Geico Car Insurance Hit with AFFIRMED $5.2M Judgement for Adult Activity in Car That Led to Unfavorable Medical Outcome

[jcgriff2]

This could only happen in the United States of America, the most litigious country in the world. :0

I'm sure further appeals (and motions?) will be forthcoming.

The latest update (an appeal) conducted by: THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT

​

Conclusion: The Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc¹ is affirmed.

_________________________________________
¹Nunc Pro Tunc = adj.
Nunc Pro Tunc is Latin for "now for then," this refers to changing back to an earlier date of an order, judgment or filing of a document.

Geico apparently treated the [plaintiff] woman's claim more as a bad joke instead of/rather than a potentially serious case for which Geico may be monetarily liable. Once the woman obtained a judgment, Geico then took things much more seriously, but since Geico basically "blew the plaintiff off as well as her claim many months earlier, Geico never bothered to investigate plaintiff's claim and simply sent plaintiff a "claim denied" letter figuring the matter was over. But it was not.

The plaintiff pushed on and ultimately ended up with a $5.2 Million judgment against Geico.

Now because of the $5.2M judgment, Geico of course wanted to go back to the beginning (Nunc Pro Tunc). This appellate court said NO - you had your chance.


LAST PAGE (in the URL below the following): THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT (final court case. . . for now, anyway.)

​

​

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=187183

https://www.kansascity.com/news/article262267902.html

Why a Missouri couple’s car sex may have Geico on the hook for $5.2 million


As the Michigan Lawyer says in the YouTube video above, I too would bet that every car insurance company in America is in the IMMEDIATE process of thoroughly reviewing, rewriting, and editing all insurance policies Geico has underwritten in addition to taking a real good look at the competitions policies for any indication of what else may be coming down the pike looking for new inventive ways to try and stop those that "sue for a living". It is certainly a lucrative business to be in - especially in The United States of America!!

I must admit that I doubt that I ever would have thought of the grounds cited in this one as a reason to sue.

The only advice that I can offer -- keep your active imaginations up as you never know when your totally innocent actions could lead to a huge payday!

John




`

 

[Digerati]

This could only happen in the United States of America, the most litigious country in the world. :0

10 MOST LITIGIOUS COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD

When you think about the 10 most litigious countries in the world, many people would immediately think of the United States of America (US). However, the Land of the Free only comes in at number 5. Germany is the top nation in the world for litigious behaviour. Sweden comes in at number 2, Israel is at number 3, and Austria number 4. The field is rounded out in this order: The United Kingdom (UK) at number 6; Denmark at number 7; Hungary number 8; Portugal at number 9; and France at number 10.

 

[Will]

10 MOST LITIGIOUS COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD

I wonder how that breaks down by litigation type, or at least claim amount.

I believe in the UK there's no concept of "punitive damages" in most cases, so whilst it's relatively easy to go to small claims court to take your landlord to task over £500 - we don't really have anyone going to court asking for £100 million in a personal claim.

If you're a business or person that has genuinely suffered a £100m loss then that would still happen - but the court awards afaik mostly based on the actual direct loss to you.

Insurance claims are probably a decent chunk of litigation though - your insurance provider may go to court against another insurance provider on your behalf to try and settle a claim you've made. But a normal persons judgement would typically be in the £1000-10,000 range (e.g. the cost of repairing your car / writing off the vehicle) rather than hundreds of thousands or millions.

 

[Corday]

I believe in the UK there's no concept of "punitive damages" in most cases.

Wish that were true here (USA). Juries that can't balance a checkbook make decisions that IMO have too many zeroes in their awards. Class action suits get pennies for plaintiffs and mucho dinero for the law firms.

 

[Wrench97]

Wish that were true here (USA). Juries that can't balance a checkbook make decisions that IMO have too many zeroes in their awards. Class action suits get pennies for plaintiffs and mucho dinero for the law firms.

Kind of like the Keurig K cup 10M award because the cups were not recyclable unless you wash them out first.............you can get $5 settlement check out of it or up to $36 if you have all your receipts.

Keurig ‘recyclable’ K-Cups false advertising $10M class action settlement

 

[Will]

Class action lawsuits seem to always have tiny payouts regardless of the country - there was one last year that I might have been eligible to join, based on a data breach (although I didn't get the impression it was that likely to succeed), and even if they'd won the estimated payout for the majority would have been a couple of $.

 

[Digerati]

Keurig Dr Pepper today is worth (depending where you look) over $50 billion with over $2 billion in profits (thus far) for 2022. Therefore, a $10 million settlement is chump-change. It will probably cost them more just to administer the payout program.

Clearly, in this case, the settlement was not meant to punish, but to appease some, but I think more significantly, to send a message to other companies. And when it comes to class action lawsuits and punitive damages, I am 100% okay with that.

But with many companies, they need incentives to "stop" their anti-consumer ways instead of simply accepting settlement payouts as part of doing business. It seems some companies feel empowered, encouraged, or at least safe to do thing the wrong way in the name of higher profits. Volkswagen comes to mind.

[Rant on]

That said, I think the Keurig case is a bit of a sham, most likely brought on by shysters and ambulance chasers because in this case, I think this was a simple and innocent marketing mistake - or not even a mistake (because the materials are 100% recyclable) but a marketing oversight, or something "lost in translation" when the verbiage got printed on the packaging.

There is nothing in the suit, as far as I can find, about consumers expected to rinse out the cups first. The issue is about the size of the cups being too small for "some" recycling programs to deal with - physically, contractually, cost-effectively or otherwise. They can indeed be recycled. It just is not economically feasible to do so. So many localities don't. And that's the issue.

FTR, the mandated recycling program's guide in my town says, "Please rinse bottles, cans, jugs and cartons before recycling." And why wouldn't I? I don't take my recycling waste outside to the tub every day. If I don't rinse out my milk and food containers first, my house will surely start to stink and likely soon be infested with ants and who knows what?

"IF" the plaintiffs had evidence Keurig knew many recycling programs would not take the used cups and "IF" they had evidence Keurig knew the wording on their products was misleading but intentionally did nothing about it in order to deceive consumers, then, no doubt the settlement would have been much higher - and rightfully so, IMO.

To go further, "IF" the cups were made of plastics widely known to be unrecyclable (blister plastics made with polycarbonate, for example), and Keurig marketed them as recyclable anyway, then the settlement would have been much higher. And if that was the case, even if Keurig didn't know that plastic was not recyclable, they should have. But if Keurig did know, and marketed them as recyclable anyway, then that might even have been criminal - with fines and penalties piled on top. But none of that appears to have happened here - hence the chump-change settlement.

I am glad it is easy to sue here in the US. That is what allowed me to sue the previous [slum lord] owner of the apartments behind me when, instead of fixing his water run-off problem, he knocked a 2 foot hole in the curb of his parking lot. That allowed the rain from 5 1/2 acres of land above his apartments to come washing through my and my neighbor's properties. I won nearly $40K which just barely covered the cost of my new driveway and retaining walls replacing those washed out by the "redirected" water runoff.

Being able to sue is what allowed my sister to sue when the entire surgical team (surgeon, anesthesiologist, 2 nurses and 2 techs) went off to celebrate a successful hip-replacement surgery, leaving my brother-in-law alone on the operating table where he went into cardiac arrest. No one was there to see all the flashing lights or hear all the bells, alarms and whistles until the clean-up crew came in to clean the OR! His brain was without oxygen for more than 9 minutes. He never came out of his coma and my sister was forced to "pull the plug" 11 days later.

Did she sue and win? Yes, but... .

What we in the US, and likely everywhere need is better "regulation" because clearly, there no longer is any ethics in the legal profession. We need courts that will readily toss cases that have no merit (frivolous) and we need a system that weeds out (even punish) ambulance chasers and shysters - lawyers who seek out, fabricate and exaggerate issues (that are really non-issues) just to line their own pockets. And we need laws that protect and, when prudent, appropriately and proportionally compensate and award the common, but wronged citizen/victim.

Follow me here - for the record, doctors (and the entire healthcare industry) love and hate lawyers. Lawyers are the reason malpractice insurance is so necessary and so very expensive. But when the healthcare industry (with their deep pockets and armies of shysters) are the plaintiffs, they love the lawyers.

Same with governments. Let's not forget the largest block of law makers are lawyers. If your government allows citizens to sue their governments (that is NOT a given), odds are, any possible settlement will be capped and very limited.

To illustrate, my sister sued and easily won for "gross negligent malpractice" against the University of South Carolina at Charleston Medical Center, the surgeon and primarily, the anesthesiologist. Note, it is the anesthesiologist who ultimately has the responsibility for the patient while the patient is in the OR and under sedation. BUT, this was a "state" university medical center - a public hospital. And they made a law in that state (turns out, similar laws are in most states) that caps the state's liability. In South Carolina, it is just $1.5 million - regardless how egregious, preventable, negligent or even criminal the offense.

And in SC, the law also says with any such award, it is mandated that 50% goes to the spouse, and 50% is split among the children.

So my sister ended up with $750k and a dead husband of 35 years, and the 3 kids no longer had a dad. The medical center "admitted to no wrongdoing". Absolutely nothing happened to the surgeon. The anesthesiologist "stepped down" the next day and started his new job as Chief of Anesthesiology at a university medical center in another state the following Monday - with a sweet pay-raise too. How? Because the lawyers, paid handsomely by the university, ensured their clients were protected.

So will there ever be better rules, regulations (and ethics) in the legal profession? Of course not. Why? Because politicians are only there to get re-elected and to do that they need backing from big business to include the healthcare, big pharma, etc. And those conglomerate interests don't care about the little consumer - only profit.

FTR, it has been 20 years since my brother-in-law passed, and not a single thing (law, policy, rule, regulation, etc.) has changed to keep it from happening again.

And while Freedom of the Press makes all this public knowledge - and thus why it may seem to some the US and Americans are the nastiest people and country out there, make no mistake! The problem is everywhere. But sadly, just because in your country you may have the freedom to sue when done wrong, that in no way ensures a fair or just outcome. And clearly, much is unfair in the US. But the US is not the worst with some countries being 2, 5, 10 even 30+ times smaller in population, yet nearly or even more litigious. And in other countries, there is so much corruption, the little guy has no chance at all.

[Rant off]

 

[jcgriff2]

Kind of like the Keurig K cup 10M award because the cups were not recyclable unless you wash them out first.............you can get $5 settlement check out of it or up to $36 if you have all your receipts.

Keurig ‘recyclable’ K-Cups false advertising $10M class action settlement

Class action lawsuits seem to always have tiny payouts regardless of the country - there was one last year that I might have been eligible to join, based on a data breach (although I didn't get the impression it was that likely to succeed), and even if they'd won the estimated payout for the majority would have been a couple of $.

The other huge issue involving class action suits is that finding those eligible is often near impossible, so millions of those $1.32 checks never get claimed and of course, are never cashed. Even when a very low dollar-amount check makes it to the intended person, it often resembles junk mail and is often thrown away/never deposited.

Also, in cases like this one against Geico, there will likely be an appeal or two and a judge will end up reducing the final number considerably. However, an appellate judge could leave the amount as-is to send a strong message to society that the respect people and society once had for courts (and the law; procedures, etc...) needs to be reinstated. After all, this mess really is Geico's fault as they basically ignored it as it seems they considered it to be a "non-case".