STDs and the “reasonable use” of vehicles

A lawsuit in Missouri is attempting to frame sex in a vehicle as a “reasonable use” of the vehicle. The lawsuit aims to allow the plaintiff to collect money from the vehicle’s insurer, Geico, because she contracted a sexually transmitted disease, STD, while having sex in the vehicle. The plaintiff claims the defendant was negligent in failing to warn her he had the STD and in failing to take precautionary measures to prevent infecting her. Geico’s position is sex in a vehicle is not a normal use of the vehicle, therefore her injury is not covered.

If the court rules in plaintiff’s favor, will it open insurers up to liability for anyone who contracts a disease while in a vehicle? Reflect back on the COVID pandemic, for example - is that a situation in which insurers will agree to liability? The outcome, as always, will probably come down to money. If the plaintiff wins, auto insurance policies may start specifically excluding communicable diseases from coverage and/or insurance premiums will go up.

At the trial court level, Geico won, and the injured party has now appealed. At issue is the text of the insurance policy. The text of the policy covers “bodily injury to a person, including resulting sickness, disease or death” which occur during “the use” of the vehicle. The trial court conceded sex has occurred in cars since cars were invented. However, in ruling for Geico the court ruled sex in a vehicle is only a mere “foreseeability” and not a “use of the vehicle” as it is defined in the policy. The trial court also stated that to accept the plaintiff’s argument will open insurers to claims “which have no relationship to the use of an auto as an auto.”

A case cited by the trial court to contrast the plaintiff’s claim concerned a vehicle occupant being injured when a firearm was accidentally discharged in the vehicle. The court in that case ruled the person was entitled to insurance coverage because there was a sufficient connection between the firearm and the vehicle as the people in the vehicle were driving to go hunting. In the present case, the vehicle was not being used in its normal usage of transportation.

During the COVID epidemic there were numerous government warnings regarding contracting COVID in the cramped confines of a motor vehicle. If the plaintiff wins her appeal, contracting and then suing for coverage of diseases like that seems a realistic scenario.

Lastly, the suit claims the party who transmitted the STD knew they had it and failed to inform the receiver of it. In many states, having sex without informing your partner you have an STD constitutes assault. The basis for that is, if the other party did not know they are at risk of receiving an STD their consent to have sexual relations was achieved through fraud, therefore the sex was not consensual. In the civil side, assault is an intentional tort. Most insurance policies exclude intentional torts from coverage, and this Geico policy most likely did not cover it either. That is probably why the suit was only for negligence and not assault.

This court decision will not just set legal rules, it will set financial rules. If the court sides with the plaintiff expect insurers to react by specifically excluding STDs, and potentially other diseases, and/or raising premiums.

If you have questions about this article, contact Todd Knode (tknode@setlifflaw.com) at 804-377-1277 or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at 804-377-1261.