Geico will not have to pay $5 million to woman who contracted a sexually transmitted disease in a car

[Brainspore]

@vrplumber

If you have sex on a Casper mattress and contract an STD, should Casper be held accountable?

I got an STD from Casper but when I tried to call afterward he just ghosted me.

[L0ki]

@anon85524460

Plus, the arbitrator was forced onto this situation BY Geico themselves. They didn’t show up to the arbitration THEY bought and paid for , and lost

As we went through last time - GEICO did not insist on arbitration.

The arbitration was set up by the plaintiff and the person insured by GEICO - without GEICO’s knowledge until after the arbitration had concluded.

GEICO applied to intervene in the proceedings to confirm the award and that application wasn’t ruled on before the award was confirmed. It was granted afterwards - by which point of course there wasn’t much point.

The Supreme Court has ruled that confirming the award before allowing GEICO to intervene was wrong since the statute says they are entitled to intervene if they apply in time - which they did.

Not really controversial.

And more fundamentally - this decision still says nothing about whether GEICO has to pay or not.

That remains up for grabs.

M.O. v. GEICO General Insurance Co.

[DreamboatSkanky]

@anon33932455

A Karmann Ghia? Definitely not.

Don’t kink-shame.

[DreamboatSkanky]

That’s the spirit!

[ElQuesero]

By the same token, though, if I were sitting in a car having lunch and another driver were to careen into my car, injuring me, I would want my insurance to pay out for it. (Also further assuming that the other driver isn’t insured or hit-and-runs, there isn’t an uninsured motorist fund in my state, and otherwise there’s nobody left holding the bag other than my own insurer.)

Not saying this logic extends to contracting an STD in the car of course.

[Mangochin]

And it would be covered. But if you got food poisoning from your lunch in the car, it would not be covered.

[ElQuesero]

Yep, sure. But I think there’s something to unpack here.

I wouldn’t expect to be covered if a madman sniper took aim at me and shot me while eating my lunch in the car either. So it seems the principle in play here is I should be covered from injuries arising from use and operation of the vehicle, or injuries arising from within-shouting-distance-of-normal use and operation of vehicles by those around me even if I was not engaged in driving use of the vehicle at that exact moment.

I feel like the only boundary cases left are things like “person deliberately sets out to use their vehicle as an instrument of murder or mayhem”, like, say, the 2016 Nice truck attack. Were I a victim of that attack who was, say, in an (entirely stationary) car or on an insured light motorcycle at the time of the attack.

[Mangochin]

In NY this plays out in a number of ways:

1. Hit by a car, it always gets covered by someone. It is just a question of whose policy (or uninsured motorist coverage, which is mandatory)
2. Injuries while changing a tire, loading/unloading a car, putting out lights/flares on a road are considered use and operation of a vehicle

@ElQuesero

the 2016 Nice truck attack. Were I a victim of that attack who was, say, in a car or on an insured light motorcycle at the time of the attack.

Generally innocent victims of intentional acts get coverage. Most intentional losses (“Crash for cash”) involve at least one unwitting party to make the accident look more credible.