GEICO has you covered -- $5.2MM for getting an STD
-
-
Not really. It seems that the mistake was in Geico’s defense of denying coverage, not of denying the claim on the merits. Huge screwup by their lawyers, but not something that sets a precedent for every teenager at Makeout Point…
The Brad
-
Not really. It seems that the mistake was in Geico’s defense of denying coverage, not of denying the claim on the merits. Huge screwup by their lawyers, but not something that sets a precedent for every teenager at Makeout Point…
@LuFins-Dad said in GEICO has you covered -- $5.2MM for getting an STD:
Not really. It seems that the mistake was in Geico’s defense of denying coverage, not of denying the claim on the merits. Huge screwup by their lawyers, but not something that sets a precedent for every teenager at Makeout Point…
Yes, that's the correct reading... I just think it would be hilarious to sue insurance companies for any damage that occurs in the vehicles they insure, including child support.
-
Not really. It seems that the mistake was in Geico’s defense of denying coverage, not of denying the claim on the merits. Huge screwup by their lawyers, but not something that sets a precedent for every teenager at Makeout Point…
@LuFins-Dad said in GEICO has you covered -- $5.2MM for getting an STD:
Not really. It seems that the mistake was in Geico’s defense of denying coverage, not of denying the claim on the merits.
So many double negations… could somebody translate that into plain English?
-
K Klaus referenced this topic on
-
@LuFins-Dad said in GEICO has you covered -- $5.2MM for getting an STD:
Not really. It seems that the mistake was in Geico’s defense of denying coverage, not of denying the claim on the merits.
So many double negations… could somebody translate that into plain English?
@Klaus said in GEICO has you covered -- $5.2MM for getting an STD:
@LuFins-Dad said in GEICO has you covered -- $5.2MM for getting an STD:
Not really. It seems that the mistake was in Geico’s defense of denying coverage, not of denying the claim on the merits.
So many double negations… could somebody translate that into plain English?
Geico didn't have to pay because the woman got HPV, they had to pay because in their defense they said the guy didn't have Geico coverage when he did. They also made a mistake in going to arbitration, which limits their ability to appeal. The precedent set wasn't "get an STD in a car and the car insurance will have to pay out", the precedent was "Don't hire bad lawyers".
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login