Replies

Steve Lehto has a good YouTube video on this. They had the opportunity to intervene and represent the man for a million dollar claim and they refused. They didn’t want to get involved and said no way were they going to pay. Big mistake. The two parties agreed to arbitration (something insurance companies push on consumers) and the arbitrator ruled against the man( and insurance company) and awarded higher damages. Now when presented with a claims to settle by court order, NOW they want to intervene. Too little, too late. By now car companies are adding new exclusions to every policy they issue to avoid this in the future.

Then there's this:

However, Geico may not have to pay the $5.2 million judgment given the related federal court case filed by the insurer, which contests that the claim is covered by its auto policy, according to the Kansas City Star, which earlier reported on the Missouri ruling.

I have no idea what the status of that case may be, but it would seem to join the issue squarely. The woman's attorneys somehow persuaded the arbitrator to broaden the definition of a vehicle related "injury" to include the negligent transmission of an STD while in a car. That is insane but very much in tune with the insanity of the age, not to mention the longstanding dogma of the ambulance chasing sleazebag branch of the legal tribe (as opposed to honest lawyers) that any fantasy that gets them into the deepest pocket is ok. Juries are unreliable on this point. Arbitrators and judges are supposed to be more disciplined. But if that dam breaks ... well, we are already well on the way to institutionalizing political risk across the economy. At the rate we're going, the only real question will soon be who can buy the judges, or who has the most ruthless gunmen.

They had the opportunity to intervene and represent the man for a million dollar claim and they refused. They didn’t want to get involved and said no way were they going to pay. Big mistake.

I don't believe courts should solidify an injustice simply because someone didn't comply with their arrogant rules.

This is wrong, and a court using it's power to enforce this evil thing makes the court evil too.

I fully understand why the insurance company would not take this seriously. What I do not understand is why *ANYONE* would take this seriously. In a just world, that woman goes to jail for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

This Arbiter smells fishy. What man would hold a car insurance company responsible because some woman consented to having sex in the seat of the car?

This started as idiocy and has now ended up being something very evil.