Should car insurance cover STDs caught while having sex in a car?

[WLJ]

Well apparently yes according to this to the tune of $5.2M

The US woman, identified in court files as 'MO', said she caught the human papillomavirus (HPV) from having sex with her then-partner in his car.

This week, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld a judgment that awarded MO a hefty settlement - to be paid by Geico, which insured the vehicle.

Car insurer Geico may have to pay $5m after woman contracts STI in a vehicle
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61763333

[Bogie]

So... Gettin' some skull in the car?

[griz]

Makes sense, it's clearly the car's fault.  Same as your auto insurance would pay for raising a kid up to the age of 18 if you got pregnant in the car.  Oh wait, they don't.

[Bogie]

Yet.

[Bogie]

Then again - will car insurance pay for an abortion?
 
Or... If you're caught cheating, will it pay for the divorce?
 
THIS IS ___NOT___ SAFE FOR WORK. Just don't click it, okay? Don't click it. You can change the channel. Your choice.
 
https://www.reddit.com/r/thatHappened/comments/1s7njz/cheating_wife_caught_on_speed_camera_her_reaction/

[230RN]

Re  OP: Who's her lawyer?  I want him on retainer.  Does he do 2A stuff, too?

[Bogie]

"His Ferrari was the only reason I slept with him."

[Jim147]

Crap my insurance will go up because of this *expletive deleted*it.

[K Frame]

Great...

Slut monkey bangs her wholesome, upstanding "partner," who apparently has a jonesing for slut monkeys, and somehow my insurance company needs to field the cost of her inability to keep her legs closed.

What we don't know from that article is if he was just a slut monkey du jour, or if they had a longer relationship.

No matter what that status, however, she certainly knows how to pick them.

[WLJ]

I'm still having trouble wrapping my brain around the fact they expect the insurance co to pay.
But $5.2M?

[WLJ]

And how can they prove she caught the STD while in the car and not in the bedroom, in the kitchen, living room, etc..? Would home owners insurance then be expected to pay? If in an alley is the city expected to pay?

AND how do they prove she didn't already have it and maybe gave it to him?

[K Frame]

And how can they prove she caught the STD while in the car and not in the bedroom, in the kitchen, living room, etc..? Would home owners insurance then be expected to pay? If in an alley is the city expected to pay?

AND how do they prove she didn't already have it and maybe gave it to him?

My guess?

It was a drunken slut monkey one night stand at the bar.

"WOO! I'm trashed, and everyone knows whiskey allows me to make smart, rational decisions! I think I'll *expletive deleted*ck that guy! WOOO!"

[Pb]

Is this really as mind-numbingly stupid as it appears, or is there some "legal" angle I am not understanding here? 

[K Frame]

Is this really as mind-numbingly stupid as it appears, or is there some "legal" angle I am not understanding here? 

I'm going to 95% from column A, 5% column B.

[WLJ]

Is this really as mind-numbingly stupid as it appears, or is there some "legal" angle I am not understanding here?

The BBC article was using the PC term "partner"
This one uses the term "boyfriend" The horror of assuming it's gender

Just a little more detail

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2022/06/10/geico-std-lawsuit-missouri/7578871001/

"Insured 'negligently caused or contributed to cause [M.O.] to be infected with HPV by not taking proper precautions and neglecting to inform and/or disclose his diagnosis,' despite 'having knowledge of his condition,'” the opinion wrote.

M.O. asserted her then-boyfriend's car insurance policy covered her injuries and losses in a claim in 2021. Geico turned down her claim and she took matters to an arbitrator, who found the insured "negligently infected M.O. with HPV and awarded her $5.2 million in damages," court documents said.

She then filed the motion with the trial court who ruled in her favor and confirmed the  judgement of $5.2 million in damages for “past and future medical expenses,” as well as “past and future mental and physical pain and suffering.”

And basically Geico was told to shut up

The appeals court also found that Geico did not have the right to “re-litigate” the issues after the award had been affirmed.

[WLJ]

Just had a thought
Is the arbitrator involved here in the same office as a certain Missouri DA?

[MillCreek]

As the risk manager, I can probably say the exact reason why this case occurred.  For decades now, there has been a specific exclusion in homeowner's/renter's policies denying coverage for STDs.  This started back in the 70's and 80's when the number of cases of herpes increased and it started getting publicity.  So the exclusion was already in place in the standard policy form, had been litigated and upheld, and was ready to go when HIV came along.  So people could no longer sue each other for STD transmission and have the homeowner's liability policy pay for it. 

I have not read the standard ISO or Geico auto policy language for this, but I bet it does not have an exclusion for STDs.  Therefore, they came up with a fact pattern (sex in the car causing damages) and that the auto insurance should apply just as it would for a collision causing injury.  Clearly the courts bought that reasoning.  I predict that in the future the standard ISO policy language will have an exclusion for this and all the auto insurance policies will incorporate that standard language.

[K Frame]

You know, Millcreek, I'd have a MUCH easier time accepting that explanation if you had delivered it from your office in downtown Seattle, where you go at least 3 days a week...

[MillCreek]

You know, Millcreek, I'd have a MUCH easier time accepting that explanation if you had delivered it from your office in downtown Seattle, where you go at least 3 days a week...

They came and talked to me again about the regional risk director job, and now they are saying it would be a hybrid model where the team gets together in Seattle maybe once a month or so.  That might be more palatable to me then the original three days a week proposal.

[zxcvbob]

I don't think Geico is liable at all here, but suppose they are.  Aren't they only responsible for the liability limits in the policy?  Typically, $500000 in a *generous* policy.  The boyfriend is responsible for the rest.

[Northwoods]

I don't think Geico is liable at all here, but suppose they are.  Aren't they only responsible for the liability limits in the policy?  Typically, $500000 in a *generous* policy.  The boyfriend is responsible for the rest.

Possible he had an umbrella liability policy.

[MillCreek]

 https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/litigants-claiming-geico-auto-policy-covers-std-from-car-sex-cant-proceed-anonymously-judge-rules

The parties agreed in arbitration to limit the policyholder's liability under the Geico auto and umbrella policies.  They probably agreed to policy limits.  The actual award of $ 5.2 million was against Geico for their bad faith conduct.  Geico, not the policyholder, is responsible for the $ 5.2 million.

[Northwoods]

How was Geico acting in bad faith?

[MillCreek]

How was Geico acting in bad faith?

'Bad faith' is a term of art in the legal/insurance world and it pertains to the conduct of an insurance company.  It is essentially insurance company malpractice.  The most common allegations of bad faith are that an insurance company refused to cover a claim, refused to pay on a claim, did not pay out enough on a claim, or failed to conduct an adequate investigation of a claim.  In this particular case, I suspect the bad faith finding was refusal to pay out on the claim after an award was made at arbitration.
. 
Edited to add that I have personally been involved and named in a couple of bad faith lawsuits over the years pertinent to my medical malpractice work.  Both cases involved if a particular claim was covered by the policy.  In both cases, the courts found in favor of the insurance company.

[Hawkmoon]

I have not read the standard ISO or Geico auto policy language for this, but I bet it does not have an exclusion for STDs.  Therefore, they came up with a fact pattern (sex in the car causing damages) and that the auto insurance should apply just as it would for a collision causing injury.  Clearly the courts bought that reasoning.  I predict that in the future the standard ISO policy language will have an exclusion for this and all the auto insurance policies will incorporate that standard language.

Actually, it appears that an arbitrator (not a court) bought it, and then a court basically told Geico that there was no basis for overturning the arbitrator's determination.

Arbitration isn't the panacea it's made out to be. I have been an expert witness in several construction-related arbitrations, and only one of them resulted in a finding I thought even approached a fair and just decision.