Rando v. Government Employees Ins. Co.

**What Happened** Rando, an employee of Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), had a dispute over his insurance policy benefits. The case centered on a specific clause in the policy called an "anti-stacking provision," which limits how much insurance coverage a person can collect when they have multiple policies. Rando argued this limitation was unfair and shouldn't apply to his situation. **What the Court Decided** The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Rando. The court found that GEICO's anti-stacking provision couldn't be enforced because the company failed to properly inform Rando about what he was agreeing to when he signed up for coverage. Under Florida law, insurance companies must meet specific "informed consent" requirements when including these types of limitations in policies. Since GEICO didn't do this properly, the court threw out the lower court's decision that favored GEICO and sent the case back for further review. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling protects workers by requiring employers and insurance companies to clearly explain policy limitations before employees agree to them. Workers can't be held to restrictive insurance terms if they weren't properly informed about what those terms meant when they enrolled.