Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Court Pulls Insurance Award In Sex Accident Claim

Posted by samzenpus on from the look-before-you-leap dept.

JamJam writes "The Supreme Court of Canada has taken away a $200,000 insurance award made to a Vancouver man who became paralyzed after a series of medical calamities arising from him having unprotected sex. The man was 'accidentally' infected with genital herpes which lead to him being totally paralyzed from his mid-abdomen down. The Supreme Court deemed this a non-accident since the man was was aware that having unprotected sex could result in him contracting a sexually transmitted disease, although he did not actually know that any of the women had genital herpes."

9 comments

  1. And in other news... by Duradin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This just in, crossing the street can lead to being struck by a moving vehicle. Insurance companies are no longer liable to pay accident victims because they now know crossing the street can be dangerous.

    1. Re:And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If he had health insurance, then yes I would agree with you. But all he had was accidental insurance, not health insurance. As TFA states, it may have been unexpected, but not as one would reasonably assume an "accident". One could die while watching TV at home, but no one would reasonably call that an accident. A tragedy, sure. Accident, no. The court warns that insurance companies can't use it as a "carte blanche" to deny coverage, but reminds that "The burden of proof however, remains squarely with the plaintiff. If he or she fails to establish on a balance of probabilities that the bodily injury resulted from an accident, the claim will fail..." So if someone gets hit by a bus, breaks their leg due to the accident, and contracts gangreen because of the wound, treatment of the gangreen would be covered. Someone becoming paralyzed due to a sexually transmitted disease without being forced to perform the act (i.e. rape) wouldn't be unless they had health coverage.

    2. Re:And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone becoming paralyzed due to a sexually transmitted disease without being forced to perform the act (i.e. rape) wouldn't be unless they had health coverage.

      So someone slipping in the bathtub wouldn't be protected either, since they were not forced to take a bath... Remember, it's not an accident, unless someone forces you to do it...

    3. Re:And in other news... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Read the article. The issue is that an accident policy is not a health policy. Crossing the street can lead to being struck by a moving vehicle, as stated in the article, would be covered by the policy but an illness is not. They went to great lengths to state that the riskiness of the behaviour had no impact in their decision.

    4. Re:And in other news... by SailorSpork · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that insurance companies don't cover lung cancer treatment for smokers?

    5. Re:And in other news... by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Accident insurance, no. Health Insurance, yes. Getting cancer is not an accident it is an illness. They are different types of insurance and have different premiums.

    6. Re:And in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but according to the article, the policy covers "bodily injury occasioned solely through external, violent and accidental means. - Provided there was no negligence on his part."

      So there's 4 criteria that need to be met:

      External: I'd say yes. He didn't spontaneously develop herpes.
      Violent: I'd say no. Regardless of how rough the sex was, it was consensual.
      Accidental: I'd say no. He was intending to have sex (even if the consequences weren't intentional)
      Negligence: Hell yes! If you don't know if (s)he has anything, you'd bet your ass you should use protection.

      In other words, he failed 75% of the criteria for a claim.

  2. Typical Inflamitory Slashdot Story. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

    1. The picture in the story does not relate to the story at all. The illness the man has is in is spinal cord and would not require the bandaging as seen in the picture.
    2. The summary states "The Supreme Court deemed this a non-accident since the man was was aware that having unprotected sex could result in him contracting a sexually transmitted disease, although he did not actually know that any of the women had genital herpes" even though the article states "He noted that neither the Court nor the insurance company was placing any emphasis on the fact that Mr. Gibbens engaged in unprotected sex."

    This is a simple case of an accident policy not covering illness.

    1. Re:Typical Inflamitory Slashdot Story. by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      The picture in the story does not relate to the story at all.

      You must be new here.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?