M.O. v. GEICO Insurance Company and Government Employees Insurance Company

Kansas City, Missouri insurance law lawyer represented Plaintiff, who sued Defendant seeking confirmation of an arbitration award in her favor.



In November of 2017, M.O. and Insured began a romantic relationship. Effective at that

time was an automobile insurance policy issued by GEICO to Insured.



On February 25, 2021, M.O. submitted to GEICO a copy of a petition she intended to file

against Insured, and made a final settlement offer to resolve her "claims against [Insured] for the

applicable limits of $1m.”2 The petition attached to the settlement offer alleged that during

"November and early December of 2017,” Insured and M.O. engaged in unprotected sexual

activities in Insured's vehicle, and during those sexual encounters, Insured "negligently caused or

contributed to cause [M.O.] to be infected with HPV by not taking proper precautions and

neglecting to inform and/or disclose his diagnosis,” despite "having knowledge of his condition.”



M.O. alleged that as a result of Insured's negligence, she incurred, and will incur, "past and future

medical expenses,” as well as "past and future mental and physical pain and suffering.” On April

7, 2021, GEICO denied coverage and refused M.O.'s settlement offer. GEICO also initiated a

declaratory judgment action in federal court to establish the parties' rights and obligations under

the insurance policy.



Meanwhile, on March 11, 2021, M.O. and Insured entered into a Contract to Limit

Recovery to Specified Assets and Arbitration Agreement Pursuant to Section 537.065 RSMo ("065

Agreement”).3 On May 17, 2021, M.O. and Insured arbitrated M.O.'s claims, and the arbitrator

thereafter issued his "Findings, Conclusions, and Award.”



The award first described procedural aspects of the arbitration proceeding, including that:

(1) Prior to the arbitration, Insured submitted an Arbitration Statement detailing his defense; (2)

Both parties presented opening statements at the arbitration; (3) Insured was given the opportunity

to cross-examine M.O.'s witnesses and elicit testimony for Insured's defense; (4) Insured

submitted as exhibits three internet articles discussing HPV; (5) M.O. requested an award of $9.9

million in damages in her closing argument; and (6) In his closing argument, Insured disputed that

he was aware he could transmit HPV to M.O., M.O. received HPV from him, he had a duty to

disclose such diagnosis to M.O., and the amount of damages.



As to his substantive findings, the arbitrator determined that: (1) "there was sexual activity

in [Insured's] automobile in November/December of 2017 which occurred in Jackson County,

Missouri”; (2) the sexual activity in Insured's vehicle "directly caused, or directly contributed to

cause, M.O. to be infected with HPV”; (3) Insured knew he had "been told that his throat cancer

tumor was diagnosed as HPV positive”; (4) Insured should have disclosed his diagnosis to M.O.

prior to the sexual activity that occurred, but he did not; and (5) Insured "was negligent and is

liable for causing M.O. to contract HPV.” The arbitrator found that "an amount that would fairly

and justly compensate Plaintiff, M.O., for all of her damages and injuries is $5,200,000,” and

entered an award in that amount "in favor of Plaintiff M.O. and against the Defendant [Insured].”

On May 24, 2021, M.O. provided written notice to GEICO that she and Insured had entered

into an agreement pursuant to section 537.065. The following day, M.O. initiated this action by

filing her Petition for Damages in the trial court.4 On June 10, 2021, GEICO discovered the

existence of this lawsuit by monitoring Case.net (Missouri state courts' automated case

management system). On June 18th, GEICO filed a motion to intervene.



On June 22nd, M.O. filed a response to GEICO's motion to intervene and a motion to

confirm the arbitration award. In her motion to confirm the award, M.O. asserted she and Insured

had agreed "that after an arbitration award is issued, [M.O.] will immediately seek to have the

award confirmed . . . and reduced to judgment . . . and that neither party will seek judicial review

of the award or attempt to have the award set aside, modified, amended or changed in any way

unless by express written agreement of each party.” On June 29th, GEICO filed a reply in support

of its motion to intervene. On July 2nd, the trial court granted M.O.'s motion to confirm the

arbitration award and entered judgment in favor of M.O. and against Insured in the amount of

$5,200,000. The trial court adopted and incorporated the findings and conclusions of the arbitration

award, and stated the award was attached to the judgment as Exhibit A. No exhibit was attached

to the judgment. Also on July 2nd, after entering judgment, the trial court entered an order granting

GEICO's motion to intervene.



On July 30th, GEICO filed a motion for leave to conduct discovery, a motion for new trial,

and a motion to vacate the arbitration award. In the latter two motions, GEICO asserted that the

arbitration award and judgment confirming it should be vacated because the award "was procured

by collusion, fraud, [and] undue means,” it was "contrary to public policy and §§ 537.065 and

435.350,” it was the result of an invalid and unenforceable arbitration agreement, and it violated

GEICO's due process rights and right to access the courts. The parties submitted additional

briefing on GEICO's motions. On September 8, 2021, the trial court summarily denied all of the

motions and entered a "Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc,” attaching the arbitration award that was

inadvertently omitted from the original judgment.



GEICO appeals, asserting three claims of error relating to the trial court's confirmation of

the arbitration award—specifically, to the timing of the trial court's confirmation.5 GEICO asserts

that by confirming the arbitration award without giving GEICO a meaningful opportunity to

defend its interests and develop facts and arguments pre-judgment, the trial court acted in

contravention of section 537.065 and Rule 52.12 (Point I), section 435.405 (Point II), and state

and federal constitutional provisions guaranteeing due process and access to the courts (Point III)

Arbitration award of $5.2 million affirmed.