A Missouri woman is asking for $1 million from GEICO after she participated in some adult activities and contracted an STD from a man in the backseat of his car, which was covered by his insurance provider.
The Daily Mail reports GEICO has since filed a counter suit in federal court, accusing the man and woman–who have chosen to remain anonymous during court proceedings–of colluding in order to come up on a massive payday.
The insurance company is now challenging the pair’s court-given right to stay anonymous in order to proceed with this case. The woman, who is only referred to as M.O. in court documents, filed a liability suit against the popular agency after having unprotected sex with the man, labeled M.B., in the backseat of his 2014 Hyundai Genesis in 2017.
Stay Connected
Subscribe to updates from The Shade Room
As a result, the woman claims she tested positive for HPV.
The car is covered by an insurance policy in the man’s name. At that point, the woman, without GEICO’s knowledge, entered legal talks with the guy, and reached an agreement in state court where she would receive $5.2 million, that she “can collect, if at all, only from GEICO,” according to court documents.
The woman has since pursued a claim for coverage from GEICO, to the tune of $1 million, which was disputed and now she’s threatening to sue for damages related to her 2018 diagnosis. The case has since escalated to a federal matter.
The couple admits that they did not use protection when engaging in intervourse, which occurred across state lines in eastern Kansas, but the woman feels that GEICO owes her compensation due to the fact that the car was insured in the man’s name.
GEICO is asking for the case to be dismissed, citing that the man’s car insurance only covers injuries that happen “out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of” the car.
There are also questions about why the couple is choosing to remain private when they had public sex in a vehicle and whether the virus was contracted during that hookup considering the couple admitted to having relations at other locations around that time.
The court has allowed the defendants “to proceed anonymously until the court rules on M.O.’s motion to dismiss” for lack of personal jurisdiction; but within seven days of the ruling on personal jurisdiction, GEICO would need to file a complaint “that names the remaining defendant(s) by their real names.”
The judge has yet to make a ruling in the case.
