[yousefnjr]

Originally Posted by Sublime00

… from an insured member in his automobile.
…

Cmon, if his member had coverage we wouldn’t be here

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I immediately thought of that McD lawsuit. Rewarded for stupidity. Crazy...

Don't even understand this one, they only(mainly?) had sex in that car? Wth....

I thought the McD coffee lawsuit was frivolous until I learned it was an old lady who had her vagina burned off through her clothes. That is indeed probably too hot.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I immediately thought of that McD lawsuit. Rewarded for stupidity. Crazy...

You have absolutely no understanding of the McD lawsuit.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

I thought the McD coffee lawsuit was frivolous until I learned it was an old lady who had her vagina burned off through her clothes. That is indeed probably too hot.

Facts like it was significantly hotter than industry average, that they knew it was a problem and had already settled multiple cases, that they lied on the stand about many of the issues, especially when their internal documents proved it, and so on. The lady was found to be partially culpable as well, but all of this is really the tip of the iceberg. There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits, like all the election claims where they invented a narrative, then went looking for evidence to support it, but find a good in-depth account of the McD lawsuit and you'll see there's a lot going on there.

In the bigger picture or more related to this thread, people have to decide, do you want your auto insurance contract to be binding (binding contracts) or do you want to let them decide when they have to honor part if it? They may need to put on the big-boy pants and re-write their contract to eliminate loopholes like this, but it's their responsibility to write a contract that covers what they want to cover. Yeah, it's ridiculous that this got covered...but if it's a matter of honoring the contract, it's an even worse precedent to let them decide what is covered at their own whims. They need to fix the contract.

[nick3753]

Was this their only sexual encounter? If not, how
did they determine that she got HPV from this specific encounter?

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by RM7

You have absolutely no understanding of the McD lawsuit.

I guess not the specifics but since you provided some facts it's telling she was partially culpable and it's still rewarding stupidity as presumably the award was huge, who puts a hot drink there?

[RM7]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I guess not the specifics but

Well, I would highly advise you read it first before forming the opinion.

[workerONE]

https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm

In 9/10 cases HPV goes away within 2 years, most people never know they have it and have no symptoms. 43 million Americans have it. She had unprotected sex, she knew there was some risk of an STD. I'm not condoning that he knowingly spread it but it has a low chance of being harmful.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by RM7

Well, I would highly advise you read it first before forming the opinion.

Naw, can't be bothered. It's just a ridiculous verdict, or are you saying it makes total sense? I'm sure there would be countless lines if one proposed they will get a $1M settlement for burning their genitals. It's just hot water, not some hydrochloric acid or whatever

[RM7]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Naw, can't be bothered. It's just a ridiculous verdict, or are you saying it makes total sense? I'm sure there would be countless lines if one proposed they will get a $1M settlement for burning their genitals. It's just hot water, not some hydrochloric acid or whatever

I'm saying it's ridiculous to form an opinion without knowing the story. And if you "can't be bothered", you should have just not mentioned it in the first place...

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by RM7

I'm saying it's ridiculous to form an opinion without knowing the story. And if you "can't be bothered", you should have just not mentioned it in the first place...

Huh? Someone else mentioned it first, what's your prb? Yankees are sometimes infamous for ridiculous/stupid verdicts and that's the irrefutable fact here.

[Frostynorth]

She only wanted McD to cover her medical expenses, at $20k. McD offered $800.

[OkieSnuffBox]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I immediately thought of that McD lawsuit. Rewarded for stupidity. Crazy...

Don't even understand this one, they only(mainly?) had sex in that car? Wth....

I suspect if you were the one getting skin grafts on your genitalia, you might think differently.

[workerONE]

I just read that this only happened because Geico forced the case into arbitration rather than paying a settlement, then they didn't show up to arbitration because they thought they would win.

Edit: it sounds like this may have been a scam between the guy and girl with the arbitrator in on it. Geico was never aware that it went to arbitration and is appealing.

The court filings.

>On or about March 11, M.O. and M.B. entered into an agreement to settle M.O.’s claim against M.B. pursuant to MO. ANN. STAT. § 537.065. (ECF 43-4, at 1.) “An agreement under this provision expressly authorizes an insured to settle a personal injury or wrongful death action by agreeing that the plaintiff may collect the settlement only against the insurer.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Blount, 491 F.3d 903, 907 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “It does not determine the insured’s liability but merely limits enforceability of a judgment.” Id. As a result, the agreement limited M.B.’s liability to M.O., but left M.O. free to pursue recovery from GEICO. (ECF 43-6, at 2.) **GEICO says that it did not know, at the time, that M.O. and M.B. had entered into the § 537.065 agreement.**
>
>**Again, GEICO says that it did not know at the time that M.O. and M.B. submitted M.O.’s claim against M.B. to arbitration on May 17.** (ECF 43-5, at 4.) And, the next day, the arbitrator awarded M.O. a $5.2 million arbitration award against M.B. On May 24, M.O. filed suit in Jackson County Circuit Court, asserting claims against M.B. for negligence and negligent inflection of emotional distress. (ECF 43-4, at 4.) It was at that time that GEICO says it first learned about M.O. and M.B.’s § 537.065 agreement and the $5.2 million arbitration award that M.O. can collect,
>
>GEICO contends that M.O. and M.B.’s “secret” arbitration was
>
>collusive and a sham. **According to GEICO, M.O. and M.B. kept the arbitration a secret “to avoid GEICO’s right to intervene and be heard, to fix liability where it otherwise would not attach, and to obtain an artificially inflated award—all in an attempt to pursue insurance proceeds and extracontractual monies from GEICO.”** (Id.) GEICO contends that M.B. must not have presented any substantive defense to M.O.’s claims during the arbitration.

[jmack]

I like when insurance companies get screwed over, but this is just asinine.

[tranquility]

Originally Posted by OkieSnuffBox

I suspect if you were the one getting skin grafts on your genitalia, you might think differently.

Are you guys just wannabe lawyers being argumentative for no good reason? I'd say that there would still be a massive line if $1M is handed out, grafts or not and also depends on what clothing the volunteer is wearing. Whether anyone specific would personally want one is besides the pt, generally-speaking I'd go w a sizable portion of society who'd srsly consider it, esp during these times but even disregarding that.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by workerONE

I just read that this only happened because Geico forced the case into arbitration rather than paying a settlement, then they didn't show up to arbitration because they thought they would win.

Edit: it sounds like this may have been a scam between the guy and girl with the arbitrator in on it. Geico was never aware that it went to arbitration and is appealing.

The court filings.

>On or about March 11, M.O. and M.B. entered into an agreement to settle M.O.’s claim against M.B. pursuant to MO. ANN. STAT. § 537.065. (ECF 43-4, at 1.) “An agreement under this provision expressly authorizes an insured to settle a personal injury or wrongful death action by agreeing that the plaintiff may collect the settlement only against the insurer.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Blount, 491 F.3d 903, 907 (8th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “It does not determine the insured’s liability but merely limits enforceability of a judgment.” Id. As a result, the agreement limited M.B.’s liability to M.O., but left M.O. free to pursue recovery from GEICO. (ECF 43-6, at 2.) **GEICO says that it did not know, at the time, that M.O. and M.B. had entered into the § 537.065 agreement.**
>
>**Again, GEICO says that it did not know at the time that M.O. and M.B. submitted M.O.’s claim against M.B. to arbitration on May 17.** (ECF 43-5, at 4.) And, the next day, the arbitrator awarded M.O. a $5.2 million arbitration award against M.B. On May 24, M.O. filed suit in Jackson County Circuit Court, asserting claims against M.B. for negligence and negligent inflection of emotional distress. (ECF 43-4, at 4.) It was at that time that GEICO says it first learned about M.O. and M.B.’s § 537.065 agreement and the $5.2 million arbitration award that M.O. can collect,
>
>GEICO contends that M.O. and M.B.’s “secret” arbitration was
>
>collusive and a sham. **According to GEICO, M.O. and M.B. kept the arbitration a secret “to avoid GEICO’s right to intervene and be heard, to fix liability where it otherwise would not attach, and to obtain an artificially inflated award—all in an attempt to pursue insurance proceeds and extracontractual monies from GEICO.”** (Id.) GEICO contends that M.B. must not have presented any substantive defense to M.O.’s claims during the arbitration.

That's for posting this information. Of course, it's Geico's point of view and may or may not be substantiated, but it would be good if it is and the original persons not awarded this crazy sum of money. It could be though that they played by all the rules set forth for the arbitration. We'll have to wait and see what happens. Seems like it's definitely worth pursuing an appeal based on the above.

[M-technik-3]

Originally Posted by Higgs Boson

I thought the McD coffee lawsuit was frivolous until I learned it was an old lady who had her vagina burned off through her clothes. That is indeed probably too hot.

Burned off, interesting I've spilled McD hot coffee back in the day and my crank never fell off and I'm sure some of the other older guys here have done the same. Load of horse shit.

[Higgs Boson]

Originally Posted by M-technik-3

Burned off, interesting I've spilled McD hot coffee back in the day and my crank never fell off and I'm sure some of the other older guys here have done the same. Load of horse shit.

Third degree burns, lol. The point was that it was hotter than the coffee you spilled. I've poured my share of coffee on my junk too but I wasn't a paper skinned 81 year old woman at the time. Hey, it's 2022, maybe next year.

[RM7]

This guy usually gives a good analysis of these things:

[PittsDriver]

These kinds of awards from juries frequently end up paying out much less due to a number of factors - not the least of which are coverage limits and awards limits by state on the max for pain and suffering. The jury might have awarded over $5m but if the limit of liability is $500k or maybe $1m then that's all Geico will pay.

Allstate and I got sued by an ambulance chaser for $3m once for an accident involving one of my kids. It was explained at the arbitration that the limit was medical bills, lost wages, and $600K max for pain and suffering. Given that the medical bills and lost wages amounted to $150k there was no way any award would be higher than $750K max. Allstate got them to settle for $20k and $4k/month for 5 years. And that was for an accident that was ruled as not at fault for my kid.

[Germanauto]

If you ever wonder why American society is so toxic and unhappy.

Stuff like this is why...