I think the real problem was too much junk in the trunk.
1 Like
You have misread the order. The passage you quoted was the judge’s summarizing GEICO’s argument, not a ruling on the argument. That issue will be decided in the future and GEICO could lose (or could win). This order simply requires GEICO to provide actual names for the man and woman in question and not use initials in the caption of the case (or if the woman is dismissed from the case on jurisdictional grounds – that she cannot be sued in Kansas – then GEICO only has to provide the man’s name). Indeed, page 12 of the opinion says, “In short, this case presents novel and potentially important issues, and its outcome could have persuasive value on other insurance coverage.” The judge thinks the issue is important and has yet to decide who should win.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
