- A woman contracted HPV in a Hyundai Genesis and then sued the owner and Geico for $5.2 million.
- Different courts have ruled differently on the matter and now it’s reached the eighth circuit.
- If the court rules and that ruling is appealed, the case could make it to the Supreme Court.
Legal statements can be incredibly specific or vague and each can prove vital to a challenge in court. In the case of one woman in Missouri, a vague description could be what leads to a multi-million dollar judgment. The case surrounds her contraction of HPV from her partner while the two engaged in coitus in the back of his Hyundai Genesis.
The woman, identified only as M.O. in the filing, sued insurance giant Geico for $5.2 million in 2021 saying that she suffered injury in a vehicle that it covered. Her partner didn’t disclose that he had HPV and, since she contracted it in the insurance-covered vehicle, she wanted her partner and Geico to pay up.
More: Florida Bans Trans Drivers From Changing Gender On Licenses
In fact, initially, several courts ruled in her favor, but the case has now bounced around to the point that both sides have had victories at times.
Now, it’s gone before the Eighth Circuit Court. The defendant, a man who the court calls M.B., obtained the policy in question in Kansas. The law there generally finds in favor of the insured if there is ambiguity or vagueness in the policy. “Under the Geico Auto Policy, ‘bodily injury means bodily injury to a person, including resulting sickness, disease or death,” the plaintiff’s claim according to Fox Business.
In March, U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. found in favor of Geico saying “Upon review of the parties’ arguments, the court finds that consensual sexual relations inside a car do not constitute a ‘use’ of the automobile within the meaning of the subject policy.” That loss for the plaintiffs sent this case to the current court, one step beneath the Supreme Court of the United States.
Geico’s council argues that the policy covers only “using an auto as an auto for vehicular purposes.” One of the judges hearing the case followed that up with “It’s foreseeable that people are going to have sex in the car, I mean, that’s clearly foreseeable, right?”
At this stage, it’s unclear when the three-judge panel may issue a decision. If it finds in favor of the plaintiff, it could either end up appealed to the Supreme Court or it’ll almost certainly see a policy change for insurance companies moving forward.
