A woman in Missouri has filed a lawsuit against Geico claiming that she contracted a sexually transmitted disease from a man after the two had sex inside a car covered by the insurance provider — but Geico is calling the claim a sham.
In the controversial liability lawsuit filed against Geico, the woman claimed she has the right to a coverage claim after having unprotected sex across state lines in her then-lover’s Hyundai Genesis in 2017 and later finding out that she had contracted human papillomavirus, or HPV, as a result, the Daily Mail reported.
The car is insured under her former sexual partner’s name. Both the woman and her partner have chosen to remain anonymous in legal proceedings — she is identified as M.O. while he is identified as M.B.
After her diagnosis, the woman entered legal talks with her partner without Geico’s knowledge, and the two reached an agreement in state court allowing her to collect $5.2 million, which “she can collect, if at all, only from GEICO,” court documents reportedly revealed.
Following the state court judgment, the woman then pursued a coverage claim against the insurance provider, seeking a massive payout of $1 million.
But Geico has since responded by filing a lawsuit of its own with the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, seeking to have the case dismissed.
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.”
Specifically, “Geico contends that M.O. and M.B.’s ‘secret’ arbitration was collusive and a sham,” the company states in the suit.
Thus far, the court appears to have agreed with Geico, citing precedent from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“While many people would prefer to keep details about their sex lives private, the Tenth Circuit has repeatedly made clear that the risk that a party may suffer some embarrassment by being named in the pleadings is not enough to allow them to proceed anonymously,” the court reasoned in court documents pertaining to the case.
“‘In general, parties who assert damage claims should expect some level of public exposure in employing the courts to resolve their disputes,” it added.
A ruling in the case is still forthcoming.