And it only covers amphibians.
Posted on 03/11/2023 5:36:25 AM PST by billorites
No, says Judge Fernando Gaitan's opinion today in Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. Brauner (W.D. Mo.). The policy covered "bodily injury" "arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use" of an automobile, but the court held that this language didn't cover such a situation:
Kansas courts have held that "For an automobile insurer to be liable for an automobile accident, unless the express language of an insurance policy provides otherwise, the automobile must, in some manner, be involved in the accident, and the mere fact that an accident takes place in or near the automobile does not impose responsibility upon the insurer." Here, GEICO argues that the auto at issue in this case was not being used as a vehicle when the transmission of HPV occurred; instead, it was the mere situs of the alleged negligence, or at best was being used as a shelter (which is also an insufficient use under Kansas law to trigger coverage under Kansas auto policies).
Brauner [the insured] … argues that the HPV was contracted [by his sexual partner] as a result of a common, foreseeable, automobile use—sexual relations in a car. Defendant Brauner argues that the injury here is a result of a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the involved vehicle, and Kansas law requires no more than a minimal causal connection between the use of the vehicle and the injury. See Garrison v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. (Kan. 1995) (finding a sufficient causal connection where the vehicle had been used to transport hunters and a gun discharged injuring a party). Brauner argues that "people have been generally known to have used vehicles as a venue for sexual relations dating back to the invention of the automobile and if GEICO wanted to exclude coverage for sex in a car, it could have done so."
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. If the Court applied a mere "foreseeability" concept such as what Brauner advocates for in his reply suggestions to his summary judgment motion, all manner of injuries would become covered injuries despite having no real relationship between the use of an auto as an auto. Here, there is no real causal connection between the transmission of HPV and Brauner's vehicle; instead, the vehicle is the mere situs of the transmission of venereal disease. Accordingly, the Court finds that summary judgment must be granted in GEICO's favor.
The court also noted,
Defendant Brauner also argues that the use of a car for consensual sex is an activity that 50% or more American adults have engaged in … citing Cindy Struckman-Johnson, Kayla Nalan-Sheffield, & Samuel Gaster, Sexual Behavior in Parked Cars Reported by Midwestern College Men and Women, The Journal of Sex Research (2017). After reviewing that article, which provides the results of an anonymous survey of a mere 195 men and 511 women at a small midwestern university, the Court is dubious that such study stands for the broad proposition asserted by Defendant Brauner that 50% or more of all American adults have engaged in such behavior.
I'm not dubious at all about that.
For an earlier phase of the case, involving the defendant's attempt to litigate pseudonymously, see this post.
You sue the automobile manufacturer. Just like the left is trying to sue the gun manufacturers
Thanks. Now waiting for the second one.
The question rises..... Did Brauner’s lawyer get paid?
Having sex in a city bathroom and getting VD means you can sue the city, too, I would assume. Same with it happening in your employer’s bathroom.
That’s the world crazies want us to have.
Maybe if it is a hit (it) and run…
I’m not a lawyer, but I would argue that acquiring VD from having sex with an untested Rando is an assumed risk. If the plaintiff engaged in this type of behavior it is only a matter of time before her lady parts are covered in the Paris scabs.
Now, on the otherhand, if the car itself infected her with the Kardashian Kurse, that is another matter. Something like your pit bull biting the mailman.
Or put this picture on your dashboard...
THe car would have to be in motion going down the road during the sexual encounter, the court decided that a stationary automobile was not an automobile at the time is was used as a bed.
If you want to claim coverage, you would have to do it in a auto pilot car gong down the road at 70 mph with the consenting parties in the back. Then it would be a covered automobile rather than an automobile uninsured as a bed.
The law, BTW, is an ass. Courts almost always side with Insurance Companies.
Why should,insurance cover someone getting a stereotypical Daguerreotype done in Their car?
I hate to be a spoiler of bad jokes, but did she catch the STD from a fluid leak in her intake from her manifold experiences?
Are homeowners, landlords, motels, camping grounds, national parks, etc liable? The person making the claim and suing should be forced to pay legal costs.
>BARF<
My only comment...
I’m glad they got rid of stick shifts in most cars.
I would start a petition to go after the ‘lawyer’ who took this case.
Logically if the sex took place in the bedroom, would the homeowners policy pay cover the STD?
I’m sure Morgan & Morgan, or some other Law Firm can drum up a case on it.
you've ended the wait.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.