Hard Stop: 8th Circuit Upholds Finding Car Sex Related Injury Not Covered Under Driver's Insurance Policy.

On August 2, 2024, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a highly anticipated decision upheld a US District Court for the Western District of Missouri’s decision denying coverage for bodily injuries stemming from HPV transmitted during sexual activity in an insured vehicle.

The Plaintiff was a Missouri woman identified in court documents as M.O., who claimed she had unprotected sex with her partner in his insured vehicle at least once in late 2017. According to records, M.O. claimed her partner was aware he had the human papillomavirus (HPV) but neglected to warn her or to take precautions to prevent her contracting the STD.

In February 2021, M.O. filed a $1,000,000 claim against GEICO Insurance for injuries stemming from HPV related complications. She argued the language of the GEICO policy was so broadly worded that her injuries fell under the bodily injury provisions. Under Kansas law, where the policy was issued, ambiguities in policy language are to be constructed most favorably to the insured. Nevertheless, GEICO denied the claim.

Meanwhile, in March 2021, M.O. and the insured agreed to arbitration and entered into a Contract to Limit Recovery to Specified Assets and Arbitration Agreement Pursuant to Section 537.065 RSMo, also known as an “065 Agreement.” M.O. was awarded $5,200,000 by a Missouri arbitrator who found the policy holder acted negligently. M.O. filed an application to confirm the arbitration in Missouri state court and GEICO sought to intervene but was denied.

The trial court granted M.O.’s motion to confirm and GEICO appealed. In 2023, the Missouri Supreme Court found GEICO had a right to intervene before judgment pursuant to the 065 Agreement and ruled unanimously to vacate the award and remand the case. At that time, the case gained widespread notoriety for the unique and salacious nature of the claim and unusually high award at issue.

Following the denial of M.O.’s $1,00,000 claim, GEICO filed a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court of Kansas. After the case was transferred to the Western District of Missouri, GEICO filed for summary judgment. The District Court granted GEICO’s motion finding the policy required injuries to arise out of the “use” of the automobile and that sexual activity was not “using” the automobile under Kansas insurance law.

M.O. appealed that decision and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on the case in June of this year. GEICO argued the policy should only apply when using the auto for vehicular purposes, and that even if it were foreseeable that people may have sex in a car it did not mean such use is an appropriate use that should be covered by insurance. GEICO further argued an award to M.O. under the policy would transform an automobile policy into a general liability policy without restriction.

The 8th Circuit agreed with GEICO finding no causal relationship between the injury and the use of the vehicle under the policy. In its August 2 Order upholding the grant of summary judgment for GEICO, the 8th Circuit stated:

No causal relationship exists between [the insured] and M.O.’s decision to shelter in an automobile for a sexual encounter as opposed to choosing to shelter in a house, or not shelter at all […] Thus, it cannot be said that [the insured’s] negligent transmission of HPV to M.O. arose out of the use of the automobile.

The 8th Circuit also rejected M.O.’s argument that the policy language should be interpreted in her favor, stating: “under Kansas law, we “determin[e] the intention of the parties to an insurance policy” by considering “what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would understand [the policy] to mean.” The Court found, that as written, the policy did not present an ambiguity and that a reasonable person in the position of the insured “would not believe that his automobile insurance covers any bodily injury for which he becomes liable.” As such, the Court upheld the District Court’s decision in rejecting coverage and granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer, GEICO.