STDs and the PAP

You will have heard and even laughed about GEICO being sued by a Missouri lady who contracted a sexually transmitted illness (STD) on account of unprotected intercourse in a GEICO-insured car. Past the sheer inventiveness of the plaintiff, this case is elevating concern inside the insurance coverage business. May there be protection? Is the non-public auto coverage (PAP) broad sufficient to require GEICO to pay this loss?

Let’s have a look at just a few info of Insurance coverage Companies Workplace’s (ISO’s) PAP to find out if this or every other promiscuous plaintiff has a case for STDs supposedly contracted in a automobile:

• There isn’t a STD exclusion within the PAP akin to is discovered within the Householders (HO) coverage;
• Insurance coverage Service Workplace’s PAP states that it covers the “You” (the named insured) for the possession, upkeep or use of any auto (and the auto was definitely getting used);
• “Bodily harm” is outlined to imply bodily hurt, illness or illness, together with demise that outcomes; and
• The PAP pays for bodily harm for which an insured is legally liable. The courtroom said the car’s proprietor was legally chargeable for transmitting the STD to the plaintiff.

Keep in mind, this text and the factors made apply coverage wording present in ISO’s PAP and never essentially the relevant GEICO coverage. Nevertheless, it could be affordable to imagine that the provisions of the GEICO coverage are considerably comparable.

With these coverage provisions as the start level, it seems M.O. (the plaintiff’s alias) might have a case in opposition to GEICO on this $5.2 million go well with searching for $1 million from GEICO.

However earlier than M.O. begins counting her GEICO cash, there may be one rule of insurance coverage she will be able to’t ignore; the primary rule of studying any insurance coverage coverage – protection can by no means be any broader than the insuring settlement. If the loss/declare doesn’t make it previous the insuring settlement, the rest of the coverage is irrelevant.

ISO’s private auto coverage comprises 4 protection components. Half A extends legal responsibility protection. The primary sentence of the Half A insuring settlement reads:

PART A – LIABILITY COVERAGE
INSURING AGREEMENT

A. We pays damages for “bodily harm” or “property harm” for which any “insured” turns into legally accountable due to an auto accident.

Proving the STD is a results of the required auto accident appears unlikely, however the information accounts don’t give us all the main points of the encounter. And it’s potential to torture the that means of “accident” to aim to show there may be protection; however that could be a main stretch.

If the GEICO coverage comprises the identical or an analogous requirement that the bodily harm should end result from an auto accident for protection to use, then this go well with ought to finish in GEICO’s favor. If the GEICO coverage wording doesn’t, indirectly, require authorized legal responsibility for bodily harm ensuing from an auto accident, this ought to be an attention-grabbing case to observe.

Given what is understood concerning the case in comparison with the necessities of the ISO private auto coverage, there doesn’t seem like protection for M.O. However lets’ give her credit score for originality.

Coverage wording issues. Begin firstly to find out if the loss or declare makes it previous the insuring settlement. If it doesn’t qualify below the insuring settlement, cease there; the rest of the coverage is only for present. If GEICO’s PAP comprises the identical or an analogous requirement present in ISO’s PAP, this case is over earlier than it begins.