1ºWren Morgan if someone has regular check ups, it wouldn't be hard to tell when someone contracted it. When I found out I had it, it wasn't hard to track down my sexual partners between lady check ups. If she's only been with 1 person, 1 time (in his vehicle) it makes sense that she would know who, when, and where.
It may lie dormant in your system for years, but it can show up on blood tests. Depending on technology. All I'm saying is I don't know the case but I can see how they came to this conclusion easily.
2ºRick Abrams, this, to me, is still really dumb. We can blame CNN, or anyone else. But if I say I got influenza from someone, and I was in his or her car at the time, should Geico take that seriously for a car insurance claim? Should Geico spend money defending such a position?
And if they should, are we all fine with the likely massive rise in insurance rates that will follow such an inclusion?
I think we are already clear that your example, which would generally involve operation of a motor vehicle, and an associated collision, would typically be a valid insurance claim. Perhaps some are less clear about how any communicable disease that may have been present in or near a vehicle, whether anyone was operating the vehicle at the time or not, would leave the insured liable though.
3ºKimberlee Kirby Markle the judgement makes perfect sense if you read the article.
"At the time of Geico's intervention, liability and damages had been determined by an arbitrator and confirmed by the trial court. GEICO had no right to relitigate those issues."
"Geico could have defended its interests by entering a defense of the insured individual." "GEICO did not take advantage of this opportunity, and instead denied coverage and refused to defend Insured."
Instead of paying the $1 million settlement now Geico is on the hook for $5.2 million. Bottom line is insurance companies only care about their profits. First off they just outright denied her claim. Then they failed to defend their insured in court and instead agreed to arbitration. You don't get to relitigate after arbitration is settled. But, Geico's lawyers tried to appeal a settled case and it cost them big time.
4ºDenise Williams "At the time of Geico's intervention, liability and damages had been determined by an arbitrator and confirmed by the trial court. GEICO had no right to relitigate those issues."
"Geico could have defended its interests by entering a defense of the insured individual." "GEICO did not take advantage of this opportunity, and instead denied coverage and refused to defend Insured."
Geico's lawyers screwed up royally ! Sue her for what? Winning a case because Geico didn't defend their insured. Geico agreed to arbitration and reneged on the $1 million settlement after the fact. You don't get a 2nd bite of the apple--you cannot relitigate a settled case. Their appeal after the fact and failure to defend their insured to begin with, is what resulted in her being awarded $5.2 million.
5ºKat M Jones nope they already tried to appeal and 3 judges determined you cannot relitigate when you already agreed to arbitration and want to renege on the settlement after the fact. So, instead of getting $1 million that was agreed upon in arbitration, Geico will pay over $5 million.
"At the time of Geico's intervention, liability and damages had been determined by an arbitrator and confirmed by the trial court. GEICO had no right to relitigate those issues." "Geico could have defended its interests by entering a defense of the insured individual." "GEICO did not take advantage of this opportunity, and instead denied coverage and refused to defend Insured."
6ºMokhlesur R. Chowdhury Yes I also thought this was absurd until I read the article. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL ! The three-judge panel responsible for reviewing the appeal confirmed the circuit court's settlement decision of $5.2 million, despite GEICO's appeal efforts.
"At the time of Geico's intervention, liability and damages had been determined by an arbitrator and confirmed by the trial court. GEICO had no right to relitigate those issues."
The panel also wrote that Geico could have defended its interests by entering a defense of the insured individual. "GEICO did not take advantage of this opportunity, and instead denied coverage and refused to defend Insured."
Now you know why 3 judges ruled in her favor. Geico thought they could just deny the claim. Then they reneged on a settlement deal made thru arbitration and wanted to relitigate after the fact. They never provided a defense for their insured client. Maybe they were trying to save the cost of legal fees, but it cost them a lot more in the end by NOT defending their insured to begin with.
7ºThis case is so weird to me. HPV is an extremely common communicable disease. How does someone even prove the exact moment he or she contracted it?
And even if a person could prove the exact moment he or she contracted it, where in the language of an auto insurance policy is the contraction of a communicable disease, in another person’s motor vehicle, considered a covered event?
My insurance limits for personal bodily harm, even, are maximized and still not close to this sum of money.
I mean, if I literally struck your body with my car…because I was not paying attention AT ALL, my insurance company would still max out its payment to you at $500k in a personal injury payment. This is bizarre.
8ºJenny Ramona no this shows that insurance companies only look out for their own self interests and should have defended their insured. Geico thought they could just deny the claim. Then they reneged on a settlement deal made thru arbitration and wanted to relitigate after the fact. They never provided a defense for their insured client. Maybe they were trying to save the cost of legal fees, but it cost them a lot more in the end by NOT defending their insured to begin with.
"Geico could have defended its interests by entering a defense of the insured individual." "GEICO did not take advantage of this opportunity, and instead denied coverage and refused to defend Insured."
9ºLeslie Rader Gaul CNN is mangled the facts beyond recognition for a layperson. The $5.2 M is for GEICO's bad faith refusal to defend the lawsuit and its bad faith rejection on the $1 M settlement. Typical auto policies cover anything that has to do with contact with a car. This is not different than if the car rolled over her foot breaking all her toes and she had a limp for the of rest of her life.
GEICO waived it right to contest causation, i.e. proof the she caught the disease from contact with the car, by its refusal to defend its insured.
10ºI was a member of a jury in a civil case resulting from an auto accident. A commercial vehicle rolled into the back of a car at an intersection. The woman in the car took the matter to court rather than settle with the insurance company. She was seeking $30,000 in damages. The insurance company admitted the commercial vehicle rolled into the woman's car and offered to settle, but the matter ended up in court. Since it was clear an accident had occurred it was only a matter of determining damages. The plaintiff saw a chiropractor who had a working relationship with the plaintiff's lawyer. We could tell they had likely worked together in cases like this in the past. The jury saw the relationship as a scam because pictures of the plaintiff's car showed no damage. The plaintiff also had the body shop who repaired the car tint the windows and add premium wheels. I was surprised to see pictures of the car that showed no damage when the rear end should have been damaged if this woman's claim of injury were true. We deliberated for about 4 hours and unanimously agreed the accident had happened, but we awarded the plaintiff $0 in damages because her lawyer failed to prove damages. Their only evidence was testimony from the chiropractor, a log showing her missed work hours and pictures of the car showing no damage. When the verdict was announced, the plaintiff's lawyer was visibly angry and asked for the jury to be polled. It didn't change the results. Afterwards, the lawyers and plaintiff had a question and answer with the jury where we were asked how we arrived at our verdict. I told the plaintiff that her lawyer had failed to prove their case and the matter never should have been taken to court. I also insinuated that her lawyer was incompetent for not settling with the insurance company since his evidence was so flimsy. Based on what I've read, the jury in this STD case got it horribly wrong.