$2
Insurance Defense
Case results reflect publicly available information reported by the listed law firms. They are not results obtained by ThatCarHitMe.com. Every case is unique and must be evaluated on its own facts. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. The results shown are not necessarily representative of all results obtained by these firms. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
Case Details
In Myers v. GEICO, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment in favor of GEICO, ruling that an insurer could rely on extrinsic evidence to determine if someone was an insured, even if the complaint alleged permission. This allowed GEICO to deny defense to Tatiana Chapman, who drove an insured vehicle without permission and caused an accident. The plaintiff had obtained a $1.5 million consent judgment against Chapman after GEICO tendered the policy's $15,000 limit for the permissive user. The firm handled this case for GEICO.
Additional Notes
The District Court's ruling was a case of first impression, establishing that insurers can use extrinsic evidence to determine insured status, a significant win for insurance defense.
Represented By