Woman sues GEICO after getting STD in a Car??

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 16 вер 2024
  • GEICO STD Lawsuit Explained in less than 60 seconds! A woman and her partner hooked up in his car. He didn't tell her about his HPV diagnosis and she contracted the virus. So she sued...his car insurance??? Let me know what you think about this story! Subscribe to ‪@LawByMike‬ for more tips!
    ⭐ Become a member of THE INNER CIRCLE to get exclusive perks⭐
    / @lawbymike
    ⚖️ Questions? Issues? Contact Me: lawbymike.com
    📲 OR TEXT 279-529-6453 (279-LAW-MIKE)
    👾 Join My Discord Community: go.lawbymike.c...
    📸 Instagram: go.lawbymike.co...
    ▶️ Subscribe To My UA-cam: go.lawbymike.co...
    🎧 Podcasts: go.lawbymike.co...
    🎵 TikTok: go.lawbymike.co...
    📰 Need PR Help? Check Out Otter PR: go.lawbymike.c...
    #car #geico #gecko #lizard #insurance #law #legal #lawsuit #arbitration #steamy #std #hpv #sexy #lawyer #lawbymike #repeatafterme #tiktok #youtubeshorts #cop #cops #lawyers #legal #attorney #lawschool #hacks #legal
    DISCLAIMER (Of course, I'd have one 😁)
    Hey, you might think that this info makes me your lawyer, but it doesn’t and I’m not. Sorry, but I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER unless we have an engagement agreement. I am just providing public information here, like a library does, and am not providing you with legal advice about your situation. So, it would be totally unreasonable for you to conclude we have an attorney-client relationship just because you're viewing this information.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 2,2 тис.

  • @SideBerner
    @SideBerner 2 роки тому +23390

    So the guy’s car insurance covers STDs? That’s a good policy to have.

    • @777Skeptic
      @777Skeptic 2 роки тому +1253

      My guess is the arbitration had to decide if the language in the contract covered "accidents" and how "accident" is defined.

    • @tyquanjones3114
      @tyquanjones3114 2 роки тому +2

      @@777Skeptic so she fucked him accidentally don't make sense

    • @nobodygood7493
      @nobodygood7493 2 роки тому +1068

      The woman suffered "bodily" injury. Which is covered in most car insurances.

    • @floss-tg
      @floss-tg 2 роки тому +570

      @@nobodygood7493 that’s convoluted as hell

    • @devintaylor2438
      @devintaylor2438 2 роки тому +360

      What next can I sue the bed company if I catch one on the bed?

  • @hardcore_underdog_fan8397
    @hardcore_underdog_fan8397 2 роки тому +2065

    Geico: Fifteen minutes later can save you more on HPV insurance

  • @TheRealScooterGuy
    @TheRealScooterGuy Рік тому +979

    Update: In January 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court found fault with the lower court's reasoning and sent the case back down for additional proceedings. They held that Geico should have been allowed to intervene before the case was finalized.

    • @jerimiyahaligorh8792
      @jerimiyahaligorh8792 Рік тому +57

      Sounds like BS to me, if it had been the other way around, she couldn't have bribed the judge.

    • @TheWeeJet
      @TheWeeJet Рік тому +31

      ​@@jerimiyahaligorh8792she may not have needed to bribe anyone.
      People handling the case might have a bias against gecko independently from the womans case.

    • @ddebenedictis
      @ddebenedictis 11 місяців тому +110

      Further update, a Federal judge put this to rest in March 2023 by ruling that car sex does not constitute use of the vehicle for the purpose of the car insurance policy. Sanity prevailed.

    • @Ghostmite
      @Ghostmite 11 місяців тому +45

      ​​@@ddebenedictis Goddayum, I'm glad something correct happened. I mean it's fucked the guy had an std and gave it to her and that does suck, but has nothing to do with the insurance agency.

    • @PrimeDirective91
      @PrimeDirective91 11 місяців тому +21

      @@ddebenedictiswhat kind of clown world is it that I’m happy an insurance policy didn’t pay out? 🤦‍♂️ This has to be the Matrix, right?

  • @billyyank5807
    @billyyank5807 Рік тому +311

    This is one of the most wild cases I've ever heard about. Wtf.

    • @CGJUGO80
      @CGJUGO80 Рік тому +1

      I’ll throw in the mandatory “only in America/the (Wacky) West” comment

    • @mashedpotato2648
      @mashedpotato2648 11 місяців тому +1

      As a person who lives in Missouri, I agree

  • @NoosaHeads
    @NoosaHeads Рік тому +3856

    America is a broken society. That woman should, literally, have been kicked out of court and been charged for wasting GEIKOs time.

    • @Joeyratatouille
      @Joeyratatouille Рік тому +321

      Bro how did you edit that and still leave multiple errors?

    • @doreenlane2370
      @doreenlane2370 Рік тому +191

      I'm not a fan of Geico but them getting sued was messed up

    • @genericscout5408
      @genericscout5408 Рік тому +164

      it's their insurance policies that need reviewing if it says they're liable. Meaning they pay this round if they said they were liable for all bodily harm, but amend it to not include STD's.

    • @altacalifornia2580
      @altacalifornia2580 Рік тому

      Geico is a big corporation with many lawyers that have nothing better to do

    • @Ashish-yo8ci
      @Ashish-yo8ci Рік тому +122

      There are so many legit insurance claims which do not get their fair share. Then there is this woman and her bs...

  • @mr1professor893
    @mr1professor893 2 роки тому +8937

    There's legit no way he censored a cartoon lizard's nipples.

  • @1lilcrazyazn
    @1lilcrazyazn 2 роки тому +2606

    Man i need to sue the city for tripping over the sidewalk. 🤣🤣🤣

    • @pokesavage1823
      @pokesavage1823 2 роки тому +32

      ON GAWDD

    • @brandonlim3165
      @brandonlim3165 2 роки тому +103

      .... I wouldn't be surprised if you win with a good lawyer....

    • @lil_kozy7773
      @lil_kozy7773 2 роки тому +24

      Actually thats the one case youll never win. City is almost never responsible

    • @FKAAYA
      @FKAAYA 2 роки тому +4

      That’s happened before

    • @elgeorge437
      @elgeorge437 2 роки тому +4

      I need to sue them for the sidewalk that sent me flying off my bike and face planting 😭

  • @grey5135
    @grey5135 2 роки тому +2141

    I don't understand how car insurance is responsible for any of this🤔

    • @trashpanda502
      @trashpanda502 Рік тому +245

      its not, they just want money.

    • @rossm4586
      @rossm4586 Рік тому +87

      @@trashpanda502Well it kinda is responsible. An insurance company has a duty to protect the people it insures from lawsuits to protect the insurance company's own assets. They are meant to step in to prevent the lawsuit from getting past the first stages because it would make no sense to them for an insured party to lose and then claim on the insurance to avoid the company paying out an unnecessarily high claim if the insured can't defend themselves effectively - it's better to stop the insured from a frivolous case than risk having to pay out. M.O (the woman in the M.O v Geiko case) gave Geiko notice to defend their interests before any court proceedings, but Geiko said they weren't going to pay her $1 million (completely understandable) however they didn't go to court to have the case dismissed. They just left it, and waited to intervene until after arbitration. The courts basically told them they had every opportunity to intervene before it got to the point they would have to pay, but they chose to do nothing until after it was settled. Whilst this obviously seems unjust that someone is getting a $5.2 million windfall for something like this, it was Geiko's responsibility to step in as soon as they were informed of the claim so they could put an end to it - they chose not to and it's very possible they'll have to pay

    • @thewhitefalcon8539
      @thewhitefalcon8539 Рік тому +29

      I think it was some silly clause in the Geico policy that said it covered this.

    • @albertskunik
      @albertskunik Рік тому +12

      ​@@rossm4586i aint readin all that but i agree

    • @AinsleyTheBard
      @AinsleyTheBard Рік тому +27

      Insurance is paid to cover any accidents or injuries so if someone gets hurt in the car the insurance company may be able to pay for damages

  • @MenkoDany
    @MenkoDany 2 роки тому +99

    Can't believe no one explained this yet. In a nutshell, what happened was that she was forced to sue Geico to get compensation from the guy because the law in that state says that if you have insurance that is in any way related to your claim you have to sue them first no matter what - as a matter of formally establishing fault. Ie. you may not get any payout unless you sue all parties no matter how tangentially linked. For example, if you crashed your car because of faulty breaks due to a manufacturing mistake into a boat parked in a harbour, if you only sued the manufacturer, the manfucaturer's lawyers could counter your claim saying you didn't sue every party that could be 0.001% responsible, and the judge may rule in favour of the manufacturer if you fail to do so. In that same example, you would also sue the harbour, who would in turn sue their insurance. The insurance could just video call in the judge and say "we have nothing to do with this", and the judge would say "yeah that makes sense" and dismiss that lawsuit. Now, the manufacturer would not be able to weasel out of it because they're the last liable party left after the seller, the car repairshop, the harbour, the boat owner, the harbour's insurance company, and the boat owner's insurance company and you yourself. The idea of the law or the way that the system is set up is to be *more fair* by making sure as a matter of principle that every liable party gets sued and shares in its share of liability. Mind you I don't fully agree with the way the system is set up, but that's how it is set up.
    Usually it'd get decided quickly but in this case Geico's lawyers were lazy and kind of just assumed it'll get thrown out no matter what and the arbiter ruled that since Geico's lawyers didn't even try and showed no interest in the case that he rules in favour of the woman by default, it's like if you didn't show up for your parking ticket courtroom hearing, you have to pay even if the parking ticket was wrong, because you didn't show up.
    This *isn't* some winning lottery ticket for the woman, it's society making sure all companies and lawyers always follow the rules. Geico agreed to go by the arbiter's decision before the arbitration started, that's how arbitrations work. The solution to this supposed slight against Geico is to change the laws or Geico can just pay their lawyers better
    All that Geico had to do, was to show up. If they hadn't written their arbitration clause this way, it'd be much easier for them to get this dismissed. However they wrote the arbitration clause to satisfy their other incentives, such that participating in this easily dismissed lawsuit would actually be difficult for them and their lawyers. In essence as it currently stands it's mostly Geico's fault. However, I am sure I would not want to live in such a society where ridiculous things like this are happening systematically.
    Posting same comment again here so that people can see it ^

    • @123mickymouse123
      @123mickymouse123 11 місяців тому +1

      Oh that's interesting

    • @scottlemiere2024
      @scottlemiere2024 11 місяців тому +5

      @@123mickymouse123 except that it's mostly made up.
      Geico wasn't allowed to participate in the arbitration because they didn't intervene during the initial suit against the man. The man and the woman agreed to arbitration then the man gave up everything in arbitration. The arbitrator deemed him liable and because he was insured by Geico, Geico was responsible to pay for it.
      Then Geico was not allowed to intervene by the lower court and the appeals court. The Missouri Supreme Court ruled that Geico should have been allowed to intervene and threw out the award in January of 2023. In March of 2023, a federal court refused to hear the case.

    • @jmhemtp
      @jmhemtp 11 місяців тому +1

      appreciate the explanation.

    • @leafster1337
      @leafster1337 11 місяців тому +2

      thanks guys

    • @haminabol
      @haminabol 11 місяців тому +1

      @@leafster1337ur welcum guy

  • @Aquarius003
    @Aquarius003 Рік тому +67

    Meanwhile I'm over here waiting for All-State to respond for 10 months

  • @firstcyberbattalion7531
    @firstcyberbattalion7531 2 роки тому +6036

    I fail to see how this has anything to do with Geico

    • @ashyy_washyy
      @ashyy_washyy 2 роки тому +1045

      It doesn't but Geico screwed themselves over by not giving a proper defense

    • @brandonfarris8532
      @brandonfarris8532 2 роки тому +486

      Bodily injury/accidents and the way the terms are defined and what it covers based on contract paperwork as interpreted by the arbitration and now the courts

    • @iramaw
      @iramaw 2 роки тому +117

      @@ashyy_washyy I'm pretty sure going to arbitration cost less than going to court and insurance companies don't want to pay more than they have to

    • @kd4n347
      @kd4n347 2 роки тому +44

      It doesn't, but it was a smart move because geico can give more cash

    • @dawniebug784
      @dawniebug784 2 роки тому +4

      @@brandonfarris8532 This is a good point

  • @MooeyMoo
    @MooeyMoo 2 роки тому +385

    How can home insurance refuse to help people who lost their home because they don’t cover *blank* events (ex: floods, earthquake, fire, hail, termites) but a car insurance is liable for you catching a disease? 😂

    • @Jared_Is_Near
      @Jared_Is_Near 2 роки тому +17

      You're very close to realizing how related those two statements actually are...

    • @zacharywissinger3996
      @zacharywissinger3996 Рік тому +18

      Disclaimers, their clause on bodily injury of a passenger was probably loosely defined, in which case it is the courts or arbitrators job to interpret the definition.

    • @Name-ru1kt
      @Name-ru1kt Рік тому +2

      Because one they defined it what would cover exactly and in the other they didn’t.
      This is what the car insurance gets for trying to be nice

  • @raydenriddle4471
    @raydenriddle4471 2 роки тому +1868

    That's like sueing Verizon because you dropped your phone. There's absolutely no connection.

    • @thewhitefalcon8539
      @thewhitefalcon8539 Рік тому +51

      Then dont write a contract saying there is

    • @alanwoo9175
      @alanwoo9175 Рік тому

      @@thewhitefalcon8539 don’t think there is anything in Geico’s contract about stds…

    • @bweh2150
      @bweh2150 Рік тому +55

      Verizon doesn't insure your phone they just provide a service. Insurance is a wierd thing, because you are essentially paying for promises.

    • @TyDurr1
      @TyDurr1 Рік тому +88

      “There’s absolutely no connection” perfectly describes my experience with Verizon heyooo

    • @MisterMick113
      @MisterMick113 Рік тому +8

      Well if I had insurance on that phone through Verizon and they denied my claim I would sue too.

  • @immovableobject6851
    @immovableobject6851 Рік тому +19

    You left out that the man and woman agreed not to challenge the arbitrator regardless of the outcome. That is what put Geico in the box.

  • @haruruben
    @haruruben 11 місяців тому +8

    Geico needs some better lawyers

  • @justaguycalledjosh
    @justaguycalledjosh 2 роки тому +363

    I fail to see how they can settle it in court when it's an already settled matter.
    They signed the contract to enter binding arbitration.

    • @777Skeptic
      @777Skeptic 2 роки тому +36

      The cost of breaking the arbitration agreement is probably worth less than $5 million.

    • @TheSmallDan
      @TheSmallDan 2 роки тому +28

      Arbitration is an alternative dispute resolution, however, it doesn't mean court is ruled out. Its just things you can do before court in order to resolve the issue without paying fees for Lawyers, or paying the other fees attached

    • @ryanvanlue7020
      @ryanvanlue7020 2 роки тому +4

      @Small Dan. Yep, plus you can go to court to challenge the decision reached at arbitration for a variety of reasons. One of which can be an abuse of discretion or another claim.

    • @TheSmallDan
      @TheSmallDan 2 роки тому +4

      @@ryanvanlue7020 yeah. The only reason I know this is because I've studied law, which doesn't help the general public who are more likely to take disputes to court because they aren't aware of the other options. Especially since court doesn't always give the fairest result in some cases (e.g Custody), where as ADR is mainly used to have both parties agree on the end result

    • @ryanvanlue7020
      @ryanvanlue7020 2 роки тому

      @@TheSmallDan same

  • @racecarthedestroyer7192
    @racecarthedestroyer7192 2 роки тому +1805

    so this is basically "I shot my husband in the foot, let's call the cops on the priest"

    • @Samifry
      @Samifry 2 роки тому +52

      Who cares big companies make you sign away your right to take them to court and force you to use arbitration. It’s great when that blows up in their face.

    • @PMTcommenter
      @PMTcommenter 2 роки тому +147

      @@Samifry …but this is also why all of our insurance rates keep going up, so they can pay absolutely stupid claims like this instead of just the real ones

    • @h3xad3cimaldev61
      @h3xad3cimaldev61 2 роки тому +23

      @@PMTcommenter exactly

    • @unowno123
      @unowno123 2 роки тому +33

      @@PMTcommenter you're right, people always like money, but never ask where it comes from, or who's paying it

    • @KillerofGods
      @KillerofGods 2 роки тому +16

      @@Samifry Okay you pay my increased premiums to cover this lawsuit.
      Who cares about your paycheck, not like it goes to anybody else but you after all.

  • @PMTcommenter
    @PMTcommenter 2 роки тому +1292

    And this, my friends, is why our insurance rates keep climbing

    • @the_rachel_sam
      @the_rachel_sam 2 роки тому +57

      This is in the same vein with people looting stores and saying “who cares, they have insurance!” 🤦‍♀️ so stupid.

    • @PMTcommenter
      @PMTcommenter Рік тому +17

      @@cybercop3108 dude, there are also millions of other cases like this

    • @callingyourphone1212
      @callingyourphone1212 Рік тому +1

      not really..look up their any insurances net profit for any fiscal year, its in the billions. thats after paying employees, claims, and any other expense..yet rates keep rising? same with walmart, they made 13 billion in net profit and smashed their net profit record in 2021. but they blame inflation? dont let corporate propaganda force you to blame your peers while they make an absurd amount of money

    • @15Monkes
      @15Monkes Рік тому

      @@PMTcommenter
      Don’t care, insurance companies are scum and deserve to lose every cent they can at any chance.

    • @spoon8078
      @spoon8078 Рік тому +27

      no, insurance is climbing because they want more money

  • @professorsypher6174
    @professorsypher6174 11 місяців тому +19

    Geico: We don't want to handle this. Let an arbitrator take care of it.
    Arbitrator: I agree with the other person.
    Geico: Wait... hang on...

    • @dinodino8640
      @dinodino8640 11 місяців тому +1

      People with common sense: wait… hang on…. (Who in their right mind would agree with her) ( people who don’t hate insurance companies yet soo less biased)

  • @arcade3490
    @arcade3490 Рік тому +8

    Geico: I wasn't able to properly defend myself
    The court: "this whole operation was your idea"

  • @sneezewatch
    @sneezewatch 2 роки тому +116

    They sent it to arbitration then appealed because they didn't get a chance to defend themselves in court.

    • @jacobp.2024
      @jacobp.2024 Рік тому +6

      Then why did they go the arbitration route in the first place?

    • @noblelies
      @noblelies Рік тому

      GEICO makes all customer enter into a mandatory binding arbitration agreement. Greedy GEICO's own fault.

    • @noejaun2540
      @noejaun2540 11 місяців тому +9

      ​@@jacobp.2024They thought it'd go there way

    • @123mickymouse123
      @123mickymouse123 11 місяців тому

      ​@@jacobp.2024Because arbitration is set up to essentially be the companies' court, so going to arbitration was done in an effort to have it even more in their favour. That they got fucked over by it is the exception, not the rule, and why I don't have much sympathy for them since they were trying to do the legal fucking in the first case.

    • @scottlemiere2024
      @scottlemiere2024 11 місяців тому +7

      @@jacobp.2024 they didn't. They refused to cover because sex in your car is not the normal operation of the car so it is not covered.
      The woman sued the man, Geico refused to cover, the man and woman went to an arbitrator, he admitted fault in everything and the arbitrator ruled that Geico had to pay. Without Geico being a party.
      Geico then appealed to a court that refused to hear the case because they had the chance to defend themselves during the initial hearings if they had just covered the guy.
      This case is already over by the way. Missouri Supreme Court overruled the lower courts and threw out the arbitrators award because oddly enough injuries from sex in the back of a car is not covered by car insurance because sex in the car is not the normal use of a car.
      She appealed to the feds and they refused to hear the case in March.

  • @johnplayer1052
    @johnplayer1052 2 роки тому +318

    What had Car Insurance to do with having sex in the car and getting STDs ????

    • @mr.dr.profesordirectorx6715
      @mr.dr.profesordirectorx6715 2 роки тому +22

      I've listened to this like 2 times now but I still don't understand and this question keeps me asking.

    • @Billman66
      @Billman66 2 роки тому +9

      Inquiring minds want to know...and so do I; ridiculous isn't it?

    • @Jared_Is_Near
      @Jared_Is_Near 2 роки тому +14

      Little to nothing, but the company sent it to arbitration, and the decision was made not in their favour. You know how insurance companies will do everything they can to not pay you? Basically the arbitrator decided that the same kind of loopholes they usually operate around allowed her to successfully make this claim.
      If you're still lost, I recommend looking into the corporate arbitration process.

    • @ballisticmissile11305
      @ballisticmissile11305 2 роки тому

      @@Jared_Is_Near thank you I’ve been confused about this case for a while now but that cleared it up

    • @DarthNightmareNL
      @DarthNightmareNL Рік тому

      America

  • @yodabolt1247
    @yodabolt1247 2 роки тому +10

    I hope GEICO wins. This is ludicrous.

  • @apalsnerg
    @apalsnerg Рік тому +39

    "I want compensation."
    "We demand arbitration outside of court."
    "The arbitration judged in my favor."
    "BUT WE DIDN'T EVEN GO TO COURT???!!???"

  • @alliedbrandon1355
    @alliedbrandon1355 Рік тому +23

    It's amazing how easy it is to sue companies for no reason.

  • @Alex-tm4th
    @Alex-tm4th 2 роки тому +534

    Woman: Willingly has sex, just happens they both agreed the location to be in a car.
    Sues a car insurance company to cover her own decisions and his personal negligence.
    Did she sue the owner of the parking lot too? I don’t see what the insurance company has to do with anything. The girl and guy made a mistake and just need to be accountable.

    • @watching9317
      @watching9317 2 роки тому +3

      Buzzkill

    • @lordjaashin
      @lordjaashin 2 роки тому +64

      wait till you here how women want license to kill just because they don't want to be held accountable for unprotected copulation

    • @kosiaz1837
      @kosiaz1837 2 роки тому +15

      @@lordjaashin its not the same, if someone wasnt born ur not killing anyone :)

    • @lordjaashin
      @lordjaashin 2 роки тому +16

      @@kosiaz1837 born is a subjective word. for example, Japanese people count your age from the time of your conception not from the time when you were delivered by mother.
      so saying "born" isn't going to hold any weight for justification for abortion.

    • @m136dalie
      @m136dalie 2 роки тому

      @@lordjaashin "born is a subjective word"
      Lmao bro what are you smoking? A person is born when they exit their mother's uterus. What else could it possibly mean?

  • @neurodivergent-velociraptor
    @neurodivergent-velociraptor 2 роки тому +44

    I was half-asleep scrolling through videos but goddamn did that first sentence wake me up

  • @mrtodd3620
    @mrtodd3620 2 роки тому +37

    Do you think that future insurance policies will have STD exceptions?

    • @TGMacro
      @TGMacro 2 роки тому +7

      Probably anything that can go wrong in a car that isn’t a resulting injury to a car.
      Personally don’t see anything wrong with it. He had insurance and they didn’t directly say that it wasn’t in their policy.
      They made a mistake and they should’ve corrected and defended themselves but their cocky attitude resulted in them not taking legal defense over the situation.
      They also have denied thousands of people coverage when it was 100% in their policy to begin with. (Car crashes, roll overs, additional accidents)
      So I’m really not gonna be sad for a company with a 36 billion dollar net worth. What she’s asking for is chump change in their eyes.

  • @lordmegatron7006
    @lordmegatron7006 2 роки тому +37

    "This asshole gave me hiv. I'm gonna fuckin sue Geico!"

    • @codyknight3580
      @codyknight3580 Рік тому

      @@zachdrasher128 Dude... You DO realize this was a joke the person made right? Or did you not notice the quotation marks? XD

    • @Rosarium2007
      @Rosarium2007 11 місяців тому +4

      HPV not HIV

    • @zachdrasher128
      @zachdrasher128 11 місяців тому

      @@codyknight3580 i didnt notice the quote marks

  • @kanehikaru
    @kanehikaru 2 роки тому +33

    If Geico loses, I will lose all respect for the legal field. This is not about shilling for a company, this is about the basic understanding that when you willingly engage in sexual intercourse, regardless of the location, it is not insurance that is responsible if you catch a disease, it is you and the one who gave it to you who is responsible

    • @kingofgrim4761
      @kingofgrim4761 Рік тому +2

      Then don’t include that in ur insurance

    • @scottlemiere2024
      @scottlemiere2024 11 місяців тому +4

      @@kingofgrim4761 Geico already won the case. This is old.

    • @SobeCrunkMonster
      @SobeCrunkMonster 11 місяців тому

      yea… THIS specifically is what will break your camel back. You comment section people just love to say things for the sake of literally just saying things.

    • @gaudiestivy4297
      @gaudiestivy4297 11 місяців тому

      I’ve already lost respect for the legal field, I hate them. Problem is what are people supposed to do about it? The legal system needs redone BADLY

  • @whynot7585
    @whynot7585 2 роки тому +80

    Woman: It happened in his car!
    Geico: I missed the part where that’s my problem.

    • @MrPbhuh
      @MrPbhuh 2 роки тому +4

      It's in their contract lol.

  • @andreah6379
    @andreah6379 2 роки тому +27

    That's an interesting one. A good attorney & some luck can go a long way, sometimes.

  • @antilo_3x
    @antilo_3x 2 роки тому +70

    so, if i contract a disease in an insured car without having known that the person had said disease, i can sue the insurance?

    • @MrPbhuh
      @MrPbhuh 2 роки тому +15

      Welp, after this case the insurance companies have obviously fixed this loophole

    • @NA-uz7co
      @NA-uz7co 2 роки тому +1

      I mean, you can do it, like as you can try to eat lava, stealth a car and so on. But you wont get anything, because car insurance cover damage to the car or cars (if you crash to someone) most of the time they dont cover healt insurance

  • @Danymok
    @Danymok 11 місяців тому +1

    I have no sympathy for insurance companies, but it would be so dumb if they have to pay her. She should have to pay a class action to everyone who heard about this story to compensate us for how ridiculous this is.

  • @somerandombetafish7866
    @somerandombetafish7866 Рік тому +17

    I shed no tears for the loss of cash from scummy insurance corp, but this really just shows the stupidity of the law system.

  • @dewaunwarren1
    @dewaunwarren1 2 роки тому +7

    How the fuck can you sue a company that had nothing to do with you getting an STD?
    That's like trying to make the hotel you got pregnant in pay child support.

  • @LawByMike
    @LawByMike  2 роки тому +46

    My editor would like to ask you if you understood his Witch-Hazel joke. He's very concerned. Comment 👍below if you understood. Comment "Get better jokes, Alec" if you didn't

  • @lampali
    @lampali 2 роки тому +46

    The virus could have come from any contact over her lifetime, there may be details left out from the public.

    • @MrPbhuh
      @MrPbhuh 2 роки тому +6

      Doesn't matter. The guy and lady settled and came to an agreement.
      Geico could have taken up the legal case and defended the man properly, instead they ignored him and let them do what they wanted.
      They fucked up on multiple levels.
      The fact of the case has been settled.

  • @Th3NoobSlay3r
    @Th3NoobSlay3r Рік тому +2

    This is ridiculous there is no way that that much money is deserved and no way that car insurance has anything to do with it

  • @smoothboye4203
    @smoothboye4203 Рік тому +1

    That's like suing a bar for getting knocked up in a 1 night stand...

  • @mohamedsahab4992
    @mohamedsahab4992 2 роки тому +11

    This is totally insane & if the court ruled in favor to her that would be rediculous as hell . I don't know in which logic they sueing the company & what make more rediculous is the amount of money they asking for !

    • @MrPbhuh
      @MrPbhuh 2 роки тому +3

      Insurance company covered this type of bodily harm, a loophole in the contract.
      The lady and guy informed the insurance company they were going to arbitration.
      Geico should have stepped in and defended their insured. Instead they left him to his and legal aid in which the lady and guy came to an agreement.
      Geico being under the contract was still obliged to pay for the bodily harm.
      Instead they should have challenged the lady and guy in court, but they didn't. They fucked up.

    • @kaymish6178
      @kaymish6178 2 роки тому +1

      There was no judge and no courts. This is all on Geico because they demand binding arbitration for dispute resolution because the arbitrators almost always side with the insurance company but they figured that the arbitrators would just side with them anyway so didn't bother to argue their case and got a default judgement against them. Turnabout is fair play in my book and Geico has probably saved way more than $5mill by screwing people through arbitration panels. I have no sympathy for them they've been screwing people with these binding arbitration panels for decades, but now its unfair cause its biting them for once? Please cry me a river.

  • @spelldaddy5386
    @spelldaddy5386 2 роки тому +4

    So if I give a friend a ride in my car and that friend infects me with Covid during the drive, I can get compensation from car insurance for that?

    • @carval51
      @carval51 2 роки тому

      Technicalities, but can be thrown by judge

  • @buensomeritano1755
    @buensomeritano1755 Рік тому +1

    "There can be no making, application, nor practice of law undermines the intents and purposes of the law, and to do so would be a crime." Car insurance is not intended to insure unlawful activity conducted in a car. The Bar Association is a criminal organization.

  • @pagghr51
    @pagghr51 Рік тому +1

    Oh American justice system..you never cease to amaze..

  • @patrickdavis9478
    @patrickdavis9478 2 роки тому +39

    I want to know is how in the world is it Geico's problem like seriously how is that his their problem

    • @edward1838
      @edward1838 2 роки тому +4

      It isn't literally, just legally. I have no idea but I assume GEICO is supposed to provide something when you lose property and am somehow hurt inside the car, such as contracting a life-threatening disease. I'm not saying this is justified by actual logic, but I personally don't have much of a problem with it.

    • @zaipollizamabdulmalek5822
      @zaipollizamabdulmalek5822 2 роки тому +2

      @@edward1838 it surpose to be like if the guy get into a car accident and get the other person to lose their vision or loss legs or something like that, then geico will cover them up.

    • @zaipollizamabdulmalek5822
      @zaipollizamabdulmalek5822 2 роки тому +2

      @@edward1838 in which this is not the case for this case since it just 2 people having sex inside of the car , in which the car doesn't play any role.

    • @MrPbhuh
      @MrPbhuh 2 роки тому +2

      @@zaipollizamabdulmalek5822 but the legal contract wasn't specific enough for this loophole meaning they were responsible.

    • @04asvp66
      @04asvp66 2 роки тому +2

      @@zaipollizamabdulmalek5822 Accidents are never well defined because there are too many ways to get into an accident. The woman just used the interpretation to her advantage

  • @snow1851
    @snow1851 2 роки тому +21

    Man we really need to use common sense more often

  • @Dethmegadeth
    @Dethmegadeth 2 роки тому +8

    Wow this is new. Can't wait to see the results.

  • @EdgyShooter
    @EdgyShooter Рік тому +1

    I love how at no point was Geico's argument:
    "We insure the car"

  • @albertgutierrez7036
    @albertgutierrez7036 Рік тому +1

    This needs to be thrown out immediately the women has equal responsibility as the man does to protect themselves and their partners from STD. And what if he didn’t know he had one this is ridiculous that it’s even being entertained your insurance company especially vehicles is not responsible. Courts these days.

  • @rusianalf
    @rusianalf 2 роки тому +7

    I’m thinking of the future pick up lines.
    Hey gurl, I got STI and geico insurance. how about we split 5 mil in my car

  • @BreezyBellefu
    @BreezyBellefu 2 роки тому +25

    That woman should not get the money. It’s on her and her responsibility. Stupid claims because of her is what raises rates.

  • @amaas211
    @amaas211 Рік тому +5

    Doctors in court:
    "Yea, the guy gave the girl an std."
    The Judge:
    "Geico, how do you plea? Guilty? Good, time for lunch."

  • @VividVisionary
    @VividVisionary Рік тому +1

    A humiliating mark on the USA. The fact this has any legs to it is embarrassing.

  • @Kay-zy6hn
    @Kay-zy6hn 2 роки тому +6

    I once spilled ketchup, relish, mustard on my white t shirt cus of my homies car that was insured by geico. He had to press the brakes cus a car cut him off. Now I'm traumatized in eating burgers and hot dogs while riding in cars, think you can help me out sir?

  • @zantar04
    @zantar04 Рік тому +5

    I really hope she gets nothing. It really sets a bad precident and I'd rather my cost for insurance doesn't go up because of dumb.

    • @OuterCraft
      @OuterCraft 11 місяців тому +2

      She should get paid. Geico fucked up by sending this to arbitration, instead of the courts. Usually this works for them because arbiters more often side with the insurance company and give smaller payouts. But now that the arbiter didn't side with Geico, the company is whining that it didn't go to court

    • @skilless935
      @skilless935 11 місяців тому

      ​@@OuterCraftso why does she deserve 5 mil?

    • @dinodino8640
      @dinodino8640 11 місяців тому

      @@OuterCraftarbitration isn’t a court of law it’s a way to stop it from getting into a court if it fails you can still go to court arbitration is trying to get them to agree

  • @mus8654
    @mus8654 Рік тому +10

    Imagine being the guy
    >be irresponsible and do the dirty while having a disease
    >woman blames you for catching disease
    >make the car you did it on handle it
    >dont face any consequences
    >live happily ever after

    • @skilless935
      @skilless935 11 місяців тому +1

      Imagine being the woman
      >be irresponsible and get in some stranger's backseat
      >get a disease
      >sue his fucking car insurance because you can't deal with the consequences of your own actions

    • @northianstar
      @northianstar 9 місяців тому

      @@skilless935The woman didn't sue the car insurance. The court case is about Geico disagreeing with the arbitration.

  • @szonator
    @szonator Рік тому +1

    That's ridiculous! What if I burn my house while in my car? Do they pay for that too? That woman is crazy and the court is bias towards her

  • @Phlebas
    @Phlebas Рік тому +1

    On one hand, it seems insane that Geico would have liability in a case like this. On the other hand, Geico would totally avoid paying out their customers if there was any sort of contractual loophole or legal technicality that they could abuse. So I'll take the woman's side in this. If Geico is liable because of technicality, then she should totally use it to claim her money.

  • @Kissiehyudo
    @Kissiehyudo 2 роки тому +38

    I have no idea wht i just watched lmao i thought the prblm would be between the man nd the woman why is the insurance company involved...

    • @johnplayer1052
      @johnplayer1052 2 роки тому

      Because Geico car insurance covers damage done from physical activities and yes Sex is a physical activity.. Also it covers any damage including medical damage done by negligence or some other reasons in the car by the owner of the car and insurance policy...

    • @Kissiehyudo
      @Kissiehyudo 2 роки тому

      It appears to me that there is a reply here but I can't see it for some reason is this a glitch or was the reply deleted or what?

    • @lolphenomlive
      @lolphenomlive 2 роки тому

      @@Kissiehyudo me too it said 2 reply’s but I only see one that yours

    • @Sentient_Blob
      @Sentient_Blob 2 роки тому +1

      Loophole in Geicos contract, it probably wasn’t specific enough and it could accidentally be interpreted to include cases like this. They were also too stupid to take legal action initially to defend themselves so good on the woman’s lawyer

    • @qp4367
      @qp4367 Рік тому

      Kissie Hyudo. Same but even more perplezing.Can anyone explain the season of the witch overlay in regards to this case? Seems weirdly out of place...what am I missing?

  • @BlueCation
    @BlueCation 2 роки тому +10

    You get what you get and you don't get upset

  • @jonnyc351
    @jonnyc351 2 роки тому +8

    Case101: Reckless driving resulting to STD

  • @adventureoflinkmk2
    @adventureoflinkmk2 Рік тому +2

    And if geico loses in October... it'll by proxy, make them GUILTY AND LIABLE... For all of the damages that happened next...

    • @gio_ozz
      @gio_ozz Рік тому +1

      I believe they won and don't have to pay the lady,

  • @bluz9951
    @bluz9951 Рік тому +6

    only in america you can sue a vehicle insurance company for getting an std

  • @aerialace4230
    @aerialace4230 2 роки тому +7

    I don’t get how stds should be covered by a car insurance company

    • @bnkz
      @bnkz 2 роки тому +3

      She clearly used the situation to become a millionaire 🤑

  • @Wawawapopop
    @Wawawapopop 2 роки тому +16

    Why are they even involved lmao

    • @coiljoy8871
      @coiljoy8871 2 роки тому

      If I understand correctly it is because it's in their policy, they were suppose to represent the guy in court but failed to because they didn't take the case seriously. So yeah they "messed around and found out"🤷🏾‍♀️

  • @Moo66-zl7oz
    @Moo66-zl7oz Місяць тому

    Even random people in a car insured by Geico can't escape Mike's wrath 🗿

  • @IWANTAGUNOW
    @IWANTAGUNOW Рік тому +8

    I fell down the stairs and decided to sue the construction company of the neighbors house

  • @thatwolfdude018
    @thatwolfdude018 Рік тому +29

    They could take it to the Supreme Court. I think that would be a interesting case.

    • @theskyworrier
      @theskyworrier Рік тому

      No that'll never happen. The Supreme Court only deals with federal cases.

    • @codyknight3580
      @codyknight3580 Рік тому

      @@theskyworrier Sounds like Geico did try the federal route too, who then sent it back down to the lower courts because Geico didn't get a proper defense

  • @BebbaDubbs
    @BebbaDubbs 2 роки тому +27

    Geico wants arbitration then denies it, 😂 I think it's brilliant!

  • @hahahayi1017
    @hahahayi1017 Рік тому

    Good thing the Missouri Supreme Court overturned the lower court ruling, absolutely absurd that any sort of ruling should go in favor to that woman in the first place.

  • @danielx40
    @danielx40 Рік тому +1

    Always do dangerous things in your car. Unprotected sex, defusing a c4, performing a surgery…

  • @rynocaliendo9569
    @rynocaliendo9569 Рік тому +25

    She should be in jail for a bogus lawsuit

  • @florpzorp7333
    @florpzorp7333 2 роки тому +5

    Geico: we insure damages to cars not people who drive the cars

    • @SilentForrest
      @SilentForrest 2 роки тому +2

      Not correct. If your in an accident, the other person goes to the hospital and you are at fault. The insurance company is liable

    • @zaipollizamabdulmalek5822
      @zaipollizamabdulmalek5822 2 роки тому +1

      Like the person above me said, that how car insurance work. But it doesn't make sense when the car doesn't have any role of why 2 people have sex in car and caught STD

  • @my_master512
    @my_master512 Рік тому +18

    That is utterly insane 🤯 I can't believe that they actually even have to defend themselves smh I'm utterly at a complete loss. This wasn't even a car accident. On top of that she actively chose to engage in a sexual encounter with that gentleman

  • @MemeBiologist
    @MemeBiologist Рік тому +1

    Arbitration was like: Fuck it why not?😂

  • @silverstar8868
    @silverstar8868 Рік тому

    I like how Geico argued "yeah it could've been from somewhere else", rather than, you know, literally saying that it is not insured.

  • @ryanm.191
    @ryanm.191 2 роки тому +4

    While I’m happy for a company to lose money in lawsuits to individuals, this is absolutely outrageous

  • @countjondi9672
    @countjondi9672 Рік тому +10

    im amazed Geico didn't just negotiate the suit down to a lower nuisance fee and let it go

    • @jacobp.2024
      @jacobp.2024 Рік тому

      Could've probably settled out of court for sub one million.

    • @SianaGearz
      @SianaGearz 11 місяців тому +1

      Well a million people suddenly get HPV in cars. Then what.

    • @skilless935
      @skilless935 11 місяців тому

      ​@@jacobp.2024they shouldn't have needed to spend a cent

  • @ericavalderrama2547
    @ericavalderrama2547 2 роки тому +10

    Wow, I wish all car insurance covers STD infections 😁😆🤣

  • @loribenintendi5843
    @loribenintendi5843 9 місяців тому +1

    The only thing I can say is that I'm trying to help my mom get her reinstated w/ Geico. Cause her debit card was stolen. She now has a new debit card and every time I call, I get hung up on!! What! You don't want her back payments!??? Plus reinstate her back?? Maybe it's time for a different car insurer. Idk. EXTREEMLY frustrated. Back n forth for 4 hours!

  • @johnnyrocket4357
    @johnnyrocket4357 Рік тому

    As defense, GEICO appeals by saying they're "giving it one last shot."
    The prosecution responded with irony by suggesting it was the defendant's turn "...to swallow their pride."
    GEICO didn't choke. They released a statement refusing to duplicate the consensual illicit behavior that provided an opportunity for plaintiff's allegations.

  • @TheThreatenedSwan
    @TheThreatenedSwan 2 роки тому +5

    The judge, arbitrator, and any other legal officials in this case should be [redacted]

  • @skull_issues
    @skull_issues 2 роки тому +5

    I love seeing insurance companies being screwed over like they screw up a lot of people

  • @itsallgood3706
    @itsallgood3706 Рік тому +3

    I hope geico doesn’t lose this one… I can’t take another rate increase

  • @hohoucgguztizi4655
    @hohoucgguztizi4655 11 місяців тому

    Any way to take money out of their pockets! I really hope this lady wins

  • @karstenkunneman5219
    @karstenkunneman5219 Рік тому

    If it was the other way around, it would be thrown out of every court in the country

  • @mrchickinman9984
    @mrchickinman9984 2 роки тому +17

    soooo
    “I didn’t bother buying a condom so I’m gonna get legal on my insurance’s ass”
    makes sense to meee

    • @stixinst5791
      @stixinst5791 2 роки тому +2

      This is not the guys fault though. Oral HPV has no symptoms and is transmited through unknown means (likely saliva, but last time I checked that was not proven)

    • @skiphopkerplunk4464
      @skiphopkerplunk4464 2 роки тому

      @@stixinst5791 exactly oral hpv is one of the most common std because most people don't know they are contagious before they show signs. It's also why you should never kiss a baby on the face or hands. It can be fatal to infants and small children.

    • @DarthNightmareNL
      @DarthNightmareNL Рік тому

      Merica

  • @Medknow22
    @Medknow22 2 роки тому +25

    At least She should’ve rather sued a condom company ( even when she never used it😅😅) than Geico 🤨

  • @iloveplasticbottles
    @iloveplasticbottles 2 роки тому +9

    Wait so Geico failed to do the one thing they were supposed to do?

  • @bland9876
    @bland9876 2 роки тому +1

    Would make more sense if she was coming after the guys health insurance to pay for her stuff but car insurance doesn't make any sense because car insurance as far as I'm aware is for damage between different cars.

  • @LeMayJoseph
    @LeMayJoseph 11 місяців тому

    GODDAMN, that’s a comprehensive policy.

  • @parisennis6242
    @parisennis6242 11 місяців тому

    I really believe that judges, jurors, mediators are in cahoots with these people who are suing for such ridiculous reasons. They are getting a cut of the money.

  • @theduke7539
    @theduke7539 11 місяців тому

    Geico literally only had to say that its a car insurance company, not a health insurance company and this case falls under health insurance.
    My truck got broken into a couple years ago and some property was stolen. My insurance said that because the truck itself wasnt stolen and i was at home, the missing property fell under home owners, and they were only liable for the window

  • @venomized4736
    @venomized4736 2 роки тому

    Whoever these courts and judges in Missouri are they need to take the bar again because that's idiotic.

  • @thecheshire2334
    @thecheshire2334 11 місяців тому +1

    Quite honestly she deserves too lose the case. The question is pretty simple "did the car give her the condition?" obviously no it was the man she was sleeping with. Open shut case

  • @AbsolAhm
    @AbsolAhm 2 роки тому

    Stuff like this where someone is just waiting time by going to higher and higher courts should be penalized more if the ruling still turns out against them. Geico should be paying 10 mill by the end if the court still is ruling against them

  • @Sorinian
    @Sorinian Рік тому +1

    She doesn't deserve the cash. This is dumb.

  • @dmsturgeon8762
    @dmsturgeon8762 Рік тому

    It just goes to show you, that senseless or baseless lawsuits shouldn't be ignored or taken lightly. They should've went to court instead of mediation.

  • @Cin3mattic
    @Cin3mattic Рік тому +1

    At first I was on geicos side but then I realized geico is an insurance company and they screw over people every day. So now I'm on the fence lol

  • @NullyBird
    @NullyBird Рік тому +1

    Please use any sound effect but that one. I checked my personal and work phones before rewinding.