Geico Facing $5.2 Million Payout in Lost Arbitration

#27
#27
CagleMtnVol said:
Again what does the dude's car insurance have to do with her getting the clap from him?
Click to expand...

It means there now exists case precedent that the vehicle insurer can be held liable for what happens inside the vehicle. Imagine if every kid who ended up getting pregnant or raped or drunk in the back of a car sued citing this case.
 
#28
#28
AshG said:
It means there now exists case precedent that the vehicle insurer can be held liable for what happens inside the vehicle. Imagine if every kid who ended up getting pregnant or raped or drunk in the back of a car sued citing this case.
Click to expand...
They'd be told that case law only applies in the flaming liberal, dumba$$ state of Missouri.
 
#31
#31
Vol423 said:
I'm fine. I'm just sick and tired of liberal activist judges. Thanks for your concern.
Click to expand...

What specifically makes the judges that ruled and upheld the rule liberal and activist? Do you have some insight into the bulk of their specific casework over time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClearwaterVol
#32
#32
AshG said:
What specifically makes the judges that ruled and upheld the rule liberal and activist? Do you have some insight into the bulk of their specific casework over time?
Click to expand...
Any judge that thinks he/she can unilaterally expand the nature of coverage of an automobile insurance policy is a liberal activist judge. I don't need to know anything more about him/her.
 
#33
#33
Vol423 said:
That has absolutely ZERO to do with it. She can sue the owner of the car. That doesn't mean that dumba$$ liberal activist judges get to expand the very nature of automobile insurance coverage.
Click to expand...
I guess GEICO missed adding a communicable disease exclusion.
 
#34
#34
AshG said:
It means there now exists case precedent that the vehicle insurer can be held liable for what happens inside the vehicle. Imagine if every kid who ended up getting pregnant or raped or drunk in the back of a car sued citing this case.
Click to expand...
Idiocy like this will eventually collapse the insurance industry. Just a matter of time.
 
#36
#36
Vol423 said:
That has absolutely ZERO to do with it. She can sue the owner of the car. That doesn't mean that dumba$$ liberal activist judges get to expand the very nature of automobile insurance coverage.
Click to expand...

If it's consensual how can she sue anyone? STDs are a risk when you have sex
 
#38
#38
Vol423 said:
That has absolutely ZERO to do with it. She can sue the owner of the car. That doesn't mean that dumba$$ liberal activist judges get to expand the very nature of automobile insurance coverage.
Click to expand...
It wasnt the judge that did it. It was geico own arbitration that started it. Their rules lead to this. The judge just upheld Geicos mandated arbitration
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#39
#39
25 years ago I was an E&O senior claim specialist in OH for one of the largest insurance companies in America. The lawyers were on the top two floors with a staircase between the two floors. I was there almost daily dealing with lawyers and being sent back and forth up the staircase.

The court systems are and have been very anti insurance for decades and their are very many activist judges that just love giving one to the insurance people.

Sadly this will become precedent and then across the board all carriers will go overkill to protect their interest and trade combine ratios and you will see the ISO language change and the rates slightly go up to meet claims or you will be required to waive coverage like UMPD if you don’t want it.

Either way, this is bad for customers and Geico got screwed.
 
#40
#40
hog88 said:
Saw that over in the pup. It's absolutely ridiculous, the trial judge, the appellate judges, the jury and the attorney that brought the suit should all be ashamed. These crazy awards by juries are driving up rates for everyone and killing the trucking industry. I'm beginning to believe juries should be done away with in civil trials involving insurance and to file suit an attorney must put up a bond equal to at least 10% of what they are asking for.
Click to expand...

If the insurance companies would give fair offers to begin with we wouldn't have this problem. Too often, I am forced to trial by an insurance company offer less than the medical bills incurred. The insurance companies are often the bad guys in these things. In this case, I would bet the insurance company refused to offer anything. Plaintiff was forced to suit. She has a life long disease that she will have to disclose to any future potential sexual partners and is at an extremely increased risk for cancer.
 
#42
#42
ClearwaterVol said:
If the insurance companies would give fair offers to begin with we wouldn't have this problem. Too often, I am forced to trial by an insurance company offer less than the medical bills incurred. The insurance companies are often the bad guys in these things. In this case, I would bet the insurance company refused to offer anything. Plaintiff was forced to suit. She has a life long disease that she will have to disclose to any future potential sexual partners and is at an extremely increased risk for cancer.
Click to expand...
Lol so what is a “fair offer” for automotive insurance to someone who willingly has illegal unprotected sex with a stranger in their car and gets a STD in your warped mind?
 
#43
#43
Rickyvol77 said:
Lol so what is a “fair offer” for automotive insurance to someone who willingly has illegal unprotected sex with a stranger in their car and gets a STD in your warped mind?
Click to expand...

You and your insults... If it is covered in the policy then its covered. She didn't sue Geico, she sued the guy who gave the disease and didn't disclose he had it. I think I'd be a little pissed off too. What is it worth to go through life with an incurable disease that you must disclose to every potential sexual partner and increases your risk of getting cancer.

I have insurance companies routinely give offers that would leave the injured party owing medical bills. So, yeah when I sue and nail 'em, I'm happy as hell. They could have settled, but they chose not to do so.
 
#44
#44
ClearwaterVol said:
You and your insults... If it is covered in the policy then its covered. She didn't sue Geico, she sued the guy who gave the disease and didn't disclose he had it. I think I'd be a little pissed off too. What is it worth to go through life with an incurable disease that you must disclose to every potential sexual partner and increases your risk of getting cancer.

I have insurance companies routinely give offers that would leave the injured party owing medical bills. So, yeah when I sue and nail 'em, I'm happy as hell. They could have settled, but they chose not to do so.
Click to expand...
Again…are you saying that committing a non automobile related illegal consensual act is covered under Geico’s insurance policy?
 
#45
#45
Rickyvol77 said:
Again…are you saying that committing a non automobile related illegal consensual act is covered under Geico’s insurance policy?
Click to expand...
Coverage for...

"bodily injuries arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use"

They may want a better definition of use.
 
#50
#50
Auto insurers will simply rewrite their policies. I am surprised so many on here are so against holding someone to their word. Failing to do so would be the work of activist judges
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top