Missouri Court of Appeals has sided with a woman who received a $5.2million award against GEICO in a case that centered on a unique claim for auto injury: The woman claims she contracted a sexually transmitted illness in a Hyundai sedan whose owner was covered by GEICO.
According to court papers, the woman was identified as M.O. and claims that M.B. infected her with humanpapillomavirus (HPV) after they had sex in his 2014 Hyundai Genesis.
She claims the man was negligent in his reporting of his health condition, even though he had a throat cancer tumor which was positive for HPV.
GEICO informed the woman that auto insurance didn’t cover her because “damages claimed didn’t arise from the normal use” of the vehicle.
The first sexual encounters occurred in late 2017. M.O. was not covered by GEICO because the car was at that time covered by GEICO. M.O. says that the company has an obligation to compensate her for contracting HPV in her vehicle. She cites medical expenses as well as her suffering.
In March 2021, the two parties signed an arbitration agreement. They agreed to settle their dispute. Two months later, M.O. was awarded by an arbitrator. M.O. was awarded $5.2 million by an arbitrator, stating that the amount “would fairly compensate” her.
M.O. M.O. GEICO appealed to the higher court.
According to the insurance company, it was not given the opportunity to defend itself. This violated its constitutional rights to due procedure and access to courts. Two judges from the Missouri Court of Appeals’ Western District ruled this week that GEICO had many opportunities to take action on its behalf.
M.O. M.O. had submitted a claim to GEICO over a year prior. In February 2021, the woman sent GEICO a copy the lawsuit she was about file against the uninsured man. She also offered to settle her claim for $1million. Although the court’s decision was unanimously supported by the appeals panel, the third judge said that GEICO had not been afforded a “meaningful chance to participate in the lawsuit” prior to the judgment.
M.O. M.O. In April 2021, GEICO sued M.O. M.O. M.B.
GEICO claims that the claim of coverage by the car owner should be rejected because they are barred under a variety of legal doctrines including fraud, collusion and illegality, laches, unclean hands, and illegality.
M.O. M.O. She claims that the man was insured against personal liability arising out of his negligence in actions involving his car, and that GEICO is responsible.
A jury trial is scheduled for the federal case, which is currently set to start in a Kansas City courtroom on October. More than 100 docket entries were made since GEICO filed the federal suit over a year ago.
