4 ms·

Car insurer Geico may have to pay $5m after woman contracts STI in a vehicle

12 points by acqbu 4y ago

bell-cot 4y ago
On the one hand...this makes the old "McDonalds, hot coffee, and $2.7M" story sound perfectly sane and reasonable by comparison. On the other hand...over the years, I've had insurance agents describe to me all sorts of nonsensical and freakish situations which an insurance policy (that they wanted to sell me) would cover. It seems pretty plausible that Geico's policy includes General Liability (an incredibly broad term) coverage for bad things which happen inside the insured motor vehicle, injury resulting from poor judgement in the vicinity of the insured motor vehicle, etc...and Geico's policy-writing geeks failed to exclude this situation.
- vba616 4y ago
  It appears the award was determined by an arbitrator, and the appeal determined by judges, so I'm not sure it's at all similar to the McDonald's case. It sounds like another example of big corporations forcing arbitration on customers and then pulling out all the stops to weasel out when they don't like a verdict.
- vostok 4y ago
  The McDonald's story seems very reasonable even without any comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
  - vba616 4y ago
    But there is no comparison, is there? It's a completely unrelated flamewar.
- jffry 4y ago
  The McDonalds hot coffee case is absolutely sane and reasonable. The woman who was injured only sought $20,000 to cover her expenses due to the injury. McDonalds refused to settle before trial, where a jury found McDonalds 80% at fault and awarded the large damages. These were scaled back by a judge, the decision was appealed by McDonalds, and they settled out of court before the appeal case. But yes they have successfully run a smear campaign to make you think that a greedy woman went after millions of dollars for an injury that she alone caused, which is a wildly inaccurate summation of the situation.
ohiovr 4y ago
That must be a great policy. I'm glad I have Geico.
- vba616 4y ago
  Geico didn't think it was a great policy; they said it didn't cover the claim, and then the panel of judges said they failed to defend their policyholder, so tough, pay up. And Geico is still going to appeal in a federal lawsuit.
entropicgravity 4y ago
Geico might have to update its exclusions.

12 points by acqbu 4y ago

On the one hand...this makes the old "McDonalds, hot coffee, and $2.7M" story sound perfectly sane and reasonable by comparison. On the other hand...over the years, I've had insurance agents describe to me all sorts of nonsensical and freakish situations which an insurance policy (that they wanted to sell me) would cover. It seems pretty plausible that Geico's policy includes General Liability (an incredibly broad term) coverage for bad things which happen inside the insured motor vehicle, injury resulting from poor judgement in the vicinity of the insured motor vehicle, etc...and Geico's policy-writing geeks failed to exclude this situation.

vba616 4y ago
It appears the award was determined by an arbitrator, and the appeal determined by judges, so I'm not sure it's at all similar to the McDonald's case. It sounds like another example of big corporations forcing arbitration on customers and then pulling out all the stops to weasel out when they don't like a verdict.
vostok 4y ago
The McDonald's story seems very reasonable even without any comparison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
- vba616 4y ago
  But there is no comparison, is there? It's a completely unrelated flamewar.
jffry 4y ago
The McDonalds hot coffee case is absolutely sane and reasonable. The woman who was injured only sought $20,000 to cover her expenses due to the injury. McDonalds refused to settle before trial, where a jury found McDonalds 80% at fault and awarded the large damages. These were scaled back by a judge, the decision was appealed by McDonalds, and they settled out of court before the appeal case. But yes they have successfully run a smear campaign to make you think that a greedy woman went after millions of dollars for an injury that she alone caused, which is a wildly inaccurate summation of the situation.

ohiovr 4y ago

That must be a great policy. I'm glad I have Geico.

vba616 4y ago
Geico didn't think it was a great policy; they said it didn't cover the claim, and then the panel of judges said they failed to defend their policyholder, so tough, pay up. And Geico is still going to appeal in a federal lawsuit.

entropicgravity 4y ago

Geico might have to update its exclusions.