A Woman Collects $5 Million in Insurance After Contracting an STD in Her Partner's Car

A Woman Collects $5 Million in Insurance After Contracting an STD in Her Partner's Car

An unusual insurance payout case occurred in the United States, involving an infection contracted after having sex in a car.

A Missouri resident received a $5.2 million settlement from her ex-boyfriend's insurance company. The payout was based on her claim in court, where she stated that she contracted a sexually transmitted disease from him after having sex in his car.

After five years of litigation and disputes, the Missouri Court of Appeals upheld an earlier arbitration court decision, which ruled that the insurance company covering the car of the woman's ex-partner must pay this significant compensation, according to the Daily Mail.

Details of the case revealed that the woman contracted the human papillomavirus (HPV). She and her ex-boyfriend had been in a relationship since 2017, and according to the woman, her partner knew he had been diagnosed with the virus but continued to have unprotected sex.

It's not entirely clear why the virus transmission was specifically linked to having sex in the man's car, a 2014 Hyundai Genesis. However, the court found it reasonable to resolve the case at the expense of the insurance company.

"Typically, passenger injuries result from a collision, a slammed door on the fingers, etc. But while an STD claim from an insured driver may be considered the first of its kind, this decision shows that it wouldn't be difficult for someone to file a claim against an insurance company for any action committed in a vehicle," the woman's lawyer said in an interview with the newspaper.

The insurance company filed a motion to overturn the decision, but the appeal was denied. "I imagine they already have an army of lawyers reviewing their contracts and looking for ways to avoid similar claims in the future," the woman's lawyer added, noting that this insurance case could have an impact on similar cases in the United States.

This case sets a precedent that could influence future claims, potentially broadening the scope of what can be considered a valid insurance claim. It could have a wider impact on the insurance industry, with companies likely to resist their policies to prevent similar outcomes from happening.