CW: Sexual Content
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas has decided in a case in which a Missouri woman sued Geico claiming that she contracted a sexually transmitted disease from the insured after the two had sex inside a car covered by the insurer. The case is Geico Gen. Ins. Co. v. M.O.
According to case filings, the unnamed parties, M.B., the insured, and M.O. the defendant, began having a relationship in late 2017. That relationship included participating in consensual sexual activities in M.B.'s 2014 Hyundai Genesis. M.O. alleges that M.B. was previously diagnosed with anogenital human papillomavirus (HPV), a highly contagious sexually transmitted disease, but he failed to tell M.B. about the diagnosis and did not take measures to prevent transferring the virus to M.O. At a regularly scheduled gynecological exam in November 2018, M.O was diagnosed with HPV, and she later learned she contracted the virus from M.B.
M.B. had two GEICO insurance policies, one Auto Insurance policy listing the Hyundai Genesis, and an umbrella policy. On February 25, 2021 M.O sent GEICO a demand letter asking for $1 million to resolve her claim against M.B., triggering this lawsuit.
M.O. and M.B entered into an agreement in Jackson County, Mo. Circuit Court, awarding M.O. $5.2 million but limiting M.B.'s liability to M.O., leaving M.O. free to pursue recovery from GEICO.
GEICO's investigation into the claim revealed that M.B. said he told M.O. on several occasions that he had been diagnosed with HPV-positive throat cancer, had sexual partners other than M.O. during the relevant time period, and had sex in places other than the insured vehicle.
GEICO seeks a declaratory judgment that the two policies do not provide coverage for M.O.'s alleged injuries, and therefore GEICO has no duty to defend or indemnify M.B. against the claims.
GEICO argued that the auto policy only applied to bodily injuries arising out of the ownership maintenance or use of the auto, and that M.O.'s alleged damages have no nexus to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the covered auto. The vehicle's use is not the cause of her injuries, instead the cause was her failure to prevent the transmission of STDs by having unprotected sex. The umbrella policy also does not provide coverage, because it only applies if the auto policy provides coverage.
The court has not yet answered the substantive question, but there are many procedural questions to answer before the court can handle the substantive question. Those questions include whether M.O. and M.B. engaged in a collusive arbitration of their dispute to pursue insurance proceeds and extra-contractual money from GEICO, whether M.O. is subject to jurisdiction in Kansas, and, most interestingly, the anonymity.
In regards to the anonymity, the court agrees with GEICO and relies on precedent from the Tenth Circuit. In the memo, the court recognized that many people would prefer to keep details of their sex lives private, but the risk that a party may suffer embarrassment by being named in the pleadings is not enough to allow them to proceed anonymously. "In general, parties who assert damage claim should expect some level of public exposure in employing the courts to resolve their disputes." The request for anonymity was denied on October 4th, with Justice Angel Mitchell noting that the public's interest outweighs the potential embarrassment either M.O. or M.B. may experience.
The parties may proceed anonymously until the court decides on M.O.'s motion to dismiss GEICO's declaratory judgment for lack of jurisdiction.
Editor's Note: The opinion details the public interest of knowing the identities of the two parties as follows:
"[c]ourts recognize the public's general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents. This includes a public interest in knowing the litigants' identities. . . . This case is now an insurance coverage dispute where the auto and umbrella coverage policies at issue appear to be like many others. And this case presents novel and potentially important issues about whether an insurance carrier can be held liable under such policies for the consequences of two adults voluntarily having unprotected sex in the insured's automobile. Interpretation of these policies could have far-reaching implications for other policies with similar terms. Furthermore, if the policies provide coverage, the details of their sex lives could bear on relevant issues like causation and the extent of M.O.'s damages."