Appeals denied on all aspects = 5.2 million payout.  

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

Simply the results of:

Dumbing down;
UL, DFI, FDS Teachers;
Progressives teaching Socialism;
Everyone receiving a Trophy;
   (just for showing up)
NOBODY, is responsible, for their own actions;
(According to the UL, FDI, FDS, Socialists)

A cop, doing what he is taught to do,
to a Combative, Known, Felon,
get’s 22 years in Solitary.

A Fast tracked cop,
who gets, ’SPECIAL’, treatment.
Kills a unarmed person in her PJ’s,
IN COLD BLOOD
get’s 4.5 years in a ‘Country Club’ prison.

So NO SURPRISE,
A Company, that insured a car,
the driver etc/etc.
Is now to cover a DFI.

Now,
one cannot spill hot coffee,
and get gobs of money.
Cause the cup now says, ‘HOT”.

Wonder when someone will SUE,
because a drink is not ‘COLD’ enough.
Because the cup does not say:
"Warning, contents can be Luke warm"

Ah, not to worry,
the UL, DFI, FDS progressive, Socialists,
will take care of it.

 As far as I am concerned I don't think anyone here would say No to 5.2 Million paid to them by a car insurance company if they got HPV.  

 To be fair the McDonalds hot coffee cup was not what most of "the media" reported.

 Liebeck sued for 20,000 the cost of her 10,500 medical expenses, the anticipated future quote and $5000 for her daughter who lost wages taking care of her. McDonalds offered $800 and basically told them to screw-off.

 When a cup of coffee puts a customer in a burn ward requiring skin grafts and you already had more than 700 reports of serious burns, maybe you should cough up the medical expenses.  Hot coffee melting clothing to skin is not just typical hot coffee, that's an unsafe level of heat.

 McDonald's ego is what cost them all that money, not the gimmie gimmie attitude of the customer.  But when did facts ever matter here?

What’s the statute of limitation for STD in a car? Any chance it’s 45 years?  …..asking for a friend

WebsterMark wrote on 06/09/22 at 04:06:16:

 MO Supreme Court rightfully vacates the ruling and remands this case to lower court.

https://www.courts.mo.gov/file.jsp?id=191589


 Basically they secured judgement against Geico before the allotted timeframe for Geico to respond.

"The plain language of § 537.065.2 confers a statutory right to GEICO, as the insurer, to intervene within 30 days after notice of an agreement between M.O. and M.B., before a judgment may be entered. The circuit court did not allow GEICO to intervene in the pending lawsuit before judgment was entered, even though GEICO had timely filed a motion to intervene in the pending lawsuit, prior to entry of judgment, and within 30 days of notice.

 I agree with Geico's assessment that intercourse is not a "normal use" or what I would say, intended use, of a car.  Insurance should cover activities that vehicles are designed for.  If I park a car and somebody breaks their ankle while dancing on top of my car, I, nor my insurance company should be liable since cars are not intended for dancing on.