy]

I was wondering who all was getting a piece of the action. Clearly, the Missouri Supreme Court was not.

[@suedenim9208]

It seems like Steve doesn't remember what he said in his previous video about this because a lot of this video seems to contradict what he said in the previous video. The woman notified GEICO that she intended to pursue a case against the guy and made a settlement offer. GEICO very definitely knew about it but denied coverage, and according to the lower court "refused" to defend the case. In the earlier video Steve specifically discussed the legal procedure GEICO could have taken to get a ruling that the particular injury wasn't covered under the policy, but they didn't bother to do that, either. The lower court's ruling said that GEICO received notice and had the opportunity to defend the case, and was not entitled to *re*litigate it. That previous video can be found here: v=yn8Cb-4c5to.

[@TheRealScooterGuy]

@@suedenim9208 I think the difference is at what exact point they said "no" and when, exactly, they asked to intervene. Suggestion is to edit your comment and put a clickable link there. Links like that are easy to deal with on a PC, but a pain on mobile. This channel doesn't block relevant links.

[@chitlitlah]

@@suedenim9208 Yeah, I was thinking about that during this video. I remembered in the last video he suggested it was Geico's fault for not trying to defend the case and not filing some paperwork with the court that would officially get them off the hook. This video suggests they did file it but the court just wasn't having it. I'm not sure why there's a discrepancy.

[@tenpoll]

I would investigate possible collusion between the arbitrator and the people involved. Then following that, investigate how the lower courts entered the judgment without following proper legal procedure. It could all be a series of errors, but one time is a mistake, second time a coincidence, but third time enemy action.

[@ColinTimmins]

If they don’t have a proper explanation, someone or some people need to be fired. Crazy… 5 mill for sleeping around and getting an STD… How, how can that even make it that far into the system.

[@TheRealScooterGuy]

The arbitrator doesn't need to be involved (although that is possible). She brings a claim using a decent lawyer and he defends himself pro se. Or I should say, he doesn't defend himself, instead agreeing to everything she says before the arbitrator.

[@killpioo2]

Arbiter was probably chosen by geico.

[@TheRealScooterGuy]

@@killpioo2 -- No. Per the story, they arbitrated the claim and then told Geico about the arbitration award.

[@Chris_Garman]

This lady sounds like the kind of person that would pay a monthly subscription for heated seats.

[@andidede3653]

The report said that she would have been better off just accepting the rear ending and calling it a day

[@sarajuanaict]

😹😹😹😹😹

[@KlodFather]

She should have opted for the vibrating massage seats and stayed out of the back seat LOL Would have avoided all this trouble.

[@campkohler9131]

I think the seats were heated well enough without any. subscription being necessary.

[@WhyDoThat]

It was the fault of the heated seats. If the seats had not been heated their is no way my client who has a history of ED could have proceeded with intercourse.

[@garymartin9777]

That the suit got as far as it did shows what's wrong with our judicial system.

[@TimeSurfer206]

And the part that disgusts me the worst is the knowledge that NOTHING will happen to the Lower Court Judges.

[@davidhoward4715]

So you want judges and magistrates to be punished for any ruling you personally disagree with. Now *_that_* should ensure an impartial judiciary.

[@maurer3d]

@@davidhoward4715 No, but judges should be punished when they ignore the law, so blatantly like in this case.

[@scottlemiere2024]

@@davidhoward4715 only the ones that are this obviously bad.

[@SimpleAntLegion]

Something will happen, they will get high positions in government bureaucracy in a blue state 😉

[@MrPbhuh]

@@maurer3d They didnt ignore the law, they had a different view of the law as was shown in the opinion of the higher court

[@AFloridaSon]

There's a lot about this case that is horrifying, and a little disgusting, but for entertainment purposes, this is one of the best cases ever.

[@jimbeckettplay]

Agree with a slight modifier: A lot disgusting about the case.

[@blshouse]

Creative insurance fraud. Almost worked due to the court's failures.

[@susanfudge1737]

I'll take clymidia for 5 million.

[@tayzonday]

This will be very hard to prove that the victim party was only exposed to the potential damage in that vehicle. Slam dunk for Geico - and I don’t generally like insurance companies.

[@snesguy9176]

I don't like insurance companies at all. I think they're scummy as hell, but this case was incredibly dumb.

[@Tjousk]

Indeed

[@condorboss3339]

@@snesguy9176 Agree. Insurers will stiff people on the flimsiest of technicalities, so part of me wants to smile at them getting stuck for a change. OTOH, this is an extremely bad case that should not stand on its merits.

[@downhomesunset]

No proof that she didn’t get STD from someone else.

[@jilbertb]

Sounds like these two are in cahoots on this deal against the ins co....

[@psychickumquat]

That was my thought, smells like a fraud attempt

[@johnmicheal3547]

The 2 previous judge also seem to be part of it.

[@mrwonk]

Agreed.

[@tgj5680]

Including the arbiter

[@southernbreeze3278]

wow, right....... takes a chick to have the mindset to figure that one out

[@michaelhanson5773]

The fact that this even had to get to this point is what keeps me up at night...

[@maxsdad538]

Does this mean that if my girlfriend gets pregnant from "vehicle related activities", she can sue State Farm for child support? College and diapers are expensive these days.

[@reggiebenes2916]

The 1966 Mustang was an excellent vehicle for relations among people that love each other very much, or even relations between people that have a passing interest in each other. The front seats fold completely down, offering ample backseat room for said relations. Also the 200 cu in (3.3 L) Inline-6 was a terrific engine.

[@ideapatch]

“I’m paraphrasing things…because among other things, it’s funnier” - Best Steve Lehto quote ever!

[@Issblodh]

And he IS right about it.

[@michaelmcfeely6588]

This case adds to my contempt for the judiciary and their silly robes.

[@jaywiscon3145]

​@unbroken7189 Arbitrators often give horrible decisions, There seems to be no oversight to these non-judicial decision makers. Is there a requirement that arbitrators abandon their common sense before entering the door of arbitration?

[@garytrust]

When you go down the rabbit hole you will end up at a very dark meaning of the Black Robe Priest.

[@HippieLongHaired]

Just wait 'til they pass "Transparency of the courts" law, then those silly robes will be replaced with see-through-nighties.

[@Justanotherandy63]

This was always going to happen as the original ruling was insane!

[@67amiga]

I think it possible that GEICO could even raise a possible conspiracy against them due to the agreement between both parties to only hold GEICO responsible. The defendant may have not even given any defense purposely to get himself off the hook.

[@jamesweekley1087]

If the Supreme Court hadn't reversed this, I suspect a lot of insurance policies would have been rewritten to prevent similar lawsuits.

[@Tuttomenui]

Probably still will be.

[@Catman_CM]

@@Tuttomenui i agree. Court fees aren't cheap, so GEICO is losing money even when they win this case.

[@Garth2011]

Guaranteed, now that the matter is public information, those auto policies are getting rewritten as of last year.

[@westcocoagorilla380]

I laughed out loud hearing this story. It gives a whole new meaning to collision insurance.

[@KlodFather]

Rear end collision 😜😱

[@TheRealScooterGuy]

Do you think she was rear-ended? Or was it a head-on collision? I hope she wasn't T-boned as that could have resulted in a roll-over situation.

[@thomasbonse]

@@KlodFather T-boned?

[@christopherg2347]

Fender Bender?

[@idrathernot_2]

Bumper to bumper

[@nhansen197]

There should be a limit clearly stated on the policy that the insurance company will pay along with a list of things they don't cover. Such as acts of negligence. As for the way things were handled and the amount awarded I can't help but wonder how many people were looking for a kickback out of that deal.

[@TheRealScooterGuy]

The point of insurance is to cover certain acts of negligence. In those cases, it's to protect others from your negligence. Most of us assumed it was negligence related to operation of a motor vehicle and not negligent recreation inside said vehicle.

[@callak_9974]

Judge should award the plaintiff the cost of 1 condom. Lol

[@the_expidition427]

That is the policy limit on the policy under the declarations page

[@Desirsar]

Yet another case of "you can file a lawsuit for anything, but you're probably wasting your money."

[@jmavierpayne9726]

I'm guessing that she has been in the backseat of a car and done things because she really really loves the arbitrator at some point

[@werberderber6209]

Iwonder if the woman and arbitrator rented a car for payment transfer.

[@StaggerjAGGER]

I was hoping when I saw STD, it was an abbreviation of some traffic law stipulation or something. And of course its a disease. You gotta know when to hold em....know when to fold em..

[@jamesens1610]

One can only imagine what would have happen to the insurance rates in that state if the judgement from the lower court stood. An atmospheric rise for sure

[@drunklink350]

Lol insurance policies nationwide would send a letter saying injuries from sex in cars ix explicitly not covered. It wouldn't just affect 1 state

[@devilsemissary4650]

There are some real idiots in our judicial system.

[@eddiehuff7366]

If M.O. caught this from M. B. at the Holiday Inn could M. O. sue Holiday Inn?

[@evelynwaugh4053]

They wouldn't likely be able to meet the requirements to show that Holiday Inn had breached a duty to plaintiff. Usually a claim like that would be based on negligence, i.e. HI had a duty to plaintiff which it breached. But there isn't a duty to inquire into all the various health statuses of patrons. In order for plaintiff to prevail, there would have to be some law that states that all patrons must provide an up to date certification that they are free from all diseases, including STDs, before checking in to HI.

[@nucleargrizzly1776]

If M.O. got pregnant is Holliday Inn responsible for child support?

[@michaelsommers2356]

That situation is not analogous to the situation in this case. For one thing, this case is about insurance coverage, not about liability. Holiday Inn does not insure its guests.

[@gooddealonly]

If the car is parked in the Holiday Inn legally, sue both Geico AND Holiday Inn.

[@lostinthesauce2008]

Most auto insurance contacts are ISO contracts and it says we insure against injury and illness as a result of blah blah blah. Insurance contacts are contracts of adhesion (meaning only one side sets the terms) giving ambiguities to the insured versus the insurance company.

[@mrwonk]

We must not allow insurance companies to be held liable for an STD contracted in a car. To allow this, would open up a loophole for anyone with an STD to claim in was because of a car and our insurance rates would go through the roof. This is not a risk intended to be covered by auto insurance; no "reasonable person" would believe this should be covered by an auto insurance company.

[@suedenim9208]

If an insurance company doesn't intend to cover a risk maybe they should write their policies to indicate that. The reason things got this far is that the wording in GEICO's policy about what was covered was too broad.

[@b2d327]

My sides hurt from laughing at this so hard, Steve. I may have to sue you for bodily injury…although, I am willing to settle out of court.

[@theprodigalstranger5259]

"Avoid the clap Ben Franklin #43" They have to rule in favor of the insurance companies or everyone who has ever gotten pregnant in a car would start filing claims for child support.

[@helifynoe9930]

Yes, I recall being in a bus that had stopped due to a red light, and then a convertible car had pulled up and stopped right next to the bus. That was when a few of us began to notice that a woman was giving the driver further driving assistance. This further assistance caused her head to be bobbing up and down in his lap area. Apparently he seemed to be quite happy with her overall assistance.

[@KiwiCatherineJemma]

Very politely worded. You could be a great poet !

[@actually5004]

The quiet kid has a siracha hot sauce keychain bottle, secure the ammunition!

[@groermaik]

Hundo, unfolded, across the top of the #43 stock car, on the right side of the second shelf of the main cabinet. 18.

[@CTSFanSam]

Behind Steve's left sleeve. I needed your help with this one.

[@Nick-zd5ci]

As it should be. The initial judgment would have opened a very dangerous door. And it still feels like the two people were attempting a convoluted insurance fraud.

[@davidzarodnansky4720]

Gee, imagine that - A case where it's someone other than an insurance company screwing somebody...

[@louellacharlton4425]

That is totally crazy. Now people will be suing their house insurance for getting anything in their bed! Why would the car insurance be liable?

[@johnmicheal3547]

I hate geico for what they did to me in the past, but I'll always on the side of justice.

[@chrisjackson1215]

Thank God, this restores a bit of my faith in humanity. I remember the original video - it was such a stupid ruling that it gave me a migraine. Let's hope this woman doesn't get any money.

[@jeremyj5932]

Even if this was from ‘use and operation’, which it is not as Steve correctly stated. The insurance company can likely exclude coverage due to assault or whatever criminal act was committed during that time. First thing the insurance company could do is ask if this was reported to police, what is the file number, why was it not reported if it wasn’t. And once it is reported and the insurance company obtains the police report that should be the denial right there.

[@robertvirginiabeach]

Why would the police be involved? I don't recall any mention that anyone's participation in what happened in the PARKED vehicle was involuntary. Since they weren't caught in the act, reporting to the police would, with most vehicles be admitting BOTH committed a public indecency offence. Criminal charges would probably require their court testimony or police catching them in the act.

[@jeremyj5932]

It should be reported to police due to the tort claim being involved. If you want to sue someone for giving you an STD the reasoning amounts to some time of assault I imagine. If that’s what you’re claiming, you’d want a police report to back up your claim otherwise it doesn’t look like you’ve been harmed that badly if you didn’t bother to try and speak to police. Also the insurance company may require the police report as evidence and also want to document on their end, specially if you are asking for so much money. I agree it’s not in their best interest to report to police, which is why an insurance company would ask them to report as it would likely go against them. Which was my original point as to the options an insurance company has. At least coming from my perspective as a Canadian insurance rep.

[@suedenim9208]

Since you apparently don't know, allow me to explain what "consent" means. It means that both parties agreed to engage in the activities, so there was no assault or other criminal act. And since you seem to be confused about it, criminal acts with a car don't let the insurance company off the hook, but if you ever get hit by a driver that's drunk or speeding feel free to just suck it up and not expect their insurance to pay you anything.

[@gomahklawm4446]

@sue You don't understand. The "assault", is the passing of the disease to the woman married with kids. The assault/disease passing had NOTHING to do with auto insurance/operation of the vehicle. If claiming it did happen in the vehicle, Geico can force a police report of the facts, meaning she'd have to admit in a police report her crime of public indecency, in order to prove she was assaulted/given a disease.

[@bigoledave5718]

Reason to always bump in a Hertz rental, they seem to lose all the cases filed against them.

[@davidsellars646]

Could you imagine two or more people negotiating a contract while sitting in a car and then, when the contract goes sideways, suing the auto insurance company?

[@bryanblake8607]

So I may have a case against getting in my exs truck if this insane case plays out in her favor? Just joking on that one but it still shows 1 that people will sue for anything and 2 that some will award people for horrible claims.

[@SiriusMined]

When you mentioned the agent and the principal, the first thing I thought of was Judge John Hurley dealing with Mr David Hall 😁

[@kenstewart76]

Probably the only time I’m in support of an insurance company.

[@JT-91]

this raises all of our rates if she gets the money.

[@SiriusMined]

It was such a ridiculous result. If I understand what they went to the arbitrator for, all that winning should have meant is that she would sue the insurance company for some form of recovery, but it wouldn't be some guaranteed amount. And how could MB commit Geico to something without their assent or any kind of proof that they're on the hook in the first place?

[@drbichat5229]

Collusion and fraud are 2 of the first words that come to mind, followed by yuck

[@steshar2975]

True love ❤️ inside the car 😂 you're the best Steve. I would never of thought to go after the insurance company. 😱

[@stucbr1100]

I got a medical procedure paid for by the car insurance company when I had a sliver of glass lodged deep in my hand while cleaning inside the car. The glass was presumably broken and replaced by the previous owner and they failed to get it all out. I was totally prepared to have the health insurance coverage from my job take care of it but the hospital informed me that I should contact my car insurance and they handle all costs for the surgery no problem. I was truly surprised it was covered.

[@ronaldpigeon4713]

Even if they could claim something, how the hell did they arrive at 5.+ million? That right there is a warning sign. I hope the judge tells them to both get a job and work instead of trying to scam the system.

[@dphenix4933]

As an arbitrator. When I first heard about this case, I was horrified by the decision. However, the more I thought about it the more I realized yes she is owed money for her injuries from the other party, but it's not from the insurance company. I am specifically an insurance claims arbitrator, and I can say with almost that there is no auto insurance coverage for sexual conduct in a car.

[@copcuffs9973]

An attorney friend and I were just discussing this crazy case two days ago. ✌️

[@pathogan3356]

Hi Steve, love your channel. I have a question about this case. Since it appears that Geico will not be liable for this that brings up another problem. The parties had an agreement that they would arbitrate this but he would not be responsible for the financial outcome but turn to Geico for payment. Now that Geico is probably out of it can she go back on the previous agreement and sue him for her "injuries". Just wondering.

[@dukekessler6292]

Guessing he doesn't have anything approaching $5 million.

[@duanebuck193]

I'm curious about something though - will any of this go back on the Arbitrator? After all, he/she's the one that made the first wrong decision in this case, so shouldn't it come back on that individual as well?

[@SeanBZA]

Very likely will, at least every decision they have made in the past and post this will be reviewed, and there is a good chance of sanctions being placed on the arbitrator for failure to execute the process correctly.

[@suedenim9208]

The arbitrator made a perfectly valid legal ruling.

[@fiveoctaves]

The arbitrator did not make a wrong decision nor is anyone saying a wrong decision was made. The issue is whether or not Geico was informed and should have been able to defend the case.

[@Garth2011]

Arbitors are typically a complete farce in the legal fields. Many of them have no college education in law, court experience or legal experience. They get can be selected through arbitration companies out there that do this as their main job yet not always are the arbitors judges, lawyers or retired of same. I'm aware of insurance adjusters who through some method are called in to arbitrate legal matters because they have some experience in the liability arena and insurance policies. "Split the Baby" is a term some use to settle matters simply because the arbitor doesn't was negative feedback from those who choose them and pay their fees. So, they find guilt on both parties and the innocent get the screws, like in this case, the nut didn't see the many corners cut prior to getting to arb.

[@rpc717]

Thank God!! Some semblance of justice restored.

[@BrokebutCreative]

Insurance companies have complex holding company structures and can operate several insurance companies to support their strategies. Different insurance subsidiaries can be for different lines of insurance or for different states. There are no limits to the amount of affiliates. Large systems like Geico and Humana brand themselves as a unit and spread out the risk to different subsidiaries. Different companies also allow for different rating structures. So a holding company can have 3 insurance companies but the consumer is just familiar with one and depending on the risk they can be placed with either company. Your paperwork will always reflect which specific subsidiary it is and it's all public info what subsidiaries operate where. You just need to contact your state. Hope that helps.

[@lakeman411]

Judges and arbitrators should be held accountable for outrageous decisions.

[@macroman91]

So nice to see that arbitration is only binding on the insured, not the insurance company...

[@SINDRIKARL1]

The thing with arbitrations is that they are only binding to those who agreed to said arbitration, from the sound of it the Insurance company wasn't even aware there was an arbitration until it was well past that stage, so why would it be binding on them?

[@suedenim9208]

@@SINDRIKARL1 Because the only parties to the case are the plaintiff and the defendant. The insurance company is only the financial backing for any award against the defendant. The lower court's ruling was based on GEICO having been notified by the plaintiff, denying the claim, and refusing to defend their insured.

[@kopazwashere]

@@suedenim9208 which makes zero sense! Lower courts were being an absolute clown.

[@SINDRIKARL1]

@@suedenim9208 Except lower court's ruling was NOT based on geico refusing to defend, they literally filed the proper motion and the court illegally ignored it.

[@suedenim9208]

@@SINDRIKARL1 Maybe you should learn about the case before forming an opinion about it. The lower court said GEICO had their chance when they were first notified of the claim and didn't have aright to relitigate it after the fact. You can watch Steve's previous video about it, in which he explains it.

[@matthewswan9819]

I can't wait to see owner's manual to include the use of safe interaction instructions among the occupants and/or operators of the vehicle. Perhaps the DOT will start approving products that reduce risk of in vehicle interactions.

[@Music-lx1tf]

Steve this is the funniest one you've ever done.

[@rallias1]

So, I think (and correct me if I'm wrong), last time you covered this case, you mentioned that GEICO refused to participate in the arbitration, and THAT'S why the court found the judgement good. Would that potentially have implications on whether or not the value gets upheld?

[@suedenim9208]

GEICO being notified, denying the claim, and refusing to defend it is exactly why the lower court denied their appeal. This ruling effectively says an insurance company gets a 2nd chance when they say they weren't notified more than once.

[@ronblack7870]

@@suedenim9208 there should be no need to defend the claim. how is the operation of the vehicle to blame for the woman getting an std.

[@mikedavison4313]

I made comment earlier, but ANY direct court ruling or arbitration judgement that sets the monetary compensation based on who will pay needs to be disbarred. e.g If A sues B and damages are fairly judged as $5m then whether B has insurance should be totally irrelevant as to the value of the damages. Or are we suggesting that uninsured people don't have to pay for their misdeeds?

[@suedenim9208]

@@ronblack7870 Kind of missed the entire point of what happened, didn't you?

[@oraclewizard77]

Most insurance policies have a set limit on damages, above that limit, you would be liable for the remainder. So for example, if the insurance company lost, they would only have to pay say $ 40,000 and the woman can sue the man for the rest, and then he can fie for Chapter 11.

[@DJdoppIer]

There is no way this judgement should've happened in the first place. I hate car insurance companies, but I hate frivolous / idiotic lawsuits even more.

[@austinpfoster]

GEICO, like many insurance companies goes by multiple names: GEICO General, Geico Casualty, GEICO Secure, etc… this is done for multiple reasons, primarily risk segmentation… but in the case of Texas for example (GEICO County Mutual) for more favorable company structure in regard to state regulations. I remember once watching a video on youtube and the attorney in the video said: “You can ALWAYS sue the tortfeasor.”

[@mikedavison4313]

You should always sue the tortfeasor. Whether the defendant has insurance only plays into who pays the legal defence, not who is liable for damages. If the defendant is uninsured/ under insured then that does not relieve their liability.

[@mwduck]

The attorney was correct. And in most states, if you sue anybody it must be the tortfeasor if you want a remedy.

[@earlwheelock7844]

Possible insurance fraud ?

[@sheabarber5708]

Hi Steve! Emailed you about Arlo security Cameras!

[@mike83ny]

It may not be that the lower courts "got it wrong," but rather that the plaintiff's lawyer was so good that he/she had the court so bamboozled that they had to affirm to the plaintiff. As always, it doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, it's how good is your lawyer.

[@lostin.psychosis7080]

or how dumb the affirmative action public employee is

[@dragons_red]

Or how biased is the judge

[@suedenim9208]

@@lostin.psychosis7080 What about the stupidty of posters who think there was any public employee at all involved?

[@lostin.psychosis7080]

@@suedenim9208 last i checked, judges were public employees heres your sign cupcake......now get back to the kitchen adults are talking

[@psychickumquat]

I imagine the argument about operation of the vehicle will be about intended operation of the vehicle, which makes perfect sense. No one would think it reasonable for me to do a handstand on a store's clothes rack and then sue them when it collapses. Sure, it was using the clothes rack, but not as intended...

[@bwtv147]

A great many people, maybe a majority, would find it reasonable to use a vehicle as a place to have sex. We older people remember drive in theaters being called “passion pits” and roadside parks being called “lovers’ lanes”.

[@gomahklawm4446]

@bwtv It doesn't matter how people feel/think about it, it's the crime of public indecency. That's what matters in law....

[@utah133]

Sometimes desire overcomes convenience. As someone who came of age during the 60's, I admit I loved someone very much in a VW beetle

[@RonJohn63]

The arbitrator is a woman who failed both biology and law school. And it would be interesting to see what the appeals court said in upholding the judgement.

[@suedenim9208]

The court that upheld the judgment did so because they believed the arbitrator got it right. The new ruling by the Supreme Court only says that despite refusing to defend the case originally GEICO gets a 2nd chance at it.

[@RonJohn63]

@@suedenim9208 the arbitrator's an idiot. Why? Take that ruling to it's logical conclusion: anyone who smoked in their car and got cancer can claim (partial) compensation from auto insurance; anyone who got fat and had a heart attack from eating Whoppers, fries and Big Gulps in their car can claim (partial) compensation from auto insurance. It's insane.

[@suedenim9208]

@@RonJohn63 The only idiots around here are the ones who can't understand the simple concept of how contracts work. If you agree to be responsible for injuries and you're careless about how you describe what injuries you're responsible for you may find out that you're responsible for more injures that you intended.

[@RonJohn63]

@@suedenim9208 the hordes of contract lawyers working for major insurance companies aren't as idiotic as Missouri arbitrators. Eviler? Probably, but that's a different question.

[@logansmall5148]

The defense of this case should have boiled down to this: He personally assaulted her (causing an std) and as such the vehicle was merely the scene of the crime and not the cause... Unless she literally contracted the std from the vehicle....

[@werberderber6209]

maybe she sat on the shifter and he did, hmmmmm

[@suedenim9208]

1. What part of GEICO agreeing to be financially responsible if their insured injures somebody while using the car is confusing? 2. How do you assault somebody by engaging in consensual acts?

[@logansmall5148]

@@suedenim9208 For your second part, how can she sustain injuries from consensual activity... Exactly. Either he assaulted her or he didn't. She claimed he injured her i.e. he assaulted her. For the first, I sincerely doubt he used the car to give her an std, again, that is merely the location it happened. Although I suppose it is possible that I missed the section in a state license exam that covers having sex in a parked car (Which is illegal in most jurisdictions unless it is on private property not accessible to the public.

[@suedenim9208]

@@logansmall5148 Just to be clear, you're telling us that you think it's impossible to be injured unless you're engaged in an activity you didn't agree to?

[@logansmall5148]

@@suedenim9208 Let me turn this around, should you be able to sue an auto insurance company for childcare costs for getting pregnant in a vehicle? That is literally the same thought behind this. The "harm" the plaintiff suffered was an STD, hate to break it to you, but operating a vehicle doesn't include swapping bodily fluids with another. Your insurance policy says they will pay the costs that are applied to YOU that resulted from the operation of a vehicle.

[@TheFinagle]

GEICO and insurance in general actually needed the original judgement to be made against them. Now they can fight to higher courts this reversed officially. Now next time anyone tries this, they have these rulings to go back to to say they are not responsible for interpersonal incidents just because they happened in an insured car before anything even goes to court.

[@criminalbrewing5509]

Wonder how excited her lawyers are now... Wonder if her lawyers will even try to litigate any further.

[@writerconsidered]

a clearer argument for the insurance company is they don't defend you, they defend their insurance policy of you. The insured is a proxy litigant. If they are on the hook they should be considered the primary defender. In this case the four letter word "reasonable" comes into play. Its clearly not a reasonable insured claim. If it were then one of two things would happen they would have to underwrite with that specific exclusion or worst start getting into out health or wellness lives. a dangerous precedent.

[@suedenim9208]

There is no "reasonable" about what's covered. The policy specifically says what's covered and what's excluded, and the case is where it is because it says injuries are covered and didn't have an exclusion that the arbitrator considered applicable.

[@johnford9742]

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I seem to recall that the lower court's reasoning was that geico had received notice prior, and only chose to intervene after the arbitration went poorly. That was my understanding of the case up to this point

[@Mr.Smith101]

Insurance companies cover automobiles being used (as) an automobile, not a motel room.

[@joshuabrass8216]

Your awesome Steve, always love your vids.

[@deusvult6920]

Mandatory car insurance is unconstitutional. The government can't force you to buy the services of a company.

[@mwduck]

True (with respect to car insurance). But the government can say that if you don't have a certain level of insurance, you can't drive in our state.

[@dukekessler6292]

As the person above pointed out. They can't force you to buy car insurance. However they also do not have to let you operate a vehicle either.

[@AlanTheBeast100]

Fun fact: Per Wikipedia, GEICO has always been a private co., despite the name "Government Employees Insurance Company".

[@Pisti846]

Get the clap, get paid! Modern America.

[@luann7517]

The whole case is ridiculous. STDs aside, what if you catch Covid from being in a car with someone who had it? How about pink eye? It this isn't dismissed, it will definitely set a bad precedent.

[@yamatodamashii1179]

On one hand, it’s funny to hear a big corporation get screwed but then reality hits when you realize a settlement like that would just get spread across the entirety of policy holders. The house always wins.

[@benjamintucker9829]

Yeah, spread like VD.

[@katiekane5247]

Sounds like a few entities got screwed here or rather, there.

[@JamesAllmond]

Geico General is the non-government employee version of GEICO, in some markets it is their standard market carrier with GEICO being the preferred. Basically, same thing but different. Did 17 years there,, a lifetime ago, when Geico General was created out of the ashes of another company they acquired ages ago...man, that brought back some painful memories.

[@mwduck]

And that "Let's hide behind the chainsaws" commercial they drag out every Halloween totally rocks!

[@thomasbeaman9337]

Add this. If this was upheld and the lady got payed. Lets look at Home Insurance where you have Public Liability cover. You take a lady to your home, things happen and SHE gets a virus from you. She can then sue your Home Insurer for personal damages. Same story but in a different setting. I mean there has got to be thousands of cases in the U/S where this has happened. I think many Ladies will now be following this case and Insurers will be rewording their policies.

[@cdrone4066]

How was the arbitrator able to enter a judgment involving a non party that makes the non party financially responsible. They were never notified or put in an answer.

[@bluntmuffin1729]

Isn’t it generally illegal to have relations in a car? Unless they were parked in a private location wouldnt that be public nudity? Insurance generally doesn’t cover anything done while breaking the law.

[@newshodgepodge6329]

Somebody should probably inform Nationwide that it's "an obligation." The only thing they ever did for me was give me low-ball estimates that were always somehow below my deductible, either that or trying to throw me under a bus even in claims against a municipality in one case and a business in another. I had to fight those battles on my own. They also had me file the claims on my own policy rather than pushing to take the other party's insurers to task, something which later cost me a professional driving position because it made it look like I was a high-risk driver for having my property damaged by other people's negligence. Neither of those two claims involved anything that necessitated law enforcement involvement, before anyone asks. So nobody was cited for anything due to the place and manner of the incidents.

[@kenyattaclay7666]

I never thought I’d be defending an insurance company but this some of the craziest 💩I’ve ever heard. There is something severely wrong with this woman & the people in the lower courts for not reversing this nonsense.

[@madaknevarski6478]

MB - Master Bonker, MO - Miss Orifice

[@emerald3331]

It seems like this would be considered insurance fraud.

[@andyp5899]

Fiction for amusement: A woman went shopping in a store while her husband waited outside in their car. When she left the store her husband was no longer there. He left her for one of the associates from the store with whom he'd been having an affair, never to return. When she threatened to sue the store because the associate was an employee the store pointed to the notice “vehicles and its contents are left here entirely at the owner's risk.”

[@Jdiamondhands]

Also all the problems could have been avoided if he had simply “ parked in the rear”

[@Jdiamondhands]

@@paul-gs4be proper lubricants and no movement, no orgasm, no transmission ….also it was just a joke….

[@dukekessler6292]

Parking in the rear only prevents pregnancy not STDs sadly.

[@earphermes5538]

I think the injuries arise from the operations on/of/by the automobile driver/owner. not sure if that is covered by the insurance company.

[@foremanhaste5464]

This case pairs well with whether or not sleeping while intoxicated in the backseat of a vehicle is DWI. What is 'operating?' umm... 'Operating a motor vehicle' yes... must be specific as I am sure that the occupants of the vehicle were 'operating' something.

[@mrsteresa1999]

Good afternoon Steve

[@stevew1851]

Without Insurance, Common Sense would rule. Strange WORLD THESE DAYS.

[@tyroberts2261]

Why are all the judgements so large? Equity implies equal. Also, if you participate in risky behavior why should expect money. We all pay for these ridiculous judgements.

[@corssecurity]

If they had been operating a said vehicle at the time of the alleged injury that would be contrary to law. One person per seat belt. Hence a violation of terms of the insurance policy. Still suing the offending party for the injury may be allowed to proceed. Provided they knew or ought to have known that they allegedly had a contagious illness and failed to disclose such and had an obligation to disclose the information.

[@grim1427]

One wonders how it is that the entire situation seems set up to try and get money from Gieco. It seems so obvious this could never have succeeded. Its one thing to say car insurance companies would have to pay for all of these types of incidents until they update thier policies. The real issue with this is that anyone could come up with an unlimited number of similar schemes to scam money out of insurance companies.

[@andidede3653]

The hope for the individual and the lawyers bringing the lawsuit is always a hope to settle like it is with 99% of all lawsuits against car insurance companies. I had a car insurance lawyer tell me once that the insurance company will 90% of the time always settle a case regardless of the facts. Their job is to investigate the other individual and see if they can find fraud since most of these lawsuits include injury. For example he told me that they had a check for 40K for a plaintiff one time and the guy wanted to go to court all the way due to spinal injury. Investigators found him washing his boat, he was underneath it with his hands above his shoulders. Case closed the guy got nothing but they were willing to give him money anyways all he had to do was accept it.

[@suedenim9208]

And? Insurance companies devote a great deal of time and money to carefully craft policies that describe what's covered and what's not. The arbitrator decided that the wording of the policy allowed for coverage of an injury that occurred while in the vehicle. Homeowners policies normally exclude most infectious diseases, so a guest may be covered if dinner gives them food poisoning but they won't be covered if the host gives then the clap or COVID. Assuming GEICO's homeowner policies cover such things they very obviously had the ability to exclude coverage in their auto policies, so not excluding them was a deliberate choice on GEICO's part. Regardless of how this case finally ends, any insurance company that doesn't take the opportunity to clarify their auto policies should switch to a business that doesn't require similar levels of risk assessment.

[@andidede3653]

@Sue Denim look we can talk about language all we want but common sense should prevail. What injury exactly? She slept with someone knowing there are risks to STDs. All of a sudden Geico needs to open their checkbook and pay for your idiocy that has nothing to do with operating a vehicle. The court should look at that, laugh in her face, and give her the boot. This would open a door to ridiculous claims, it needs to stop. Frivolous lawsuits should never be allowed to proceed. I hope Geico prevails but like I mentioned earlier chances are they will pay her to shut her mouth, this is what they always do in almost any case whether they are right or not that unfortunately is how things have turned in this country and we pay for it in high premiums.

[@suedenim9208]

@@andidede3653 What the courts should look at is what GEICO agreed to cover, as stated by the words they put into the contract. If you don't understand what the injury is I can't fix that for you.

[@Nonononono12345-o]

Anyone who claims the insurance is liable needs to be charged with insurance fraud.