A Missouri woman has been awarded a $5.2 million insurance payout from GEICO after contracting a sexually transmitted disease from her husband in a vehicle covered by the company.
According to a report by CNN, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld the Jackson County resident's insurance claim in court this week.
The woman - who is anonymously identified as M.O. in court documents - first submitted a petition to GEICO in February 2021. She claimed that she was entitled to compensation after her sexual partner infected her with Human papillomavirus (HPV) in his vehicle.
Court documents state that the woman's partner negligently cause or "contributed to cause to be infected with HPV by not taking proper precautions and neglecting to inform and/or disclose his diagnosis." They go on to claim that his "insurance policy provided coverage for her injuries and losses."
M.O. made a final settlement offer for $1 million. But GEICO refused the offer and denied coverage for the STD infection. The case was then sent to an arbitrator.
To GEICO's frustration, the arbitrator sided with the woman, determining "there was sexual activity in (insured's) automobile" that "directly caused, or directly contributed to cause" her STD infection.
They subsequently ruled that a whopping $5.2 million should be awarded to M.O. to compensate for damages and injuries.
Unsurprisingly, GEICO was even less pleased with this result, so they appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court's confirmation of the arbitration award. They claimed that the court hadn't given them "a meaningful opportunity to defend its interests."
But the three-judge panel once again sided against the insurance company, and after reviewing the appeal, they confirmed the circuit court's settlement decision of $5.2 million this week on Tuesday (June 7).
"At the time of Geico's intervention, liability and damages had been determined by an arbitrator and confirmed by the trial court. GEICO had no right to relitigate those issues," the panel stated.
It added that the company could have entered a defense of the insured individual - but that they "did not take advantage of this opportunity, and instead denied coverage and refused to defend Insured."
.jpg_wXEJDz?tr=h-184)
