A woman is suing Geico after they turned down her claim after she contracted an STD while engaging in sex in her car.
I wonder if they denied the claim because it was the man who was driving during the accident. Or maybe the Missouri woman put in a liability claim because it was the man’s car.
Geico says the lawsuit is a scam. And, what kind of lawyer would even bring such a ridiculous lawsuit, to begin with.
The lawsuit claims that the woman has the right to sue Geico who wrote the policy for her boyfriend’s Hyundai Genesis in 2017. But, doesn’t the insurance company have the right to deny a claim when the proper safety device was not in use?
She later found out that she had contracted human papillomavirus, or HPV, as a result. Also, insurance normally does not cover you when the accident was the result of an intentional act. That might be the loophole they should use.
Geico has filed a lawsuit of their own in Kansas seeking to get the case thrown out. Any judge who would not throw this case out immediately needs to be removed from the bench.
Although I suppose the judge might be in need of a good laugh. But support it goes to court and the woman wins. McDonald’s lost a lawsuit because the coffee they served was hot.
Or how about the company that lost a lawsuit after a burglar fell through the skylight while trying to break in. He won because the company did not put a railing around the skylight.
In the countersuit, the insurance provider essentially calls “bull” on the woman’s claim, arguing its auto policy only applies to bodily injuries arising “out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of” the automobile.
The company goes on to say: “M.O.’s alleged damages have no nexus to the ownership, maintenance, or covered use of the 2014 Hyundai Genesis. In other words, the vehicle’s covered use did not cause M.O.’s alleged injuries; instead, her injuries arose from an intervening cause—namely, her failure to prevent transmission of STDs by having unprotected sex.”
The Daily Mail reported that Geico is also accusing the couple of “conspiring to capitalize on a sordid situation that they themselves created, and is questioning why the pair refuse to make their identities public.”
