Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MONEYWATCH A woman got an STD in a car. Now Geico may have to pay her $5.2 million.
CBS News ^ | JUNE 10, 2022 | AIMEE PICCHI

Posted on 06/10/2022 4:47:04 AM PDT by Abathar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: Abathar
MONEYWATCH A woman slut got an STD in a car. Now Geico may have to pay her the slut $5.2 million.

fixed it

41 posted on 06/10/2022 7:44:15 AM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

The end is here. It seems as though the US is done. All that is left is for the libs to do is round up the remaining conservatives and send us to the re-education and extermination camps.


42 posted on 06/10/2022 7:45:21 AM PDT by Agatsu77
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: lee martell
If any party is “at fault” it would be her for agreeing to have casual sex in some man’s rented car.

How can she be sure it wasn't the football team from the weekend before?

43 posted on 06/10/2022 7:45:31 AM PDT by kiryandil (China Joe and Paycheck Hunter - the Chink in America's defenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child; woodpusher
Dumb question: Who has an auto insurance policy with a liability limit high enough to pay a $5.2 million claim?

This was my second thought.

My first thought was why would an auto insurance company be responsible for sex in a car which was voluntarily engaged in by both parties?

She might have a case against the guy, but beyond that? No.

More proof that courts are broken/insane.

44 posted on 06/10/2022 8:13:08 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Ironically, major corporations like Geico began requiring their customers to waive their rights in civil court and agree to abide by arbitration decisions for the reasons you describe.

This arbiter is a kook. Makes you wonder if there is some sort of corruption or kickback scheme being played out here.

45 posted on 06/10/2022 8:15:02 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Susquehanna Patriot
General, ... they will pay ... when their premiums go up and policy coverage is updated to exclude this type of behavior.

The cause and effect are too far distanced from each other for anyone to learn anything.

46 posted on 06/10/2022 8:16:12 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Engedi
After Michigan changed from no fault to regular insurance, my auto carrier suggested we get a 1M umbrella because people were going to select cheapest insurance and they could sue you, take your house, any money you have should you have an accident with one of the low insurance people and they get injured, die, etc. We took his advice.

I would prefer that everyone simply understood that driving on the road is a risk of possible death or severe injury and that if they chose to do so, any tragedy they suffered would be on their own head. (barring deliberate injury of course.)

47 posted on 06/10/2022 8:19:20 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Sealy, Sterns & Foster next?


48 posted on 06/10/2022 8:20:32 AM PDT by Vinnie ( L g Brandon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Yeah, that’s what it boils down to. His policy has a “stuff that happens because of your car” clause. Which is probably meant to cover stuff like collateral damage if the car lights on fire or the like. And the guy said “hey wonder if I can pull this off”. And so far yes.

So everybody should be expecting mail from your insurance company with some slight changes in language.


49 posted on 06/10/2022 8:20:47 AM PDT by discostu (like a dog being shown a card trick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BipolarBob
They had the opportunity to intervene and represent the man for a million dollar claim and they refused. They didn’t want to get involved and said no way were they going to pay. Big mistake.

I don't believe courts should solidify an injustice simply because someone didn't comply with their arrogant rules.

This is wrong, and a court using it's power to enforce this evil thing makes the court evil too.

I fully understand why the insurance company would not take this seriously. What I do not understand is why *ANYONE* would take this seriously. In a just world, that woman goes to jail for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

This Arbiter smells fishy. What man would hold a car insurance company responsible because some woman consented to having sex in the seat of the car?

This started as idiocy and has now ended up being something very evil.

50 posted on 06/10/2022 8:24:32 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sphinx
The woman's attorneys somehow persuaded the arbitrator to broaden the definition of a vehicle related "injury" to include the negligent transmission of an STD while in a car. That is insane but very much in tune with the insanity of the age, not to mention the longstanding dogma of the ambulance chasing sleazebag branch of the legal tribe (as opposed to honest lawyers) that any fantasy that gets them into the deepest pocket is ok.

A rational judge should have looked at the woman and her attorney and said "You are both going to jail for contempt of court."

And then threw the whole thing out.

51 posted on 06/10/2022 8:28:29 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Flash Bazbeaux
Insurance company refuses with no good reason.

They have a very good reason. She was not injured as a result of a car accident. Furthermore, she is personally responsible for causing her own injury.

Her case, if any, is against the man with whom she voluntarily consented to have sex. Trying to get money out of an insurance company is just an attempt to steal.

52 posted on 06/10/2022 8:31:47 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Review the documentary “Idiocracy” where the evolution over time of liberal policies is taking us.


53 posted on 06/10/2022 9:20:48 AM PDT by BipolarBob (Where is Biden leading us and what's with the hand basket")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

I’m explaining hypothetically how an insured can get $5.2 million from an insurance company when the policy limit is much lower.

99.9 percent of people who have insurance have no clue how it works 99.9% of the time.

Just by way of a very basic for instance, are people who refer to “their” insurance agent.

NO ONE who is insured has an insurance agent. Insurance companies have insurance agents. They sell to customers.

Even independent brokers are agents of the insurance companies they deal with, at least for the limited purpose of binding policies.


54 posted on 06/10/2022 9:39:26 AM PDT by Flash Bazbeaux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Hillarys Gate Cult; All

“So now she has a gecko in her vajajay?”

GEICO, so easy a slut can do it!


55 posted on 06/10/2022 10:42:59 AM PDT by ProudVet97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Abathar
The policy owner asked Geico to defend him in arbitration.

Geico said, "Nah, we are sure you can figure it out. It is not like we are a company you have paid premiums to or anything."

Now Geico wants to be involved.

But since they were not a party to the proceedings they gave up their rights.

I find it as funny as a Biden speech when the insurance company does not want to do their job and gets caught in their own trap.

56 posted on 06/10/2022 10:50:20 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (It is better to light a single flame thrower then curse the darkness. A bunch of them is better yet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Hell if people can sue gun manufacturers for one of their guns killing some one, what do you suppose is next beside this.

Suing a car manufacturer for someone raping you in a car

Suing a booze manufacturer for a person killing someone driving drunk

Suing a knife manufacturer for someone using one of their kiives to murder someone

etc etc etc


57 posted on 06/10/2022 11:18:02 AM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson