You gotta be s****ing me.

You mean the mandatory arbitration clause backfired in the most spectacular way? Where's my popcorn, this ought to be a fun one to read over the next few weeks.
 
wheaties said:
You mean the mandatory arbitration clause backfired in the most spectacular way?...
Click to expand...

Could be, but the issue the appeals court mentioned was the insurance company's "duty to defend." From the article:

The Missouri Court of Appeals deferred to the arbitrator and refused to overturn the previous findings.

"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 court wrote.

The court wrote in its decision that Geico may have been able to avoid the payout if they had defended the woman's sexual partner – the owner of the insured car.

Instead, because they chose to deny coverage, their path of legal recourse was compromised.​

Liability insurance includes a duty to defend as I understand it, and it sounds like the insurance company tried to get out of that by claiming that the liability portion of the policy didn't cover that situation. It's hard to form an opinion on whether that was right or wrong without reading the policy.
 
Saw part of a YT video on this case. The suit was filed in Missouri. The insurer decided that the damage is not covered (she offered a $1m settlement, the policy limits, and the insurer turned it down). Missouri then offers two tracks: arbitration and court. Both parties agreed to arbitration and she prevailed. I believe the video said he knew and didn't disclose his condition. Once the award was taken to court to be entered as a judgement, the insurer became interested in the case, and argued that they hadn't been able to defend the insurer. The circuit court and appeals court found that the time to defend the case had already passed.

The guy on the video said the legal theory was that when someone is injured in your car, auto insurance is supposed to cover their loss.
 
Sometimes our legal system is so....thorough that it excludes what most accept as a just outcome.
Maybe those conceiving children in vehicles can claim child support damages? Costs a lot of money to raise a child. Injury happened in the vehicle.
How about all those in my generation who were forced to inhale second hand smoke in vehicles for hours on end?
 
I honestly would have never expected my AUTO insurance to cover this sort of situation. Not even my homeowner's frankly. I'm gobsmacked that they offered the million, and moreso that they lost the 5.2

Also it's wild that contracting herpes is worth 5.2MM. Selling kidneys is so old school.
 
schmookeeg said:
I honestly would have never expected my AUTO insurance to cover this sort of situation. Not even my homeowner's frankly. I'm gobsmacked that they offered the million, and moreso that they lost the 5.2

Also it's wild that contracting herpes is worth 5.2MM. Selling kidneys is so old school.
Click to expand...
They didn't offer the million. According to the article, the complainant offered to settle for a million, but the company turned her down.
 
It was not herpes she claimed she got from the dude, it was HPV, a different virus, there is not an HPV test for males to see if you have it, no test, per DR Google
 
If they're doing the nasty in a car, chances are they've done it with multiple others. Just because they both have it doesn't mean it came from one another. Most men have no idea they have it. Probably should have gotten the HPV vaccine
 
Shawn said:
How does this get through about of Common Sense to even be a thing?...oh, right...common sense does not matter any more...
Click to expand...

A bad government education system that doesn’t really teach jury nullification.

This is a feature, not a flaw.

Back when I was younger, they would not dare take that case, no jury on earth would do anything but laugh at them and their law firm would become a joke.
 
Begs the question how she could ever prove she got it…from that one guy.
 
We are now Post Rule of Law. This is the most absurd thing I've read in a long time. G had every right to deny coverage. Catching an STD has nothing to do with the ownership or operation of a motor vehicle. If she had gotten pregnant, would G have to pay child support? If she had gotten HPV in her apartment, would the landlord be responsible? If she got HPV in her house, would her mortgage company be liable? If he had murdered her, would G be responsible for wrongful death.

I have no love for G or SF. Or A for that matter. But the schadenfreude in some of these posts is as obnoxious as the decision. It is the celebration of idiocy.
 
So... there is zero way to prove if this defendant even HAS this HPV thing, much less is passing it out to callers of his 12-way power and lumbar adjustable rolling boudoir? The F is this court even thinking??
 
If she was injured in the car, but not as the result of an accident, wouldn't the medical payments coverage in the policy control? Those limits are like $5k, like if you whack you head on the door frame getting in or the like.
 
Absurdity aside of it being technicality of arbitration...what I am still confused by is that according to that video it appears that Insured has a $1M liability policy...so how can there be a judgment against Geico for $5.2M since Geico was not a party to the arbitration?

Wouldn't Geico just been the hook for the $1M of the policy and Insured on the hook for the rest of the $4.2M if it stands?
 
Shawn said:
Absurdity aside of it being technicality of arbitration...what I am still confused by is that according to that video it appears that Insured has a $1M liability policy...so how can there be a judgment against Geico for $5.2M since Geico was not a party to the arbitration?

Wouldn't Geico just been the hook for the $1M of the policy and Insured on the hook for the rest of the $4.2M if it stands?
Click to expand...

Because they had the opportunity to settle within policy limits, and chose not to do so, hence exposing the insured to greater damages. In Texas we call this the “Stowers Doctrine,” and it exists to protect insureds from a carrier’s unreasonable refusal to protect the insured from ruinous outcomes (which is why we buy insurance).

I’m still confounded as to why the underlying event is a covered peril, but that’s within the policy language.
 
I read somewhere else that he had an “HPV throat cancer,” so he knew he had HPV. It also gives a clue into exactly what they were doing in that Hyundai.

HPV is present in something like 80% of sexually active Americans. It’s also been found in the vaginas of virginal nuns. I have no idea if this is bad jurisprudence, but the defendant needed a better expert witness. There’s no way to prove she didn’t have HPV before she met him or that she caught it from him. It also isn’t clear that she’s suffered any actual damage from the virus.

But if the burden of proof is “more likely than not” and she was a bona fide virgin before this encounter, then she should win. Except she should have known she was risking catching an STD, by the “any reasonable person” standard.

I think the defendant was poorly represented. I also think he’s a cad who deserves punishment.
 
I wonder if they considered that she failed to take the reasonable precaution of getting vaccinated against HPV?

Of course, he failed to as well.

I didn’t look up their ages, it’s also possible that ship had sailed before the vaccine was available.
 
And then there’s “arbitration”. A corporate compromise. It may have just been their turn to lose (an actual phrase used by an arbitrator to justify a VERY unexpected outcome)*.

The decision does not have to be based on law, normal interpretation of it, or anything.

Every arbitrator I know, or know a little about, is NOT a judge. They are retired execs... There is no penalty for, well, anything they do. You can appeal their decision, but it’s REALLY difficult.

They are notoriously easy to buy off... figure $25/arbitration. Maybe good for one of those per year. Maybe half dozen smaller cases more per year making their annual salary $100k max, chump change considering their former careers. Already in their mid 70s... Multi million dollar decisions in their tiny pea brains... do the math.

Arbitration is for expediency, period.

* Not a rumor
 
Can one of the lawyers remind me what value the legal profession has to society?
 
Shawn said:
How does this get through about of Common Sense to even be a thing?...oh, right...common sense does not matter any more...
Click to expand...

It’s not common sense, it is contract law and probably fell under the definition of accident and injury.
 
SCCutler said:
Because they had the opportunity to settle within policy limits, and chose not to do so, hence exposing the insured to greater damages. In Texas we call this the “Stowers Doctrine,” and it exists to protect insureds from a carrier’s unreasonable refusal to protect the insured from ruinous outcomes (which is why we buy insurance).

I’m still confounded as to why the underlying event is a covered peril, but that’s within the policy language.
Click to expand...
Companies should not be settling for or wasting their money defending against things this idiotic. There's no way ANY reasonable person considers this a covered peril.
 
Morgan3820 said:
Can one of the lawyers remind me what value the legal profession has to society?
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer, but the comments above about arbitrators' motivations and decisions, plus the apparent lack of a requirement for them to be lawyers, would seem to provide at least a partial answer.
 
OK, how about this:

No profession is perfect, but there's no way for the rule of law to exist without the legal profession, and the alternative to the rule of law is tyranny. That's why John Adams wrote that we need "a government of laws and not of men."
 
Palmpilot said:
OK, how about this:

No profession is perfect, but there's no way for the rule of law to exist without the legal profession, and the alternative to the rule of law is tyranny. That's why John Adams wrote that we need "a government of laws and not of men."
Click to expand...
There's also anarchy.
 
The arbitrator was either trying to make a name for themselves, not firing on all cylinders, or getting payback for some previous failure. I can’t imagine G not fighting this if they actually can.
 
I thought auto policies were "all risk" and not "covered peril". In any event, I can't wait to read next year's crop of policy endorsements....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top