Decision issued on Geico having to pay a woman $5 million after she got an STD in a car

Judge's gavel.
Judge's gavel. Photo credit Getty Images

A judge has ruled that Geico does not have to pay a Missouri woman $5.2 million despite her claims that she contracted a sexually transmitted disease while inside a car insured by the company.

The case made its way to the Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday, which ruled unanimously to overturn a ruling from a lower court that sided with the woman being paid by the company.

The woman in the case is identified in court documents as “M.O.” She claims that while having sex in 2017 with a male partner inside his 2015 Hyundai Genesis, she contracted human papillomavirus (HPV).

A complaint from 2021 claims the car was covered by a Geico insurance plan at the time the two had sex. It also says that because the man knew he had the disease and didn't tell her, he and his insurance were liable.

She says that the incident has left her with “past and future medical expenses” and “mental and physical pain and suffering,” being that HPV can cause cervical cancer and result in other issues.

Four years after the woman contracted the virus, in February 2021, she alerted the insurance company that she was pursuing legal action against the man and asking for $1 million.

According to the complaint, she claimed the car insurance policy should cover her injuries and financial troubles, being that the virus was contracted in the car.

However, Geico did not accept the settlement offer, saying that the car was not in its typical use when she contracted HPV, the documents say.

This then sent the woman and man into arbitration, where it was decided the man had been negligent when he infected her and that she was owed $5.2 million, to be paid by Geico.

Geico requested to intervene in the case, but an appeals court denied the motion, until the latest ruling said the company was entitled to intervene.

Because Geico wasn’t allowed to intervene before a judgment was passed down, the state's high court ruled that the earlier ruling should be vacated and sent back to the court.

Featured Image Photo Credit: Getty Images