I saw that on my local news site, 🙄 Wouldn't you think she'd be too embarrassed to openly discuss her "activities" in public? And then there's always the fact that she did it in a car rather than finding more comfortable lodgings somewhere. But I think she's probably a pro...and got caught in an expensive predicament.

I don't get how she proved the "incident" occurred in the car. Did she have, like, video evidence of this occurring in there rather than with some other gentleman in some other location?

Great question, Beagles.

What a ridiculous case. But it did make me think of a great Seinfeld episode (skip to around the 1:50 mark):

“My boyfriend said I got gonorrhea from riding a tractor in my bathing suit.”

I want to know who pays the judge who didn't thrown this out on it's ear!!! This is ridiculous from start to finish.

I saw it on FB posted by NPR amd thought at first that I was looking at The Onion😂

So if they were at the Motel 6, or the Hyatt, the hotel’s insurance would have to pay? Since one assumes that part of your room rate goes toward insurance?

What is this world coming to?!

So if this had happened in his house would she sue the homeowners insurance company?

And people can't get medical procedures their doctors order paid for from their health insurance cimpanies?

The problem with how widespread and numerous frivolous lawsuits are arises from our legal system. This is yet one more significant area where the US is out of step with most of the rest of the world by having an approach few find more desirable because of the consequences.

In much of the world, the prevailing party in a legal action is entitled to reimbursement from the losing party for its costs (including legal costs). In the US, it's gambling. Lawyers take on cases with even a slight chance of success because while they're paid nothing without an award, they get a large percentage of both out of court settlements and in-court award on a contingency, a large percentage of what their client gets. So-called personal injury lawyers invest some time and over a number of cases, even a low success rate produces a very successful legal business because contingent fees can be quite high.

Outside the US, speculative cases or those with a low likelihood of success don't lead to lawsuits to the same extent because of the loser's liability to pay for its own costs AND the costs of the winning party.

There’s a discussion on Reddit, it’s a little unclear to me who is speaking with knowledge and who is making speculation, but it sounds like GEICO screwed up in their (since adjusted) wording of the contract, as well as their handling of the case starting from when an initial settlement offer came in.

Here’s the appeals court decision, should anyone want to wade through it and try to make sense of it.

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

To Elmer’s point, these lawyer are looking for gaps in policy language and any opportunity for coverage.

Another difference 1929 is that tort/injury suits in the US are heard by juries. Abroad, as in the UK, such cases are often decided by judges. Juries are easier to bamboozle.

The standard of proof required in civil cases is usually "preponderance of the evidence", which translates to a low bar of only a greater than 50 percent likelihood. In criminal cases, by comparision, the standard is much higher, beyond a reasonable doubt. A lawyer can take a fact pattern likely to elicit empathy in others, spin a tale to nudge the jury members past a 50 percent likelihood, and land a winning case. Fortunately, appeals are decided by judges and are often pruned back or overturned.

Some years ago there was a presidential contender, I think it was John Edwards, who found a niche suing doctors for malpractice in cases of babies born with cerebral palsy. He handled other cases too, but all as an ambulance chasing injury lawyer working for contingent fees.

As I recall it, he found an expert willing to testify that the use of a forceps during delivery caused cerebral palsy, an allegation that had no proof in medicine and was untrue. I think that stat at the time was that something like 10 percent of all deliveries involved the use of forceps. So it was a simple matter, while cerebral palsy was not a common affliction for children, it was common enough that 10% of that population represented a gold mine opportunity for him. All it took was for him to have the child in court to make an impression on jurors, have his "expert" testify, and multi-million dollar awards were given by tearful juries. He'd earned so much money that he retired from practicing law in his 40s, I believe. No more scandalous than this case or so many others but scandalous all the same.

The spate of ridiculously huge medical malpractice awards during this time, I think the 70s and 80s, first caused insurance rates to skyrocket but later led to legislation in most states that now limit such injury awards.

^ and one of the consequences of such jury verdicts, that are decided on emotional plays and often loose correlation, is that then the general public becomes convinced that X product or procedure was "proven" to cause this or that, when in fact there is not any solid proof at all.