She might avoid anonymity if she can win on the argument that she shouldn’t be a defendant in the case. Possible, but I don’t think she wins it since she’s trying to collect a Missouri arbitration award against a Kansas-issued policy, even if the purported act that gave rise to her getting infected happened to occur in Missouri. Oh, and there’s the question of whether they colluded on the arbitration award in some way, given the timelines of how that went down. He’s getting his name released before all is said and done. If they have online profiles, this might be a really, really good time to scrub those from existence.
I understand that coverage would extend to him for acts committed in another state. I didn’t think that was in question. The question here is whether she has to defend herself against the insurer when the (mostly) primary issue is the contractual relationship between him and the insurer. The fact that we’re talking about an award in one state - presumably based on the notion that the act that got her infected took place in that state - that’s expect to apply to a policy in another state is what gives the federal courts jurisdiction.
Well, there’s other questions involved but for her purposes of trying to get dropped as a defendant that’s her concern.
She doesn’t have to “defend” . . . she’s acting in the role of plaintiff. And I don’t see how she has standing in that capacity since she’s claiming (implicitly) money due to a contract to which she is not a party.
I think we all agree that the insurance contract is between the insurer (GEICO) and the defendant of the Missouri arbitration (insured). And GEICO is likely to claim that the insured violated the contract by engaging in the arbitration without proper (actually, ANY) notification to the insurer about the incident. So contractually, GEICO doesn’t have to pay out anything.
However, what I see taking place: payments from GEICO under the Medical Payments coverage. Possibly some additional money paid under BI to cover medical costs for this third party.
Then the customer will likely have their policy non-renewed.
I don’t think this is quite accurate . . . at least, it’s misleading.
The “suit” is GEICO seeking “a declaratory judgment to determine GEICO’s rights and
obligations for its insured”. That is, it’s not seeking anything in particular FROM the defendants.
If GEICO is the plaintiff and M.B. and M.O. are the named defendants, and from the piece you quoted:
Seems pretty clear to me that in the situation I’m referencing, she’s a defendant in GEICO’s claim when the court explicitly states as much.
Avoiding the lengthy discussion of what GEICO is trying to get at and why (I’ve got a meeting in 30 minutes and then a write-up due tomorrow), that’s important becuase the point I was making, which I think you lost along the way, is that she’s trying to stay anonymous for fear of damage to her public reputation and such (all of you, hold your snark on this for a bit). The court is saying “sorry, your name has to get published” and her only way to avoid having her name disclosed is to get the court to rule that she shouldn’t be a defendant in GEICO’s claim.
The takeaway here: when Geico denied coverage, it effectively waived its right to defend the insured against a claim that later attached.
I’d have to go back and understand the logic that let an arbitration award attach to Geico’s coverage, but once that’s established I think the rest (largely) follows.
The following is a terrible claim, but its magnitude makes it unusual.
Many of the facts of the case seem to not be in dispute. A cable company employee in Texas worked a service call at an elderly woman’s house. He returned on his day off while wearing his company uniform, and robbed and killed the woman.
He was arrested, pleaded guilty to the murder, and was sentenced to life in prison.
The woman’s family sued the cable company.
How much of the liability can be assigned to the murderer, Roy Holden, and how much can be assigned to the Cable company?
Well, a Texas jury put a number on the case, and the number is staggering.
Seems pretty clear to me that in the situation I’m referencing, she’s a defendant in GEICO’s claim when the court explicitly states as much.