I’m guessing you’ve seen the news stories about a woman who had sex in a 2014 Hyundai Genesis with some person who apparently didn’t tell her he had HPV, giving her the STI (the infection, not the Subaru) and all of the associated lifelong potential medical issues. You may remember that, in an unusual legal gambit, the woman sued the man’s car insurance carrier, Geico, and this past June was awarded $5.2 million dollars! But then, just a bit over a week ago, that decision was overturned. It’s all a pretty weird roller coaster, and if you’re like me, you’re probably wondering just how the hell someone can sue the insurance company in a case like this? I mean, I know car insurance ads are strange, meaningless things (seriously, they’re like dadaist skits that convey almost zero actual information), but I’ve never heard any of them talk about STIs at all. So how does this happen? To get answers, we had to get a lawyer.
Luckily, we have good access to a lawyer, because our own Mercedes Streeter was smart enough to marry one, one named Sheryl Weikal. I asked Sheryl to explain this to me like I’m a curious idiot, just like it says on my business card, and boy did she. This is in terms a layperson should be able to understand, but it’s also nice and detailed.
So, if you want to know how a car insurance company can be on the hook for someone’s bad sex practices, read on. Sheryl’s take follows below the break.
Contrary to the breathless headlines, this was not quite as it seems, and the simple fact is that Geico was not ever in any real jeopardy of having to pay the award. To put it a different way, what happened here was an admittedly unusual version of a very common litigation practice.
To understand what happened, we’re going to have to explore some “inside baseball” of how litigation works. To begin, I’ve been a practicing consumer litigator* in Illinois for about 10 years now, so I’ve actually handled cases not dissimilar to this one, both in facts and procedural posture.
Please understand, though, that what follows is a simplified version of how this works; I’m deliberately oversimplifying for space purposes, and a full explanation would take, well, three years of law school and this isn’t the Lawtopian. Also, this is not legal advice; if you need legal advice, you should not read this article, and instead should contact your state’s bar and ask to speak to a qualified attorney licensed in your state. Finally, I’m not going to get into specific case law because this is not a legal treatise (thank G-d!), but if you really want, I can follow up with some citations for you.
With that out of the way, let’s take a look at what’s going on here. To begin, let’s start with how insurance works. If Jason and I are in an accident, and Jason is distracted by the really cool taillights on my Prius and collides with me, I can file a claim with his insurance for the damage. His insurance has what is called a duty to defend – in other words, because this is an accident within his policy, his insurance company has a legal obligation to defend Jason up to the monetary limits of his policy. Now, depending on the state and the kind of policy, the limit may or may not include the cost of the defense and the full amount of money owed (the settlement or judgment), but generally speaking, most insurance claims end in a settlement.
But what happens if the claimant asks the insurance to pay for something outside the ambit of the policy? There are a few ways this could happen. For example, generally speaking, you can’t insure against an intentional illegal act; if David decides he absolutely despises Prii and slams into my car at 100 miles per hour on purpose with a rusty Jeep, his insurance will not cover him in the resulting criminal trial. An insurance company won’t go to jail or prison for you, and generally won’t pay for your felonious conduct either. That’s pretty straightforward. But there are intermediate cases that aren’t covered but also aren’t crimes, and that’s where the Geico case comes in.
What you’re covered by in any insurance policy is determined by the laws of your state, to a lesser degree the laws of the United States (especially as concerns health insurance), and, most importantly, the terms of the policy itself. The policy benefits book is part of a legally binding contract between you (the “insured”) and the carrier. There are different kinds of “injuries” or “losses” which can be covered by the policy, but generally speaking if you look through your car insurance policy you’ll see some things which are covered and some things that aren’t. What causes disputes is when the insurance company says they don’t have to pay, and the insured says you do. That brings us back to the “duty to defend.”
In most states, the way this is decided is by a special lawsuit called a “declaratory action.” There are thousands of declaratory actions filed every year, and whilst they are not solely insurance cases, a good percentage are. They are also usually (but not always) filed in federal court, and they ask the judge to “declare” (hence the name of the type of this case) that the insurance company does not need to actually provide a defense or coverage in this particular case. Geico filed a declaratory action against the parties to the arbitration back in 2020, saying to the judge there “look, we shouldn’t have to pay this, because there’s no way that contracting an STI is a covered loss.” So yes, there are two cases: one brought by the injured party against the insured, and another brought by the insurance company against the insured and the injured party. And honestly, Geico was probably always going to win that second case, because it is unlikely—though possible—that a court says their standard policy language covered something like this because it’s outside the normal expected use of the vehicle.
As for the amount of the award, that was the result of an arbitrator after consideration of the evidence. You see, that was intended to compensate the injured party for past, present, and future medical care as a result of the STI she contracted, as well as loss of consortium (basically, the stigma associated with this resulting in future loss of companionship). It was intended to compensate the injured party and punish the insured tortfeasor (a “tortfeasor” is a person who does a kind of illegal thing called a “tort”) for concealing the existence of the infection from the injured party. It never had anything to do with Geico. In fact, the existence of insurance is generally not admissible at trials and arbitrations.
But wait, you say, if that’s the case, then why did a court order Geico to pay? Well, see, that brings us back to the pesky duty to defend.
Generally speaking, until and unless there is a ruling in the declaratory action, the insurer has an obligation to at least provide a defense. That’s typically provided subject to what is called a “reservation of rights”—in other words, a type of legal document that says “we’ll defend you, but only to the extent that we are legally obligated to do so.” It’s a fancy way of saying that they will provide a defense, but only until the court in the declaratory action says they don’t have to anymore. So in the “underlying” case—that is, the one brought by the injured woman—she asked the courts to confirm an arbitration award against the insured for $5.2 million, and both she and the insured want Geico to pay because it has much deeper pockets than the insured does. Meanwhile, Geico provides a defense subject to a reservation of rights and sues them both in a declaratory action, asking for a second judge to say they don’t have to pay anything after all.
So why, then, did the Missouri Supreme Court just reverse the award? Because in order to trigger the duty to defend, you have to provide certain notice to the insurance company at a certain time, or coverage is waived. But this didn’t happen here; instead, the parties went to arbitration without Geico and then just sort of expected Geico would take care of it, err, somehow. Let me explain what I mean by this. The injured party and insured went to arbitration, to which Geico wasn’t a party and wasn’t involved. Then the injured party filed a lawsuit to confirm the arbitration award, but the insured never demanded to be defended. In other words, Geico learned about the case from an online docket report. Geico filed a motion to intervene in the case, but so late that its “motion to intervene” (in other words, their legal pleadings asking to join the case) were granted on the same day as the arbitration award was confirmed. To wit (from the Missouri Supreme Court):
The plain language of § 537.065.2 confers a statutory right to GEICO, as the insurer, to intervene within 30 days after notice of an agreement between M.O. and M.B., before a judgment may be entered. The circuit court did not allow GEICO to intervene in the pending lawsuit before judgment was entered, even though GEICO had timely filed a motion to intervene in the pending lawsuit, prior to entry of judgment, and within 30 days of notice.
Geico’s appeal was saying that it could not have defended a case to which it never received proper notice, and legally, it was right. The only reason it went this far was because the trial court made a mistake by basically telling Geico that it couldn’t defend the case, which defeats the whole “duty to defend” idea. The Missouri Supreme Court basically is saying that you can’t force an insurance company to pay for a case you didn’t allow it to defend, which makes sense. That said, they were almost certainly going to win the declaratory judgment in federal court anyway.
So really, this case was never so much about the salacious headlines, and more about the procedural checkboxes to make sure everyone involved in a lawsuit has proper notice.
Different states have different procedures for notifying insurance companies of pending litigation, but the bottom line is that you have to tell them about the case at some point using a procedure prescribed by statute. In some states, the duty to defend means the insurance company intervenes on the insured’s behalf; in others, it includes a special kind of substitution called “subrogation”; and in others, it is simply providing counsel in the case for the insured. But in every state, you can’t trigger the duty to defend without following the legal steps necessary to tell the carrier to defend you. It’s really like any other lawsuit – to get someone involved, you have to tell them to be involved, Geico was never really going to have to pay here, in all likelihood, but the headlines were a lot more fun whilst they lasted.
*I represent plaintiffs in discrimination cases, tenants in eviction cases, homeowners in foreclosure cases, consumers in debt collection cases, and defendants in misdemeanor cases. In other words, I sue banks, landlords, corporations, and the government, which means I deal with a lot of insurance companies. This is not an attorney advertisement and does not create any attorney-client relationship.
—
Get it now? The law is a strange, complicated beast. Also, tell people if you have an STI before you bone and take proper precautions, for ham’s sake.
I hope you have already trademarked the name ,”Lawtopian.” I will testify in court that you invented the name. My fees and travel expenses can be negotiated. Have your people call my people.
Thank you for that clear and concise explanation. I am disappointed that Jason didn’t add a “Dink Dink” flourish at the end.
DUN-DUN! And now we’re at the DA’s office
“And honestly, Geico was probably always going to win that second case, because it is unlikely—though possible—that a court says their standard policy language covered something like this because it’s outside the normal expected use of the vehicle. ”
So if I get one of those Free Candy vans, GEICO will have to cover me?
That part caught my attention, too:
.. . . outside the normal expected use of the vehicle
I had help fogging the windows of a Honda Civic one memorable evening, and I could swear we both went to the drive-in expecting to use the vehicle that way!
Very well written and easy to understand. I dont know that Sheryl wants to spend her off time writing lawyer things. I dont use my down time to do work stuff. But hey she is a good writer.
I think another thing failed to be mentioned the legal system is set up designed and written by lawyers with the intention of requiring anybody who has involvement with it to really need a lawyer. It is the original subscription plan “you cant sue anybody without it!” And now 40% to get justice.
Why do they call it the justice system when the person with best lawyer wins?
This is not aimed at Sheryl who for all intents and purposes seems to work for the underdog not the moneybags.
It has been decades since I was involved in the practice of personal injury law (probably longer than Sheryl has been alive), but I remember enough to appreciate the work that Sheryl went to in explaining this complex and counter intuitive result. Keep up the good work.
Big up to Sheryl for writing this – it’s very interesting, and well-explained – but also for introducing me to the word “tortfeasor”, which is my favorite new word of the month.
I counter with Replevin. Another fun legalese word IMO.
That sounds like what you take if you ate too much tortfeasor.
“This is not an attorney advertisement and does not create any attorney-client relationship.”
You have to actually write down that reading a webpage does not lead to a relationship? I would assume that would be the case in most instances (I say most, as I have some spam and facebook invites who want me to assume otherwise)
And writing a thorough, work related, analysis seems somehow like showing your bona fides, so could be seen as an advertisement.
But please let this lawtopia content coming!
I suspect the first topic for the Lawtopian site involves some town and a pile of rusty vehicles
Wow! I didn’t know STIs were even an option for Hyundais. Definitely should have read the whole window sticker more closely, or is it dealer add-on? Bottom line (snicker), next time I go to a backseat rodeo, I’m going to put the car cover on first.
I thought Hyundai was a method of birth control
Agreed. As was said, I always appreciate we’ll explained content of some deep esoteric field of knowledge.
Sheryl could be like the Legal Eagle of car-related lawsuits. I would definitely read those.
Coming soon, the Lawtopian, a new site brought to you by the fine folks at the Autopian.
I would definitely be up for reading a bunch of legal analysis fed through Jason and explained as best he can for a non-legal audience.
“this isn’t the Lawtopian.”
Well, maybe someone should make that happen. I would definitely read more Sheryl articles!
Sheryl, do you represent lemon law cases? Or if somebody here knows someone in Michigan that does it? I don’t know how to proceed with my POS 22 Chrysler Pacifica Hybrid…
Great article btw, I want to read more about you and law related articles. How to sue an automaker and don’t look like a Karen while I do it lol
If you’re in Michigan, Steve Lehto is your guy.
Was just posting this, until the site crashed when I posted it.
One well known lemon law attorney in Michigan is Steve Lehto (lehtoslaw.com) I believe he has even shown up to an Autopian meet before.
THANK YOU! his team contacted me already and I sent all the documentation that they needed
This is a great lawsplainer, and it clears up something I had misunderstood. I thought that the arbitration was done through Geico via an arbitration clause in the insurance policy. I suppose I could have looked up this case, as you linked here, but I appreciate the explanation and the link.
Admittedly, I mostly hoped that companies might be scared off of using arbitration clauses if it looked like it wasn’t as advantageous as they thought.
Sheryl, thank you for taking the time to painstakingly, but plainly, explain the layers of this legal onion. It was very interesting and enlightening.
I’d also like to add that Tortfeasor sounds like the name of a Swedish death metal band and, if it’s not, it ought to be.
Tortfeasor sounds like a dessert to me.
I am currently quite hungry though.
This was interesting. Thank you for the writeup. I have just a few questions:
– The person running the arbitration (arbiter? arbitrator?) really screwed up by ordering a party not part of the arbitration to pay, right? What is the typical background of an arbitrator — I’d assume some sort of legal background, right? Why didn’t this person know better? Are there potential repercussions for the arbitrator (disbarment maybe?… if this person is even “barred” to begin with)?
– How would the story have differed had the defendant carried an umbrella insurance policy? Certainly the insurance company would need to have been involved in the arbitration to begin with, but how does their “duty to defend” change with a different policy type?
– What happens next? Clearly the insurance company doesn’t have to pay, and I wouldn’t expect the judgement to simply transfer over to the defendant automatically. Does the plaintiff have an opportunity to collect damages from the defendant personally now?
when is the lawtopian segment being announced? us folks here think tracy and torch are fine humans…if that’s not reason enough for the segment, i plead guilty (of a bad idea, the kind that are bad-bad, not bad-good).
I will gladly upgrade my support if Lawtopian becomes a real thing.
This reminds me of the story of the woman who bought spermicidal jelly, made toast, spread the jelly on the toast, ate the toast, had sex, got pregnant, and sued the manufacturer.
You really need to stop reading the Weekly World News.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jelly-babied/
Sigh, it was just a joke, sorry I let you down.
I’m excited to see this come into the pantheon of Lawsuits People Have Uninformed Opinions On, right next to the McDonald’s Coffee and the Pinto.
It’s always a joy to read a well-written article from someone who actually understands the subject they are writing about. One of worst impacts of the internet is that so many ignorant people can publicly bloviate about matters on which they have no expertise, leading many people who don’t know how to read critically to believe incorrect ideas, and then to rage about them.
Thanks Sheryl! I look forward to reading more articles by you.
Just imagine how scientists like epidemiologists, climatologists, and evolutionary biologists feel every day.
Try being an automotive engineer on a car site.
I’m here at The Autopian because all the other sites make me furious.
It’s not just the content, but also the quality of the comments.
The first three paragraphs of Sheryl’s take left zero doubt that she’s a lawyer.
And the last paragraph is sage advice. It’s always important to wear protection if you’re going to have sex with someone who drives a Subaru.
I have a friend who’s an attorney, and every time I email him some ridiculous legal question/scenario, the FIRST THING he writes is “I’m not your lawyer, and this isn’t legal advice…”
Typical legal advice given by every lawyer to their client, regarding social media:
short version: shut up
long version: shut the **** up
I’m an insurance agent and really appreciate the quality of Sheryl’s succinct explanation. I knew from the start there was some kind of major legal mistake made in whatever happened in this case.
I still think a better lawyer could have based this whole case on artfully describing the injuries sustained in a collision in a Hyundai.
Also, if you’re over the age of 25 and having initial sexual trysts in a car, you don’t get damages for future lack of companionship. Nor should you get chiropractic care. You’re an adult, go do adult things correctly.
You’re an adult, go do adult things correctly.
I kinda wondered if they were cheating. I’ve got some friends that are the country version of “hoodrat” and they don’t have sex in cars anymore, FFS.
Ugh I hate that I’m at the age where even regular, not at all acrobatic adult things have a risk of serious injury.
I hope to read more from Sheryl, she’s good.
Mercedes thinks she’s bad, but in a really good way. 😉
I know nothing about law and found this article very interesting and informative. Well done!