No, GEICO Isn't Paying $5.2m for Car Sex (Probably)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 27 มิ.ย. 2022
- ⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
15 minutes could save you $5.2m. 🏙 Get at least 25% off your Displates! legaleagle.link/displate
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
⚖️ Do you think Geico will have to pay?
🏙 Get at least 25% off your Displates! legaleagle.link/displate
That lizard is probably into it.
Do you know any good criminal lawyers in Pennsylvania
Please law review the office U.S season 4 episode 5/6 launch party
No, they won't
They'll find a way out of it.
"Your honor, my car insurance CLEARLY STATES that it covers transmission problems"
Transmission fluid.
That's a good one. As a future mechanic I approve.
We have a winner XD
...slow clap.
Oh that was good. That was GOOD! =D
Never trust headlines, especially when it comes to legal proceedings.
Preach.
It's the "woman sues McDonald's because she spilled coffee on herself" headline all over again.
I'd add "new health food" and other pop science to that.
@@junibug6790 wait what happened with that whole thing?
Also when it comes to science discoveries.
If GEICO is really worried about having to pay out this award, then I know a way they could save 15% or more a year on their car insurance. That would make a huge difference I'm told.
Back in the late 70s or early 80s, a person successfully sued against a homeowners policy for contracting an STD, leading to HO policies after that to have a specific no-STD disclaimer clause. It surprises me that the companies did not do the same for auto policies.
Now they learn their lesson hard
I guess I am confused on what basis of the suit was-insurance companies cover the home and items within, right? But not the physical body of the person who owns the policy.
Did the person have to prove that the HOME is what infected them with an STD vs the homeowner?
Can you cite the case at all?!
@@stephanien6237 some policies also cover if someone is injured in your home not just items or the home itself
@@stephanien6237 also covers injuries that happen at the home like falling down the stairs or out of a trampoline.
@@stephanien6237 What do you suppose happens when a homeowner is doing a repair and drops a ladder on the neighbor? That and an STD are both injuries caused by the homeowner who paid for an insurance policy that includes liability coverage to protect the if they injure somebody.
If I were a rental or homeowners insurance provider right now I’d be following this case VERY closely. Most sex happens in people’s homes, of course.
Thinking the same. Also, no one really though about people getting a disease (not only that) in a freaking car could sue a company? I mean, come on, they have teams to think about this kind of scenarios
Rofl. Time for me to have some fun in some cars! Lololol
Wonder what happens if you get a heatstroke during sex and sue the household insurance
There has to be relavant caselaw somewhere
Homeowners, renters and condo owners all provide general liability coverage this applies outside of your dwelling as well.
I’m a journalist who is going to law school, and it’s insane how badly reporters skew and misrepresent litigation like this
The problem is that most journalists actually don't know that much about the thing that they are writing about. I see this issue in legal articles, war articles, science articles, even fashion articles. Unless the news is simply reporting on something that is facially obvious -- like what happened on a TV show -- journalists just make tons of minor errors which add up to being quite off.
@@oremfrien it’s also a matter of how reporters and editors are trained to think. The industry makes it a point to make headlines conversational at best and unduly enticing at worst, and, “This person had to file suit for relatively benign insurance purposes” isn’t as exciting as, “A woman sued her nephew for breaking her arm while jumping up to give her a hug.” (This was a real thing that happened, and the media’s coverage on it was shameful and ruined the poor woman’s life.)
News organizations are for-profit institutions at the end of the day, and in some cases, their profit motive takes the wheel at the expense of substance and veracity. But in most cases (and to your point), it’s ignorance of a layperson who just so happens to be the reporter.
One of the first things reporters are taught is, “Write what you know.” A lot of reporters suck at taking that to heart.
@@user-mm8vw1ow1x this is also true. 9 times out of 10 when a reporter makes a mistake, it’s not done maliciously.
The problem is entirely institutional. For-profit publications seldom have the same resolve for public service that sincere reporters have.
And not just this. The state of journalism everywhere in the world is appalling. I imagine it's partly due to the new rules of the game, with online media taking over newspapers, suddenly you have far smaller budgets, and it's all going to journalists as copywriters, not to editors.
Regardless of the reasons, it really is incredible. There is a general lack of fact-checking. Which is odd, because it's like journalists forgot how to do their job. One of the most valuable tools journalists have at their disposal is free consultation. All you have to do is shoot an email or pick up the phone, call just about ANYBODY with relevant experience, say you're a journalist with X and Y and ask if they can confirm or fact-check something for you, and they'll do it. For free.
Working on a piece about space? Make sure you're not confusing Dragon with Soyuz, take 5 minutes, call your local university, ask to speak with someone in a relevant department, they'll be happy to fact-check your article for you. For free, over the phone, in 5 minutes. Doing a piece that involves firearms? Call the local NRA, make sure you're not mistaking a Glock 17 for an AR-15. Talking cars? 5 minutes. Call any local mechanic or technical college. Working on a legal piece? Call a goddamn lawyer.
That used to be the bread and butter of journalism, and it now seems like an arcane forgotten art.
True journalism is dead. That's why.
I'm crying-thinking of all the times I've been sick in somebody else's car. Instead of apologizing and paying for cleanup-as I've been doing all this time-I could've sued their insurance companies! 😭
Not same
I love this channel, it’s one of the few times A) you won’t be click-baited on the video; B) you don’t turn a 10 second answer into a 15 min video; C) you somehow make legalese into English; D) you somehow make law entertaining.
And still get it wrong. At 12:59 he shows "Case law in Kansas and Missouri holds that such coverage only extends only to injuries incurred for use of a motor vehicle *as a motor vehicle*, not as a place for sexual activity" See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v Evans 1981, Walden Vs Smith 2014. just before saying it might go against GEICOs favour
Wholeheartedly agree! Not only that, but all his information is accurate and not thrown-about misinformation like some wanna-be lawyers on TH-cam and TikTok. LegalEagle is the best on this platform for anything law based. :)
@@potatosordfighter666 I mean, he’s making education entertainment content that’s effectively free for the public to watch, while being a lawyer as well. I think we can forgive him the occasional mistake, he’s only human!
@@potatosordfighter666 In what way did Legal Eagle "get it wrong"? The document on screen is obviously a GEICO filing with the court in this case. Whether GEICO are right or wrong on that point is pretty much the crux of the case. And of course, they construe those cases very broadly when they say, "...not as a place for sexual activity," since neither had anything at all to do with sex. One involved someone throwing an M-80 out of the back of a parked station wagon, and the other involved a dog in a truck biting a lady through an open window.
Having sex in cars, of course, is a pretty common practice, especially among younger people (or at least it was when I was young.) An argument could be made that having sex in cars is one of the "uses" of an automobile in a way that launching explosives or dog bites are not, and I think that's a much stronger argument than GEICO's there. If I were on a jury and asked to interpret whether a place to have sex is a "use" of a car, I would definitely vote that yes it is.
Also, it's pretty ridiculous to listen to someone say, "...Maybe...Maybe...Who knows?...It's possible...might..." and then claim that they were somehow "wrong." He didn't even really take a side; he only said it was possible that they would lose, which is pretty much true of every case that doesn't settle.
He does however (on occasion) turn a question / issue that needs and deserves a 15+ minute answer into a 10 second video (see: his shorts).
*"the insurance companies didnt like that so the law was amended"*
It happens more often than you think
Related is the amount of times copyright law was changed because Mickey Mouse's copyright was about to come up.
@@HappleProductions Given the most recent extension ends in 2024, I would love for a group of artists to pool a stockpile of Mickey doing the most foul things they can imagine to be released on the day it goes public domain.
@@Lowmanification Bold of you to assume any of us will still be alive when the Mouse goes into the public domain.
I worked for GEICO as an adjuster, not in MO. Honestly I'm not surprised this is going down the way it is. The adjusters are constantly overworked due to staffing issues and since you said there wasn't a response from the company, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the demand wasn't reviewed timely. I once got a demand that took over two weeks to make it to me from the mail center and it had a three week due date. Also, the way things get denied there are very fun, basically adjusters don't have authority to outright deny stuff, that has to reviewed from on high, and those reviewers always advise the adjusters to immediately notify them if they receive suit paperwork. So again, probably never even reviewed. I quit about a month before this first hit the news, so it's all pure speculation on my part regarding the specifics. Also, be kind to your liability adjusters - they really don't have much say in what they are telling you and calling them back to back isn't cool.
Nice, former Adjuster on the Auto side here that quit Geico years ago. I guess some things don't change. They really do put adjusters through the grinder from the workload and survey stress (Yep, we are going to put the cheapest junk back on your car but will you put down excellent on the survey cause very good actually counts as a zero towards us "And thank you for letting me provide you with excellent customer service!").
You better not be in MO, or else you'll have herpes too.
So long story short... Insurance companies don't care about you, only your money and same goes for their employees?
Insurance is one of the very few scams that are legalized by the government and need to be shut down.
@@estuardo2985 Very Good counts as a Zero? Wtf?! Good to know, I don't think we still have Geico [we moved slight across town and since we were in a high accident area [that hadn't seen accidents in over 3 years] they jacked up our rates despite us having an amazing record with them] -- I will let people who have Geico in my life know what you two have said but especially that a "Very Good" is basically a worthless review. That's so messed up ...
@@estuardo2985 I wonder would comparative negligence provide any "protection". Lol See what I did there...
When I first heard about this I tried to look up the details online, and there were basically no useful details whatsoever being reported in the news. I knew there had to be some procedural quirks at play, but every news source reported it like it was an interpersonal television drama instead of providing any useful facts about the case(s). I gave up and decided to wait until LegalEagle covered it.
That's unfortunately the news cycle in general these days. They barely do any research or fact checking, if they do any at all, and just repeat headlines spread by other news outlets with minimal effort. They don't care if they don't have details right or even flat out lie, because the worst they have to do is make a retraction *after* everyone has already moved on to the next big headline and doesn't even notice the retraction.
Even worse, some articles about it explicitly claimed that the arbitrator ruled that Geico had to pay the $5.2 million. They made it sound like the arbitration was between Geico and its insured customer, not between two people and one of them is now trying to get Geico to pay the bill.
I was an underwriter for GEICO for around 10 years...I've seen us pay out for some wild stuff. Pulled a muscle changing your tire? Covered. Cracked your tooth on the roof of your car because you tripped? Covered. PIP coverage especially was super broad as far as what injuries were covered.
Why though??? What the heck do you put in to your insurance policies lol I've worked in the UK insurance industry for 15 years and this is just making me wonder what the heck were the companies thinking putting the type of terms in place that allow this?
@@ddlee84 They were thinking "we can save 15% or more on our legal costs by switching to low wage paralegals to write our contracts instead of actual lawyers."
@@ddlee84 it's mainly because many insurance policies use broad terms in places and with all legal agreements, it's all about arguing interpretation in a way that favors the insured. The examples in the original comment sound more wild than they are. They're not the norm mainly because most people don't fully read their insurance policies and/or think that such things might be covered so they don't file claims.
I mean because that's what were forced to pay you for due to absurd health care systems that are highly predatory. You should pay out.
I suppose the only real relief is it was "in a car" and not "from a car". That would be a whole separate can of worms, legal or otherwise.
Threesome with the gear switcher lmao
Oh hubba-hubba could be more funny if the contracted disease was crab/clamydia
The policy covers 'arising out of the [...] use of a motor vehicle'. Consider these two cases:
1) You are sitting in your car, engine off, window down, reading a book. Suddenly, the seat collapses and bends inwards, causing injury to your back.
2) You are sitting in your car, engine off, window down, reading a book. Suddenly, someone you owe money to walks by, demands the money, and when the money is not given punches you, causing injury to your face.
I think most of us would agree that 1) does fulfill the clause, while 2) does not. The fact that you are inside the vehicle in the second case is irrelevant since the injury did not arise out of the use of a motor vehicle (it arose out of the owing of money to a violent individual).
Did the STI injury arise out of use of a motor vehicle? No; it arose out of a sexual act with an unforthcoming individual. The same result would be had whether in the vehicle or not, or indeed, whether the vehicle even existed to be used in any fashion.
You're the first I've seen of all the youtube lawyers to get this one right.
My take on it is that Geico did in fact waive their best opportunity to contest the claims in the arbitration.
The insurer absolutely can *both* contest coverage and pay insured's defense costs. That's what the insurer should do to avoid being sued for a bad faith denial.
In the best case, Geico multiplied its cost to deal with this. The lawsuit defense would have cost them ~15 to 25K. They could have defended insured and reserved on the question whether the insured was covered.
One thing is for sure: The industry will rewrite the standard policy language to clarify that getting heavy in your 52 chevy is not covered.
I hope it's written exactly that way. Then I can argue the law is specific to that model vehicle and my insurance company is liable for me throwing my back out in the hatch of my 73 Gremlin. 😂🇺🇲
They waived their right to protest them yes, but the court is ignoring precedent to make them pay for nothing. The policy that was shown on screen at 12:59 just before he says GEICO might lose this literally states "Case law in Kansas and Missouri holds that such coverage only extends only to injuries incurred for use of a motor vehicle *as a motor vehicle*, not as a place for sexual activity" See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v Evans 1981, Walden Vs Smith 2014.
But what about vehicles other than a 52 Chevrolet automobile? Legal language is very precise.
Just joking
And people wonder why rules like “please don’t give birth in the discord voice chat” come about.
The decision to go to arbitration and not to court was made after Geico's denial so they were not technically aware of it but they should have seen it coming
Devon you have given possibly the most hilarious yet accurate description for sex, that I will definitely use if I ever have to explain it to someone.
😄 "I'm sorry. For any children watching the video, sex is when two people love each other and wrestle." 🤣
That's one of these cases that might end up creating weird precedence rules in future policies, i.e. "Geico explicitly does not insure against any harm not either directly inflicted to or by the insured vehicle or when using the vehicle for any purposes other than transportation, travel and storage"
Kinda surprised this clause wasnt already in the policy, I thought alot of companies especially insurance companies would want to be airtight in their policies
No one would accept that clause, as written at least. What if I'm just sitting in my car and it malfunctions? I'm not currently using it for any of those purposes so now my insurance is denied?
@@randomcatmeow1394 having airtight policies can backlash as well because then it appears predatory. Cases like these at least give cause for changes. Insurance policies walk a very thin line of airtight and vague. Another option is to have airtight state law which then in turn affects policies. If this goes through, DOIs will have a lot of work on their hands, not just the carriers
Insurance company: "The arbitration violated our due process rights"
Also the Insurance company: "It was supposed to violate our customer's rights"
You can't violate rights that are willingly given up. Slimy or not, it's not a violation if the customer agrees and the agreement is legally binding.
@@kiethmergard signing away your legal rights is usually seen as non-binding.
@@kiethmergard that's half wrong, you can absolutely violate rights that are willingly given up. That's why it's illegal to become an indentured servant even if you sign a contract.
They should not have came in late. They should have said to the Defendant. "Sue me then" In which they get a new trail for defense.
@@Jankyito Correct. BUT, if you look at my comment, I said the contract would have to be legally binding. This means any and all laws governing contracts and other such stuff (not a lawyer) would have to be followed.
People have the legal right to due process. This is generally extended to civil cases in court from my understanding. It is absolutely legal to sign away your right to a class action suit and right to file a civil case, resolving issues in binding arbitration instead.
Like I said, any and all laws governing these things would have to be followed. For example, it is legal to consent to torture. To a point.
Was hoping you would cover this!
For my part, I just hope this suit finally scares companies out of thinking private arbitration is the gold standard for getting out of ever paying anyone for anything. It's extremely frustrating how many jobs pressure new employees into signing an arbitration agreement - because a lot of people who don't know the difference I've been really hurt by losing access to the justice system.
This case alone is unlikely, but the whole arbitration as way to save money has already turned on a few companies, the cost are so much higher when you have something equivalent to a class actionable suit happen that companies can easily be bankrupted by a single problem if on scale(since the minimum cost is so large is comparison for the class as a whole vs a combined case with a single abet large cost of a single case)
@@jaykoerner Indeed! Patreon got bitten in the rear by exactly this. When the cost per arbitration is several thousand dollars, and hundreds of people seek arbitration at the same time-win, lose, or draw, you're gonna be out a lot of money.
@@ConstantlyDamaged I read an interesting article about this.
Like @Damaged mentioned, the cost of arbitration mixed with multiple requests can turn into a financial nightmare for companies (and good thing too!)
Companies also try to use forced individual arbitration to avoid class-action suits but that's come back to bite a few. Can't find the news stories right now but at the minimum it's excellent schadenfreude, at best it will eventually kill off this corporate practice entirely.
@@BlackSunCompany granted companies have multiple ways they are trying to get out of this,
Some are making it so the plaintiff has to pay all costs if they lose,
There have been cases where the company sues the arbitrator (if you have enough money you can likely sue the arbitrator to the point they themselves are financially unable to continue, even if you can't pay for 20,000 arbitration cases),
Some companies are instead forcing people to use small arbitrators that can only handle a few cases at a time, meaning mass arbitration would possibly take years if be possible at all,
And I'm sure there are other things as well, companies got to lower the cost of business I guess, even if that is at the cost of anyone else
1:32 I would say that this would indeed constitute "normal use of the vehicle". For as long as cars have had back seats, people have banged in them.
I keep seeing people mentioning the intentional harm aspect of the insured’s actions; problem is that this is a defense to be presented by the carrier. If GEICO didn’t cite this language as a defense in their denial, that ship has sailed. You get one shot to deny a claim; if you have both material misrepresentation (fraud) and non-cooperation present in a claim, but deny for one without the other, then if it goes to arb or court and the one you picked gets tossed, you can’t go back and issue a second denial for the other. For example, let’s say you have a claim where the insured lied, gets called out on it, then stops pursuing the claim. RoR goes out for non-coop, insured fails to comply, claim gets denied for same. If the carrier doesn’t assert a fraud defense as well, if the court finds that the non-coop fails (happens all the time - improper letters, ect.) then the carrier cannot then raise an MMR defense later.
I don’t know what GEICO wrote in their initial denial, but if the international harm clause wasn’t raised at the time, it can’t be raised.
I’ve been SIU for 15 years and - as much as this pains me to say - GEICO should’ve absolutely defended their insured; while I understand the initial hesitation from their legal department (this wasn’t a BI adjuster’s call to make) they forfeited their ability to take a policy language stance by not defending. They may prevail federally but not because they made the right call in the beginning.
Objection, wouldn't his prior knowledge of his condition make, under a fairly broad interpretation, make this intentional; making it not applicable under most insurance contracts?
Not necesarily, he could have not intentionally given her HPV.
Which you may wonder how that could be, but the thing is, youd have to prove intent there.
Otherwise its more like having a seizure at the wheel
I think that's a separate issue, as that is something for criminal court I think, not sure.
This. Put this higher in the comments. That's a great interpretation.
GEICO covers accidents by their insured who knowingly drive drunk. They also carry SR-22 insurance for those who have a history of doing so. So having prior knowledge of physical state and behavior isn't a necessarily applicable defense.
I suspect in the case of motor insurance, they'd have to prove genuine reckless conduct, because everyone knows that if you hit someone with a car it will be damaged, and that's what you are required to be insured against. Which it might be pretty easy to prove in this case (it'd already given him cancer, after all. He should have been horribly aware of the risks), but isn't quite the same as any foreknowledge of consequences getting them off the hook. They've plenty of other potential arguments too- particularly if he wasn't required to inform them of the HPV diagnosis, which, as motor insurance, he might not have been (i.e. if it's not considered something your insurance company can ask about because it doesn't affect your ability to drive, and therefore their liability, that's good evidence that it's also not supposed to be covered by car insurance without a drastic review of current law).
I've worked these BI claims for GEICO, and yes, they will deny coverage for something like this. I've never seen a claim like this one, but you get some strange stuff. It will depend a lot on the state law, but I assume even if they get a bad judge who awards the IP money it will be within the BI limit which could be 250k or less. That probably won't happen. The stuff that isn't covered has it's own section written in the policy, and there's plenty of reason this wouldn't be covered or why no legal defense would be provided. Even in the arbitration it says the guy didn't disclose his HPV diagnosis to the woman, so that's considered doing harm on purpose to the woman and in some states that can go as far as sexual assault charges. Doing injury on purpose to another person while in your car is exempt from coverage, so even the woman slapping the man in that old video clip would not be covered. There's plenty more to get into on why this is likely to not be covered, but it's usually in exemptions listed in a policy.
What about if he purchased the car because he wanted to increase the chances of getting laid?
The lady slapping the man isn't hitting him with the car. Which he would be covered in that case. But the man in this suit did use his car to get laid... So perhaps?
@@garwynrosser8907 It's still a no for both, and they make you do these type of legal what if exercises when training. The common saying is insurance covers stupid actions. Anything done with the intent of harm is usually never covered. There may be something they missed, but it's going to be tough to think that one up. I doubt this is the first time for this to happen, but big money plus sex makes a good headline. Right now assumption of risk has been working in favor of insurance for denying coverage for medical bills of people who didn't wear their seatbelts. I would assume this reason for denial of coverage is a given for sex acts as consenting adults know the risks, so the policy wouldn't cover for pregnancy either. Otherwise a lot of people would be getting paid.
Did property liability for not Geico for a solid bit - Yeah, I would assume a denial of coverage based on the intentional act, but the area of grey feels more like a drunk driver as an act of gross negligence vs road rage where it's very intentional.
On another note, I will giggle immaturely when my company has to update our policy to deny coverage to injury occurred during sexual intercourse.
@@dustynesmith Then they have to prove that he had sex with her specifically to cause her harm. If he had sex with her just because he wanted to have sex then he was negligent, but not intentionally harming her.
@@znail4675 negligents is generally covered by auto bodily injury insurance. Very few people intentionally have accidents.
Since my mum sent me this article and I tried to look more into it, Ive been hoping you'd do a video on it! I was so sure there was more to it but as a layperson trying to figure out legal stuff is so difficult and news articles only muddy the waters more.
Finally a case came up that actually made me side with an insurance company. I didn't think it was possible.
I worked for GEICO for several years, so this video is right in my lane.
How?
@@RichardLeslieWhereat he said he worked for GEICO
Can you sue it for sideswiping you?
Is it though?
What a coincidence, I've wrestled in cars before so this video is up my alley.
This is why you shouldn't go for the cheap alternative when directing a business. Give the guy legal representation. Yes, he's the main responsible but this company has an awful advisors team 🤦🏻♀️
@@user-mm8vw1ow1x they’re talking about geico deciding not to represent the guy and then getting mad about it later, not the guy with stds supposedly choosing cheap insurance
As others have already pointed out, Geico shouldn't have to give the man representation as his claim isn't covered by them at all. The man partaking in certain actions within his car has nothing to do with his actually using or servicing the car. So, in this case, it was actually right of the insurance company not to give the man representation in this case since they are not a party to this case and bear no responsibility of the burden.
@@andrewkandasamy yeah but none of that has been determined by a court and geico obviously believes there may be some merit to the notion that they didn’t represent the man when they should have since they’ve filed stuff in federal and state courts.
Read the comment by tinman123456789, he worked as an advisor for Geico before this hit thw news. 😉
@@andrewkandasamy Yeah, exactly this. If I understand this video correctly, they basically didn't support him because the insurance doesn't cover it, however the arbitration doesn't care about his insurance policy, it just decides if he's liable or not and both parties agree that they'll only follow up if the insurance IS liable. Which basically means the woman involved here threw away the chance to get any actual compensation or punish the guy that wronged her.
Instead, it's basically forwarded to the insurance company who now have to have their policy verified by the state court. Basically they need the court to say "yeah, this ain't covered" and then they're off the hook.
While they could potentially say "your wording is ambiguous so you're on the hook" that would be a pretty grievous failure on the part of the court. The intent of the insurance is pretty clearly to cover damages to the car or people within the car during car related activities. It's pretty hard to word that concisely because there's a bunch of situations that would not be covered by slimming the language down. For example, if they said "while the car was in active operation" (running, basically) then people would be shit out of luck for damage the car took while parked, or potentially even while stopped at a red light if it had one of those auto-start, auto-stop systems.
Either way, sex isn't a typical use use of the car since sex doesn't need a car to occur. Unless the woman claims the car was intimately involved via gear stick or exhaust pipe... I doubt they have a case.
So, we can only hope the courts don't do something stupid and that these people, who seem to be trying to take advantage of the nuances in insurance policy law, go home with nothing but lost time and money.
By extension, if you ride-share and the driver knows he has a cold and that cold results in you losing money due to sick time, you can sue their insurance company? I'm not sure this will pan out in the higher courts.
yah thats exactly a great example of why this makes no sense, murder, assault, getting someone sick, the car had no involvement in this, the whole point of car insurance is the damages caused by the vehicle, since the vehicle wasnt in a accident and wasnt the cause of the damage, the insurance company isnt responsible, this is just a loophole to try to squeeze money out of a big company
I doubt it. The passing on of a cold would not be morally or legally culpable. The actual passing on of the HPV is a standard civil claim.
@@aidankelley2696 I don't know. It seems like you could always make an argument around the vehicle being the cause of the damage since the damage could not have occurred without the presence of the vehicle. Without the vehicle, you wouldn't have been in the vicinity of the ride-share operator and thus would never have caught their cold. I doubt this would ever hold in court though.
@@lemmy5721 Knowingly passing on a std without informing the partner is actually illegal in many states.
It would be hard to prove that was the source of the cold. In fact, how did she prove the source of the HPV in this case?
I used to work for GEICO. I know the contract language pretty well, and I just can't see a way that it could be construed to cover sex in a vehicle. Every assumption being made is extremely tenuous and borderline unreasonable, and the weight of all those assumptions makes the entire argument really weak. Sure, a really good lawyer might win the case, but GEICO *has* really good lawyers. Their paychecks are... significantly higher than industry average.
But yeah, this reads to me as yet another case of a customer demanding ridiculous things from their insurance company. I feel bad for the plaintiff, because she's going to get a raw deal.
Don't get me wrong, many insurance companies will try to get out of covering things they should, but at least while I was at GEICO, the training and ethos was very clear: we covered what is in the policy. We didn't try to weasel out of charges, we indemnified insured and claimant as required by the policy.
And yet I still fielded at least a couple calls a day from customers who were CERTAIN that GEICO had screwed them over. Even after clearly showing them in the policy and applicable state law (insurance is HEAVILY regulated in most states by the individual states' Dept of Insurance) that either coverage did not apply or, in the case of claimants saying our insured was at fault, showing that the facts were in our insured's favor.
@@harjutapa The plaintiff already got it raw... And she's getting another raw deal here, but not because of GEICO. She'll never get $5.2 million from the defendant or anyone else.
It would depend on the definition of use and ownership in the auto policy.
I'm not a lawyer but wouldn't a claim that; if you just got into the car and were talking while parked and some other car hits you and runs, you are covered for any damage to the car and your medical bills if any. If you are parked and having sex and are hit, SAME THING.
So they had a duty to defend at least and at the same time deny claim under the fact he was aware of his STI.
That's a completely different situation involving a third party at fault. This is like they're sitting in the back seat and he decides to punch her in the face.
I had car insurance with Progressive. While my car was parked in a grocery store parking lot, and I was shopping, someone broke the cover of a tail light. Because the only way to repair it was to replace the entire tail light assembly for $450, it was deemed a "major accident" and my insurance cost was jacked up. Boy, that's what I call "progressive". I will never deal with them again.
All companies are like that. Just claim for really expensive accidents.
That's when you purchase a replacement tail light assembly at a local junkyard and have them install it way cheaper than buy new and definitely cheaper than jacking up insurance rates.
(Had similar thing happen to me years ago)
@@SavaFiend : didn’t even think of that! Wow, good advise.
With no possibility of personal fault? That sounds like it should be illegal.
@@SavaFiend I understand your point but that's also just letting the insurance company charge you while you get nothing in return. That's just doing exactly what the insurance company wants.
Geico knows they had an opportunity to defend themselves, however it's very convenient that they took the time to claim they didn't. Could have set back the case for months. That gives much more time for the federal case to end.
I'm not saying they intentionally lost a motion in court just to waist time, just that doing so would have been very beneficial.
I disagree. Geico had the opportunity to defend their client. Their client was clearly guilty of negligence though. That lawsuit should have been a slam dunk loss regardless of whether or not they showed up.
Defending themselves entails presenting the case that they shouldn't even be involved. They haven't yet had that opportunity.
@@dannykent6190 But, Geico's not just arguing that they shouldn't be involved. Geico's arguing the parties colluded to inflate Geico's liability. If Geico didn't want that to happen, Geico had an opportunity to participate in the defense. Failing to do that may have waived Geico's due process claim and raised the stakes of coverage.
I agree that Geico didn't yet defend their denial of coverage. But they did have an opportunity to do so. They could have provided defense while reserving the right to deny coverage for the plaintiff's claim. In that event, I imagine Geico would have offered a confidential settlement offer for much less, and changed its policies.
@@user-uj6tc4pj1x Geico was not informed about the arbitration. They only found out that the woman had filed in a court to make the settlement legal by using a web crawler that reads legal briefs filed in courts. When they tried to intervene in that case the local court denied them. At no point was Geico ever notified of any legal action against them.
The MO Supreme Court decided that because Geico had denied the claim, they had surrendered their rights to defend it. That though belies Supreme Court decisions on due process. It is accepted that due process requires the defendant in a case be served and allowed to participate in any court case. Because Geico was not informed of the arbitration they could not participate.
@@alanmcentee3035 Maybe I'm wrong, but the video suggested the defendant contacted Geico, not just asking for coverage, but for defense. That was Geico's chance to defend its rights. It chose not to.
Later, lawyers for the company found out about an arbitration, perhaps the way you described, but that doesn't mean they had no opportunity to defend their interests. They had a chance, but decided not to engage. The results were predictable.
@@user-uj6tc4pj1x No. The woman contacted Geico with a $1 Million demand for damages. They declined to pay her. The usual course after that is she files a lawsuit against the guy and Geico. She didn't.
She then went to the man and the two of them conspired to take it to arbitration. Since arbitration is a secret process Geico was unaware of the proceedings until she filed the report in a court.
Second to that, even if he did advise Geico, Geico was never served with any court summons. That is due process and a requirement in our justice system. We don't put people on trial secretly.
Third, arbitration is voluntary. Geico never consented to arbitration. (Yes, yes, whine about your cable company or phone company requiring you to arbitrate. Unless you voluntarily agree to their rules you can go find someone else. Isn't volunteering fun? /s) It doesn't matter if the guy agreed to it, he can't claim to represent Geico without Geico's knowledge and agreement.
Darn it, I just had a swingers party in the Honda fit. You know how hard it is to fit 25 people in a Honda fit. Plus find 24 people willing to admit they have STDs. There goes $5 million.
Thanks for breaking this one down. I was actually really curious because I work in insurance. Fairly familiar with policy forms and I suspected news outlets probably were clickbaiting or not reporting accurately
The sound of tape rewinding is something I haven't heard in a long time. Thanks for that nostalgic moment.
As someone who works in the insurance field I find this fascinating.
Even if Geico loses, are there not policy limits that would cap their potential losses? $5.6 Million seems that it would be well beyond most policy limits in use, even including umbrella policies.
I just want to see some explanation of how the damages were decided upon. Even if this woman develops cervical cancer related to contracting HPV the estimated cost is about $11k on the high end for treatment.
Seems it was tangent to bad faith
It depends on the kind of coverage and their own insurance coverage - every insurance company has to have some sort of backup agreement in case the business runs into trouble.
No, in cases of bad faith, a carrier can owe extracontractual damages, which means that they would pay in excess of the policy limits. I assume the limits here are actually really low - probably $25-50k. GEICO still messed up. They should have either: 1) tendered policy limits if they chose to accept coverage; or 2) immediately filed a Dec action and, if suit was filed, defend under Reservation of Rights until the coverage action is resolved.
He said pretty early in the video that the 5.2 number was based on the policy limit
0:18 "Nuances and esoteric details of insurance law!"
My head hit a pillow I didn't even know I had near me and I passed out immediately.
I can guarantee you that Geico won't be the only insurer reviewing the language of their policies following this case.
I Object Your Honour! My client the Complainant is basing her claim against the Defendant using the "Collinsion" portion of the insurance policy. Her claim has evidence that he was "protected" & "uncovered", I mean "covered" your honor. She was of the mind that he was covered by the insurance policy.
I love that Devin pretty much giggled when showing the Patent Application for the gavel
When I saw this headline, I immediately thought of you, LE. I wanted to hear your take on it, and I'm so glad you made a video on it. I meant to tweet you, but I was sure there were thousands of others who beat me to it. Thank you for this!
Yes! The second I saw this news story I hoped we'd be seeing a video about it.
Same. I jumped on the latest video and was like, explanation please!!!
7:56 "pun absolutely intended" I lol'ed :D
Ahhhh!!! I was hoping legal eagle would cover this, I had so many questions!!
Oh, I read about this on Cory Doctorow‘s blog. Companies literally say they can’t be expected to be bound by their own arbitration the second they don’t win by default.
13:00 "Case law in Kansas and Missouri holds that such coverage only extends only to injuries incurred for use of a motor vehicle *as a motor vehicle*, not as a place for sexual activity" See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v Evans 1981, Walden Vs Smith 2014.
I am shocked SHOCKED to learn that inaccurate reporting of a lawsuit seems to favor a big company....
“Well not that shocked”
??? the reporting is against the big company, they imply Geiko has already lost their lawsuit
what reporting was in favor of the big company?
@@saltydog7038 "lol, this woman sued for a stupid reason", and not "GEICO are in trouble because they neglected their duty to defend"
That's what's at stake here. Forcing insurers to follow the rules.
@@pavarottiaardvark3431 Forcing insurers to follow what rules? 12:59 my guy.
"Case law in Kansas and Missouri holds that such coverage only extends only to injuries incurred for use of a motor vehicle *as a motor vehicle*, not as a place for sexual activity" See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v Evans 1981, Walden Vs Smith 2014.
You're the only person on the entire planet who could make insurance law interesting
Auto insurance adjustor here! Look up the ISO forms if you're looking at basic policy language for auto policies. Most insurance companies will use some variance of the same language.
It's also not 100s of pages long. It's like 50 without the endorsements. The liability section is maybe 10 pages.
Also it takes years for updates to get approved
Two notes:
1) Wow, he is GOOD! At the beginning of this video I thought "nope this one is going to be to confusing to me", but he did a great job and I actually understood what is going on with this story😁
2) I know people are always ragging on insurance companies so I just wanted to say that when I was in a car accident (a really bad one) back in 2012 I was insured with State Farm and they were great with everything.
Life long State Farm customer as well . They are not the cheapest option but you don’t hear constant issues with claims like some companies . I’ve never had an issue with them
@@catherinesanchez1185 Insurance is often times one of those things where you get what you pay for, the cheapest option is fine as long as you never have to deal with the company. But the moment something happens...
Did you sing that song which makes an agent appear out of thin air?
This guy has some great insurance
Sounds like he had bad insurance. They DENIED the initial claim.
@@NateBee of course they did, they are a car insurance not a sex insurance
@@NateBee In my non-lawyer opinion, GEICO will not have to pay, but the victim probably won't get anything close to $5.2 million.
When I first heard about this case the first thing I thought was, I hope Legal Eagle covers this 😅
Very well researched and informative.
loooool cheers! wild set of classic headline stories but thanks for covering some stuff cause nothing more entertaining then a quirky explenation of esoteric law
I'd argue that the car wasn't being "used" but rather "occupied"
There's absolutely no way GEICO is paying for that
assuming it's parked...they are ways to use a car while having some loving time
I would imagine it comes down to if/how the policy specifically defines 'use' and whether that definition specifies driving operation.
@@VinWeiLee27171 I hate that I am now considering the liability logistics of STI transmission via road head.
@@VinWeiLee27171 bad faith argument
@@aceking_offsuit if it doesn't, then the ruling would depend on how a reasonable person would interpret the clause
A car's intended use is for transportation. The fact that they decided to have sex or whatever in it has no bearing on that.
GEICO is not losing this case
"Secret arbitration" I'm not sure where you got that implication. Everything I read showed that even after the initial denial of coverage, she sent documented notices to Geico every step of the way when she entered the arbitration agreement, when arbitration started, and when arbitration was finished. All of these communications went ignored by Geico. They tried their best to have Geico involved in the case.
The rest I agree with. It's all going to hinge on that declaratory action.
I do love the bit where they complain that they didn't get to have any input into the arbitration and didn't get to play into discovery. But the only reason they didn't get to have any part in that is because they literally refused to take part in the initial case stating that it wasn't their problem.
Secret arbitration doesn't mean that it was a secret from the parties or intended parties. It means it was not held in open court or open arbitration. You, as an average person would not be privy to the transcripts or the evidence. And you wouldn't be allowed to sit in on the case.
The documentary hot coffee is fantastic. Have you done a video about that case?
Did the arbitration have a doctor participate in the process?
Despite the insured having cancer from HPV, there is no male test to showcase an active infection. While cancer might have developed from a prior infection, there is zero evidence he was the one who gave it to her.
On top of being the most prevalent STI, HPV also has unknown length of dormancy and can be asymptomatic.
Most doctors are very adamant that an onset of symptoms does not line up linearly with sexual activity, and it can take up to two years for your body to clear the infection.
Love to see a supreme court video soon
Here's the really crazy part. There's no reliable way to determine where a person gets an HPV infection. It is so common that it could have come from anywhere. Take any group of people, 50 years old or more, from a western country and 80% will test positive for HPV antibodies. Plus, by the time a man gets throat cancer he has been non-contagious for 20 years or more.
I am a cancer survivor of an HPV related throat tumor. I had plenty of time to research this while getting treatment.
The crazy thing about your claim too, is that the west has some of the lowest cases of HPV.
@@phabiorules Probably true but only North America and Western Europe have reliable data.
I work for an insurance cie in Canada and it is very difficult to write an endorsement / policy to cover what we want to cover and avoid some stupidity to cover at the cost of all customers. Also, when you read an insurance contract, you also need to look at the exclusion. In that case, I would probably use the willful wrongdoing for the negligence and be off the hock.
On another note, I don't know in the US, but in Canada, it is the government that write auto insurance policy, not insurance companies.
Man my old home state has been busy this week. First a train runs over a dump truck and now this. Glad I bolted out a couple years ago.
Well this isn’t the video I was expecting
Devin presenting the "Go To Jail" Displate like an exhibit during a trial
When I rented a car from enterprise, I was told if I have coverage and get sick, and then can’t work I would get paid from the insurance
Thank you for this video! This case is so intriguing to me. Also, Displate is great! Nice sponsorship. 👍🏻
I'm an insurance agent and I hate companies like Geico because they are publicly traded on the stock market. They have an interest to maintain a high profit margin for their stockholders, but they have a duty to honor their policyholders' claims. It's a blatant conflict of interest and why I have only work for a mutual insurance company that treats its policyholders as stockholders, paying dividends to them upon completion of the policy period (6 months to 1 year).
2. Cool about mutual insurance.
1. "Hi, I'm *LORD BLOODRAVEN,* how can I help you with your mutual insurance needs?"
(Yes I know, I mean, look at my username, but it's a bit amusing.)
How shocking, a hyperbolic headline that glosses over nuance.
It has to get thrown out in federal court. It’s a pre-existing medical condition that has no bearing on his ability to operate a motor vehicle, and under Missouri law, it defines negligence as acting in a manner that violates a duty that you have another person. In car accidents, this duty is to operate your vehicle in a manner that keeps others safe. The language in the policy stating that Geico was responsible only when “arising out of the vehicle’s use or ownership”, has to be interpreted as a vehicle’s intended use, i.e. it did not require the use of the car to cause transmission. It’s not like the man’s condition was narcolepsy or alcoholism with subsequent DUI’s, where GEICO had an opportunity as to whether to insure the driver because of pre-existing conditions. Those conditions could have had a potential effect on his ability to operate a vehicle. This condition had no significance on ownership or ability to operate a car, thus, GEICO cannot have known nor been expected to insure someone over negligence “arising” out of this kind of vehicle ownership and/or operation.
Awesome video! This is a super interesting case, and I will absolutely be expecting an update after October 😂 Keep up the amazing work!! 👏
This really feels like one of those classic loopholes that someone tries to exploit for profit. Atleast it'll be an interesting discussion for future law schools.
you know what though? Shes got an std now so good for her. Get that bag
I wouldn’t necessarily say she’s exploiting for profit. HPV is a pretty severe thing to get, especially when another knew that they had it, and thus she’s entitled to 5.2 million. It’s about who has to pay the 5.2 million, whether the insurance company is liable for that money.
@@lik7953 I think it was her lawyer who came with the idea.
is using only your initials in court an option that's always there? why don't people always use it? or is it like being an anonymous lottery winner and varies from state to state?
@3:40 that is what happened with my insurance company - economical. I have insurance for my vehicle, but I was at the time driving a friend's motorcycle and got into an accident. Economical said that because it wasn't my bike it wasn't on them to cover. But it was, as I would still be covered under them if I had a rental for example. The coverage doesn't just apply to the car, it applies to me as well. Had to get a lawyer, they defended me and after all was said and done the insurance company agreed to cover me and pay for the lawyer.
Omg, I've been waiting for this! I'm so excited!!
Eagle has to have a sore back from carrying TH-cam with his awesome content
@@user-mm8vw1ow1x I wish but yt has the biggest audience
Insurance companies have limits of liability. That must be one very large umbrella policy.
Nope. Pretty much boiler plate.
4:37 "So they don't GO DOWN in history..." Well played sir!
You had a LOT of fun with this one and so did we watching you!
Not an article I would be hearing today…
Did Displate go on a huge sponsoring spree recently or something? I swear you’re the 8th big TH-camr I’ve seen sponsored by them in the past week
I get the impression that sponsors tend to do that, at least with TH-camrs...
I was thinking the same thing. I just saw one on a Ryan George video earlier before I saw this one.
Yeah, I've heard that quote from my dad as well, I suspect it's a common insurance law quote (the one about an insurance policy only getting you the right to sue the insurance company)
It's interesting that the lawsuit was over many month before geico could get a judgement that determines if they're liable or not. I'm pretty sure they were counting on the long court delay to bot have to intervene unless the federal court say that they're liable.
Using a car as a place to have sex seems like a pretty normal use of the car to me. That's something people often do in cars.
If they don’t have access to better places?
Sounds like a terrible place to have sex. No space.
..."injuries caused by an accident"
The easiest argument for them to make would be that both parties engaged in the act of their own volition, that the injured part would likely not have consented to the act that caused the injury knowing that the other party had an STI, the other party knew this, and as such withheld that information, subsequently 'intentionally' infecting the injured party with HPV. As such, no reasonable person would conclude that this was in any way, shape, or form an accident.
Since the policy states that it will cover injuries caused by an accident, this would not be covered under the policy, and as such the insurance company are not liable for either parties intentional actions and or omissions.
If you intentionally run someone over using your car, the insurance company are not liable for that since, you know, it wasn't an accident.....
Ruling that the insurance company are liable in this instance would, I believe in the UK it's called a flood gate precedent, not sure if you have it in America, but essentially since it was 'intentional' anyone can intentionally injure another party, the other party can choose not to press legal charges, instead sue the person, and get their insurance company to pay out. Even if the court finds in this individual instance that they should be liable, what it would open the courts up to would essentially cause a flood of claims that aren't legal, but would be made legal if the judgement was given against the insurance company.
Don't "go down" in history might be the best legal double entendre I've ever heard on this channel. Well done!
Could you grade the Lincoln Lawyer for legal realism? Really excellent watch so far!
Notifications eagles!!
and people that check for new videos way way too often!
05:12 Objection: It was a Hyundai, not a Subaru
12:21 Wrong car. Again...
Um, Am I missing something because he says "car" in the timestamps
@@rokilaiyangtzer1134 Yeah. Car joke...
You know, I thought this was the funniest thing I've seen in a long while. When I first read this story, it boggled my mind. Thanks for covering this.
I work in Insurance in Canada and we were talking about this today and we are sure we are going to see the insurerers file with the regulators to add STDs as an exclusion under the auto policies. I mean you typically see infectious diseases exclusions under commerical policies anyhow so not a big stretch.
I wonder how this situation would have been different legally if this happened in a company car on company time? Could you hold the company partly liable? Would it matter if one was an employee and the other wasn't or if both were employees ?
Like with most insurance it's gray. If it's a company car the company's liability coverage would be primary I imagine, if it was a personal vehicle used my guess is it would be insured liability coverage as porking is usually not in the course and scope of employment. That said either insurer would almost surely deny coverage.
@@AlKohaiMusic huh, ok that makes sense, although since std's can be transferred through bodily fluids , could someone say cough or spit in a vehicle and then someone say touches that unknowingly or mistakenly then rubs their eyes? ( I am assuming std's can transfer this way) would the lack of intent be a defense? Or is it only indefinable if their is negligence?
I think what matters first off, is, was it on company time during normal use. So even if both were employees, but was not during company time, then 100% no. But even if it was on company time, what matters is company culpability that would have led to it happening. Which would be hard to prove, especially for consensual extracurricular activities. I mean you would need to prove that preventing it from happening was in their power. Or at least that they promoted that kind of thing.
@@omgandwtf1 Very few virus' can survive outside the host body for any period of time. Particularly if exposed to sunlight. Coughing and spitting are not the vectors for an STD.
@@omgandwtf1 it's not an std if it can be spread that easily
So glad you covered this! This story was totally insane! No location where you have sex is liable for *you* not taking proper precautions to avoid catching an STD. That sex act caused damaged the sex partner, not the insured vehicle. If she'd gotten knocked up from screwing in his car, would she have sued GEICO for child support? But arbitration usually ends in favor of the corporation, so I'm shocked that GEICO lost this case.
they didnt lose the case, the case for geicos end didnt actually occur yet, headlines just assumed they will lose when nothing happened yet
@@XiaoYueMao Thanks for the correction. Not a fan of GEICO, but they were clearly not in the wrong on this. The print media was totally unprofessional in how they reported this story.
Actually, she might have had a case here if she got injured as a result doing it in the car if the car was the thing that injured her.
Honestly, I enjoy the commercial plugs as much as the actual video, I was wondering when it was gonna happen, and when he started to talk about weird things to do in your car, the felt the Segway was happening lol
As my girlfriend just pointed out, wouldn't there be a max coverage for bodily injury to passengers? Most people only have a max payout of 10k per incident. So even if they were found to be liable, wouldn't they be only liable for the max of whatever their policy was? Not the full 5 million?
Many years ago, I was a juror in an insurance dispute civil trial. The plaintiff, a technology journalist, had bought a "if I get sued, the insurance company will defend me" addition to his homeowner's insurance. He got sued for libel, turned to his insurance company to get defended, they refused, he settled the original libel suit, then sued the insurance company for failure to defend. After all the arguments, the judge turned to us and said (I'm paraphrasing) "in a civil suit, the judge decides if any laws were broken, not the jury. I find that the insurance company violated the law by not defending the client." At that point, the insurance company's lawyer did not look very happy. I was an alternate, so didn't get to participate in the deliberation about damages, so I don't know how much the journalist got, but I imagine it was at least what he asked for. I got a phone call at work the next day saying that one of the jurors was ill and there were still some things to decide, so could I come in. I explained it would take at least an hour (Santa Clara County, CA is huge, so I'd have to bike home, drop off my stuff, get to the train station, take the train, etc.). A few minutes later, I got another call, the insurance company settled. I imagine they assumed I would show up very annoyed and probably give the guy 10x what he asked for (I probably would have), so chose wisely.
Geico: "Your Honor, I object"
Judge: "Why?"
Geico: "Because -it's detrimental to our case- it will cost us money!"
*
Geico: Your honor, I OBJECT
Judge: Why?
Geico: Because it's devastating to our case!
Judge: Overruled
Geico: Good call!
Or maybe because 2 previous cases already showed they have no liability.
12:59 "Case law in Kansas and Missouri holds that such coverage only extends only to injuries incurred for use of a motor vehicle *as a motor vehicle*, not as a place for sexual activity" See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v Evans 1981, Walden Vs Smith 2014.
@@potatosordfighter666 joke
[ johk ] /noun/ - something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act:
Thank you for elaborating this
Devin's sense of humor never fails, even when addressing the nuances of insurance law! A truly impressive feat, indeed
13:20 goodwill aside, I'm beginning to think insurance policies never intend to cover any injuries.
LOL! Insurance companies entire job is trying to avoid covering anything. On the off chance they end up covering something, they lobby and have laws changed. I wouldn't have any insurance at all if they hadn't lobbied to make it illegal to go without it.
Good luck getting fire insurance for your house and property in California if you live in a place that you are at risk for a wildfire.
For almost 40 years it was *most* *definitely* part of the normal operation of vehicles for which I was insured. However, I would never have expected my insurers to be liable for the outcome of such activities; it makes no sense to me.
(BTW, this is yet another example of why one must be *very* cautious about with whom one shares a fluid bond.)
The amount of times they screwed people over because of their deliberate wording, I'm not upset in the slightest that it came back to bite them in the but
interestingly I just got licensed for Insurance adjusting. because an insurance policy is a contract of Adhesion geico MAY have to pay for this. I 'll defintly be following this case and can't wait to see how policy wording gets updated.
*definitely