Geico Corporation

Star Empty star Empty star Empty star Empty star
1.0 out of 5, based on 11 ratings and
61 reviews & complaints.
www.geico.com


Most Popular | Newest | More Options >
More filter options:
Misreading of California Law and Wrong Right of Way
Posted by on
This review is to the CEO of GEICO.

Your company claims policy is just plain wrong. It is ludicrous.

I am a 40 year long driver. Over that time I have been involved in a total of 4 accidents. To this time I have been adjudged by a jury or a claims adjuster never to have been at fault.

This is a current claim under policy number 4051-75-56-60.

Back in October, 2008, I was involved in a fender bender collision with a student driver at the San Bernardino Valley College campus. The scrape went virtually the full length of the your lady's car, only the front left bumper and quarter panel were damage on my car.

On a three pronged parking lot on the very east side of campus, I pulled out of my parking place which was perpendicular to the North-South orientation of the long direction of the parking lot. I was only the fourth space in from the corner on the right side exit. I backed out of the parking space, proceeded to the corner and to the intersection of the exit from the three pronged parking lot in approximately 15 seconds. This would be a backing up of about 22 feet, forward about 40 feet until the turn of the parking aisle, then forward about another 20 feet to the intersection. This was all accomplished at a speed of approximately 5 miles per hour, 7 feet per second.

In those last 20 feet before entering the intersection, I was continuously traveling at about 5 miles per hours, 7 feet per second with my eyes focused intensely on the center aisle of the parking lot. I was satisfied that not only was there no car in imminent threat of hitting me as I was about to enter the intersection and turn right out of the parking lot exit of about 3 car lengths to a pedestrian cross walk stop.

I slowed even further for the one last second look straight across head on at the left side exit from the parking lot to make sure I would not encumber or hit head on any one exiting from the opposite side of the parking lot. Then, I nearly completed my turn still at 5 miles per hour, 7 feet per second, while looking forward to the crosswalk rather immediately in front of my car. My SUV car was virtually parallel to the North exit direction of the parking lot two-to-three seconds later when it was struck by the female driver in a small foreign sedan.

The first statement out of Tricia's mouth was, "I thought you were stopped." It is not known how Tricia perceived that my car was stopped. But if she saw the taillights it was incumbent upon her to stop her car leaving her totally at fault. If she thought that 5 miles per hour was stopped, that was a negligent act making her the guilty party again.

Now, if we take my two statements to campus police by me to be true: (1) I never was stopped. (2) There were no cars either in the middle exit lane which I starred at for about 3 seconds or the left side lane coming toward my car as I began the turn to exit the parking lot, then, again, we must conclude the young lady committed one or two violations which led directly to the accident. Also, thirdly (3), I never saw her car until the collision occurred.

From the position of the cars at the collision conclusion, my car was proceeding nearly parallel with the exit. This meant my car had gone a distance of approximately 22 feet, a 15 foot car length plus the width of the car, about 7 feet. This would very closely be explained by a 5 mile per hour or 7 feet per second rate over 3 seconds. In order to overtake my car and be slightly further through the parking lot exit when the crash concluded than my car, there is no way this could be accomplished by backing up out of one of the stalls on the left side of the parking and coming around the corner to the middle exit lane. The approximately 150 foot, 15 car parking on an angle away from the exit in the middle lane would have required a speed, at most generous to the young lady, in excess of 25 miles per hour plus backing out plus going around the curve at the opposite end of the parking lot from the exit. Proceeding at 70-80 miles per hour might have achieved this but this is impossible given the double curves at the end of the left side exit.

The other possibilities are that the young lady had done a back in parking in one of the center aisle parking positions which were slanted toward the opposite end of the parking lot from the exit and the building that occuppied the property at that end of the parking lot. But, even then the nearest of these would be across the entryway to the parking lot with its two side exits, or about 20-30 feet behind my car as it turned onto the exit. This would mean that the young lady was illegally backed into a parking and that her speed for overtaking my car must have been about 10 miles per hour. However, that is only if she were in the first parking. If she were instead half way down the parking lot, she would have had to travel about 100 feet to reach the final collision position from an illegal backed in parking position. This places her speed most favorably to her at over 17 miles per hour up to 22 miles per hour. At the far corner from the exit ramp from the parking lot her distance after illegally backing in at 170 feet or 30 miles per hour to 39 miles per hour. Back in parking is illegal. The post speed for parking lots on campus is 15 miles per hour.

The other possible scenario is that the young lady was properly parked on the East side parking lane on an angle out toward the exit. Then, seeing no one parked opposite her car on the center angle toward the opposite end to the exit parking location took off over the parking lot to the center exit aisle. This is another, negligent, dangerous if not illegal move on the part of the young lady. The times for this possible scenario are only a slightly higher rate of speed required to hit my car at the time of the collision.

Tricia claims that she was in the center aisle and therefore had the right of way over all others.

Two of your claims representatives have called me within the last two weeks on this matter as I have responded with a letter to the first. The first was a local claims adjuster. I argued with him that I was in the intersection when the other car struck me. He stated that it did not matter. The car going down the center aisle directly to the parking lot outlet had the right of way. This is ludicrous. Once one vehicle enters an intersection, as California Vehicle Code states, that party must have the right of way. Otherwise, no matter how rapidly one exited the intersection, someone could always good fast enough, theoretically, at least, to cause an accident with that car. Then, before I wrote the letter rebuffing your first claims adjusters conclusion, I remembered the young lady's first words, "I thought you were stopped.". Your second party from the corporate office called last week, he stuck by the guns of the first party stating that I was a fault because the young lady was in the center aisle exit lane.

As we can see from above, A POLICY OF CENTER AISLE EXITS ALWAYS HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY CAN ONLY LEAD TO ANARCHY. IT IS WRONG AND VIOLATES THE VEHICLE CODE OF EVERY STATE IN THE UNION APPLICABLE TO INTERSECTIONS AT UNCONTROLLED ROADWAYS. WHY SHOULD PARKING LOTS BE ANY DIFFERENT. THEIR INTERSECTIONS ARE, AFTER ALL, UNCONTROLLED ROADWAYS.

The collision stopped less than two car lengths from a controlled pedestrian crosswalk which commonly held college students. This excess speeding and reckless driving by Tricia might well have led to injury or death of a student.

Yet, both of your claim adjustors are adamant about the conclusion that the center lane exit aisle from a parking lot always has the right of way.


Right way, wrong way, this is no way to be.

Sincerely,



Michael S. Ross

     
Read 3 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

Weedwhacked on 2010-05-13:
I'm guessing that the claims adjuster probably thinks that you know WAY too much about your speed and postition prior to the accident to actually be accurate, (7 feet per second?)
clutzycook on 2010-05-13:
Yeah, there is such a thing as being TOO specific in your details.
bobbyblanco on 2012-02-19:
the vehicle code you cite does not apply to a private parking lot. a parking lot is not an intersection or a roadway at all. the logic you use is flawed. using that same logic, you could argue that if you pulled out of your driveway in front of a car on a public roadway with no controls, you could find them negligent for not yielding to you
Close commentsAdd reply
Misleading policy coverage
Posted by on
When signing up for Geico Auto Insurance coverage, the policy information is misleading, which ultimately caused me to choose the wrong coverage and pay out-of-pocket when I was a victim of a hit and run.

Uninsured Motorist coverage vs. Collision coverage

Geico will not allow both uninsured motorist coverage and collision coverage simultaneously - this is fine, because it prevents unscrupulous clients from trying to claim twice on the same incident. However, the big issue I have is that the uninsured description is misleading, to say the least. The description on Geico's website for the uninsured coverage is:

"Uninsured Mororist Property Damage pays for damage to your vehicle caused by an uninsured driver or in many cases, a hit-and-run driver. There are a number of common exclusions to this coverage that will be detailed in your policy"

On the other hand, the description hidden in the policy is:

"Uninsured Motorist Property Damage Uninsured Motorist Property Damage pays damages you are legally entitled to recover because of damage to your insured vehicle caused by uninsured motorists. There is no coverage if the owner or operator of the uninsured motor vehicle cannot be indentified or the vehicle cannot be identified by license number. This coverage will pay a maximum limit of $3,500 for any single accident. "

Let me ask you this - how many hit-and-run drivers are found? I would confidently wager that it is not any kind of majority; therefore, how can Geico say that "many" or "most" (depending on which part of the site you are looking at the description) hit-and-runs are covered? Had I understood this in the beginning, I would easily have chosen the COLLISION coverage over the uninsured motorist / uninsured property coverage. I've been wasting my money assuming that my beloved BMW was covered for any damage, caused by myself or anyone else, and I am crushed today to find out that this was not the case. I feel as though I've been paying my dues for literally nothing.
     
Read 7 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

goduke on 2010-03-02:
Must be a state by state thing. Everywhere I've lived I've had full coverage (which includes collision) as well an uninsured motorist coverage.
skelly39 on 2010-03-02:
Sounds like California. A hit-and-run driver does not qualify as an uninsured motor vehicle. Your agent should have explained your policy to you. And you can have both collision and UMPD. Your agent should have explained that, too.
momsey on 2010-03-02:
I will hazard a guess that the OP did not go through an agent. I've never used an insurance agent, I always go directly to the company. And a company like Geico makes it so easy to apply and sign up online, there's not even a need to speak to a human.

It's so easy, a caveman can do it!
skelly39 on 2010-03-02:
Good point, momsey.
KaiTso on 2010-03-02:
Thanks yes - I spoke to the agent again and it appears to be a state-specific rule for California, that you cannot have both UMP and Collision. I hope this information is useful for anyone getting insurance in the future
KaiTso on 2010-03-02:
Yes I signed up online, there is the description for UMP which I posted, but there is no description for Collision (link was broken, and still broken when I checked earlier today) It was simply a matter of being informed - if it says that most hit and runs are covered, I would assume most hit and runs are covered. I would prefer on the main page that it says that if the driver or vehicle cannot be identified, UMP will not cover it. This would have made it very clear to me to choose collision over UMP, whereas they appeared to be very similar. The choice was mine, and I chose the wrong one based on the information available to me.
saj80 on 2010-03-02:
Thanks for the feedback. It appears you are taking full responsibility for this, and only wish Geico would be more forthcoming on their website regarding insurance coverage in certain states. It is always refreshing when someone takes personal responsibility, and this information may prove to be useful to someone living in or moving to California. Nice post, and good luck.
Close commentsAdd reply
What GEICO won't tell you if one of their insured drivers hits you
Posted by on
PG, UTAH -- Someone insured with Geico hit my daughter's car. The other driver admitted fault to the officer on the scene and to Geico. Geico decided our car was a 'total loss'. They paid us about half what the car is worth. They withheld a lot of information from us in order to save themselves money. The claims department representative was extremely unhelpful. I only got the information I needed when I called the adjuster directly.

IF GEICO TOTALS YOUR CAR they will decide the value, not you. If I was selling my car on the open market, I certainly would have gotten more for it than Geico paid me.

IF YOU ARE GETTING A RENTAL CAR PAID FOR BY GEICO do it right away! Don't delay for even a day. They will only pay for the car from the time of the accident until 'three days past settlement'. 'Settlement', in their definition, is when they send you the first check, even if the amount is still in dispute and they plan on sending you a second check. They want to send you a check for the amount that is undisputed, and they want to send it as quickly as possible, so then they can quit paying for the rental car. Three days is not enough to get your car fixed, and it is not enough time to go out and buy a new car. DON'T ACCEPT ANY CHECKS AT ALL UNTIL YOU HAVE REACHED A FINAL SETTLEMENT!

If they had told us a rental car was available right away, we would have gotten one sooner and then we would have had it for a couple weeks - long enough to repair the extensive damage to our car or to shop for a new one. Of course, it is not in their best interest to tell you a rental is available until after its too late to take advantage of one.

ALSO: BE AWARE that rental car companies count their 'days' on a 24-hour period while Geico counts calendar days. If Geico is 'totaling' your car, they will pay for 'FIVE' days of a car rental. We picked up a rental car on Monday evening and Geico counted that as day One! They would only pay until Friday. That only gave us 3.5 actual days to get the car fixed which was not enough time. When I called the adjuster directly, he finally authorized a few more days.

IF YOU ARE DISPUTING THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS you will need to spend quite a bit of time researching comparables. You will need to find other cars in your area that are the same make and model as your car, and that are in the same condition. That's going to be very tough for us because we had just put a new transmission in our car. That $2K is now wasted because one of their insured drivers hit our car and there are hardly any comparables with new transmissions. MAKE SURE YOU KEEP ALL RECEIPTS FOR WORK DONE ON YOUR CAR so that you can produce them if someone hits you. Geico gave us only $150 credit for the new transmission. We are going to have to take them or the driver to court over this. I think that's sad.

     
Read 2 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

NanS123 on 2010-02-20:
Wouldn't they have to give you the book value of the car if they deem it totaled?
Venice09 on 2010-02-20:
Not necessarily, Nan. Before my daughter's car was totaled, one of her friends put a dent in the roof. The insurance company determined that the dent was preexisting (they were right) and deducted $500 from the settlement. Other than the dent, the car was in perfect condition. She could have gotten a lot more for it than the amount of the settlement. But that's the way it works.
Close commentsAdd reply
StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty Star
They Will Call You a Liar
Posted by on
Rating: 1/51
EVERYWHERE, TEXAS -- I just had this happen and wrote this email today to/with Geico.

I saw the claim person today, I understand that insurance companies have to deal with a lot of fraudulent claims. And in my circumstance I understand I forgot to include a major detail that happened after the first accident. Because not only was there a lot of things going through my mind to keep me from thinking properly, but I just wanted to get my vehicle off the road before it got hit again. But I found it absolutely offensive when I was told, that the claim person felt I made up a hit and run story to claim hit and run. Had he talked to my manager, my manager would have confirmed after the accident happened I told him I only had liability and was going to have to repair the damages myself, even if I had full coverage I don't trust you or any other insurance company to take care of any of your drivers.

I know you people have not received any messages from me about payout or vehicle repair, because after I was even called by Geico and informed that the other thing I had on my insurance covered hit and run, I knew since I forgot to inform the police about it I was going to have to pay for it own of my own pocket still, and I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT until this [snip] basically said I was lying. Is this what I should expect? Do the right thing, report the accident, get [snip] up in another accident and be told, your a liar, the second accident was bull? I don't know what part about "I didn't file the claim right away, instead I got online to find out how much it was going to cost ME to repair this vehicle, since I thought I was only paying for liability" he did not understand. I have never been so utterly insulted in my life.

---- YOU VERY MUCH GEICO.
SINCERELY,
STEVEN L. REID
     
Read 2 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

trmn8r on 2013-09-18:
I tried to understand what happened, but was unable to do so. Perhaps describing the accident(s) first, and then explaining the communciations that followed would better allow the reader to draw a conclusion. What I was able to gather is there was an accident or accidents, and you were accused of making up a hit and run. But I couldn't tell what the circumstances were that would lead the agent to suggest it may have been made up.
madconsumer on 2013-09-18:
this is the worst insurance company there is. in my case, I had a police report, witnesses, and as soon as my claim was paid and the checked cleared, they dropped me mid term. I received a letter stating I was an un-safe driver, and my coverage "ended" 5 days prior to the letter being mailed. of course this caused my rates to jump sky high. well 12 years later, I am glad they dropped me, and I have been accident and ticket free ever since. guess I am not such a bad driver after all.

this insurance company is wonderful, until you make a claim.
Close commentsAdd reply
StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty Star
Fraud
Posted by on
Rating: 1/51
LA MESA,CA, CALIFORNIA -- On 1-2-13 I had picked my girlfriend up from a Crisis House. A couple blocks from our destination we were hit dead on by a Geico Insured driver as he ran a red light. My car was totaled and had to be towed. At the scene of the accident not only did the driver admit fault but they promised their insurance would cover all the costs and repairs and even encouraged me to ask for a rental. The next day the driver now claims he passed the light through a yellow. I wonder how that is possible when I had a solid green arrow. The Geico Agent working on my claim wrongly and confusingly questioned my passenger that has a history of mental health issues. The Geico Agent then began to use false statements from the driver and insured, twist my passengers and my statements and use all the hearsay in the investigation as just cause to fraudulently deny fault for the accident. There was no proper investigation done. I know that because if there had been, the truth would have been found. I believe Geico insurance has made a terrible name for themselves by allowing their agents to make such bogus decisions along with the nasty way the agent treated my passenger and myself. Because of this I had to hire an attorney to fight for me. I am 23 and I go to school fulltime. This accident not only took me out of school for over a week but totaled my car and left me stranded in the city of the accident. I have never experienced such bad service in my life and I am determined to show the truth of how these people operate their fraudulent business. Thank you for reading.
     
Read 5 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

Skye on 2013-01-10:
You need a lawyer to fight this battle for you.
Obsfucation on 2013-01-10:
Were the police called to the scene of the accident?
clutzycook on 2013-01-10:
I'm with Obs; was there a police report? Also, have you gotten your insurance involved?
Bill on 2013-01-10:
Whenever you're involved in an accident however minor call the police. If you're in the right it's the only way to protect yourself. If there's any witnesses get their names and addresses also.
trmn8r on 2013-01-11:
There is some information missing here. First, if so much damage occurred that your car was totaled it seems like the law should require the police to be involved.

If you don't have a police report, I don't know what to say - it's easy to imagine most any insurance company might give you a hard time and question fault. This kind of accident isn't as black and white as it may seem - a (impartial) witness might be critical.

You would also be well advised to have your insurance company interact with Geico on your behalf, if you haven't already.
Close commentsAdd reply
StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty Star
Con-Artists
Posted by on
Rating: 1/51
BRAINTREE, MASSACHUSETTS -- Geico Insurance Company is the most slimy, false company I have ever had the displeasure to do business with. One of their employees (I still know her name, to this day) falsely informed me of procedures that go along with cancelling an insurance policy that ended up costing me over $100. When I spoke to a supervisor and told her the girl's name who fed me the wrong information, she sarcastically said "Yeah let me go ask her what really happened", left me on hold for ten minutes, and then came back on to (predictably) tell me "She says that's not what happened." How convenient for you and your multi million dollar corporation that your employee is refusing to own up to her mistake! When I contacted the BBB about the matter, I was fed the same bologna by a representative from their executive office. They are now demanding that I pay for their employee's mistake with my money. I am thoroughly disgusted and disappointed with how I was treated and spoken to as a customer. Worst insurance company ever.
     
Read 3 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

ok4now on 2012-12-27:
This was a lesson learned the hard way. Geico and Progressive spend a ton of money on advertising. It seems like every other commercial is from them. They need an influx of new customers (fresh meat) to sustain this high cost. Then when the unsuspecting customer files a legitimate claim the fine print and exceptions kick in. Suddenly what you thought you were covered for you're not.

Example: You have a less than five year old car that takes a major hit. You want it fixed right with original factory parts. Good luck. The adjuster comes out and will only approve the repair with cheap after market parts. The body shop complains that they can't do a proper repair with inferior parts. Sorry but you loose. Your premiums went towards advertising costs to suck new customers in. You just got screwed.

Conclusion: Avoid Geico and Progressive. They will not give you the insurance protection that you think that you are paying for.
trmn8r on 2012-12-27:
What was the procedure that was improperly described?

I had a bad experience with Geico 30 years ago, and it doesn't sound like things have improved much. Neither have I, but I'm not in the insurance business...
At Your Service on 2012-12-27:
Unfortunately, the review lacks any details as to what the repair and problem was.
Close commentsAdd reply
StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty StarEmpty Star
Unabe to Handle Caim Properly
Posted by on
Rating: 1/51
CALIFORNIA -- I was on the road with right of way when a Geico policy holder "floored it" out of Taco Bell parking lot, ramming her front end into the side of my vehicle causing a little over $2300 in damages to my vehicle and caused a whiplash injury. I immediately called 911 from my cell phone from in the middle of the road. When law enforcement arrived & did their investigation, he (the officer)determined the "other driver" (Geico policy holder) completely at fault, as I was legally on the road, having right-of-way, I had to provide the police report to Geico claims. They "investigated", even going so far as to tell my mechanics they were trying to figure out how to put 35% liability on me, even though law enforcement already put liability on the other person. It took a month to get a rental car at their expense. I had to TELL them to contact my mechanics to authorize repairs 96 hours after their "date of liability determination". I had to contact them a week later to TELL them to cut the check to pay for repairs to my vehicle. (This should have been done at the same time as authorization was given to the shop) When I FINALLY got my vehicle home an repaired 1 month 15 days after the accident, I again had to call and TELL them to contact the rental car company to OK through November 16, 2012 so the rental car company would return the $86.00 deposit money that I had to pay out-of-pocket. (I am disabled and on SSI/SSD, so this is a lot of money for me to be out in "limbo") I am not happy at all with having to dictate every step of the way to the insurance company how to do their job when I am injured and my vehicle was damaged due to one of their policy holders showing incompetent driving on a clear, sunny day at 12:09 pm in California.
     
Read 2 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

ok4now on 2012-12-03:
Looks like that "15 minute phone call" was a rip off for you. Geico is only interested in the maximum of premiums paid with the least amount of claims. Their advertising costs have to be horrendous. It seems like every other commercial is for Geico. You the policy holder pay for this. Customer service suffers. I would refuse to do business with these toads.
At Your Service on 2012-12-03:
Sounds horrible and frustrating.

I would think you'd be able to work through your insurance company, in return they would then deal with the other driver's insurance.
Close commentsAdd reply
Lack of long time customer loyalty
Posted by on
I have been with Geico about 17 yrs. have had 2 speeding tickets back in the early '90s, have never been in an accident that I caused, never any DUIs. Last November my car wasn't running well so I decided to park it and called Geico, the representative told me that I could put my status as "inactive" as I did not want to cancel but intended to re-activate my coverage later. As I told the representative I did not want to lose my longevity with Geico...she assured me that as long as I re-activated my insurance within 6 mos. that I would not be considered cancelled, merely, in-active. In April, thankfully, my car was OK mechanically enough to drive it again so I called Geico. This time I was told that my car insurance had been cancelled and a new policy (the same type of policy as before) was going to cost me quite a bit more per year. I really had to press the issue that I had not cancelled, to no avail, and it took some questioning about why the increase with my good driving record and my vehicle being parked in a well lit area with surveilance cameras. How could it go up in just a matter of a few months..finally the representative said that it was because I lived in a tornado area. I live in the mid-west...she said that since they had had to pay out for so many damages to others it raised the rates for everyone. I needed my insurance so I reluctantly,'opened' a new policy with Geico over the phone, with a one-time auto-pay from my checking acct. My coverage is paid to October 6th, but they sent me a payment due in August...if I initially, paid the total amount due I would still have to pay a $5.00 installment charge. I decided to not pay until the amount is due in Oct., pay the full 6 mos. amount minus the $5.00 installment charge..as it will be the full amount due not an installment. I fully intend to change my car insurance company from Geico...I don't know what happened to the customer friendly, great company Geico used to be and the once great experience I had (for 17 years). That is obviously gone, and I need to accept it and hopefully, find a new company to have better car insurance coverage/experience than the shaft that Geico has given a long time customer of good standing...
     
Read 0 RepliesAdd reply
Geico will abandon their customers in times of need
Posted by on
FREDRICKSBURG, VIRGINIA -- My car was broken into, in which the items that were taken caused my car to be considered a total lost. At first my insurance company Geico, had set up a rental car for me, along with giving me an starting offer for the value of my car, and buy back value. The value that was offered to me was very low, $5000 less than NADA values; while the buy back option was high, 32% of amount they offered me. This led me to researched the method that Geico derived of the value for my car, where I’ve found that they based this information off CCC Information Service, formerly known as CCC Valuescope. CCC has had class action lawsuits in the past for providing abnormally low values so that insurance companies can under pay claims. In my case CCC provided comparatives, and when I contacted those people who were selling these units, most of them were sold, or the owners admitted to them having problems. I than contacted CCC directly to alert them of the errors, and I was told alarming information regarding the vehicles that they used as comparatives; they said that didn’t care about condition or history, they were only finding cars that had similar miles. They also used a weighted mean method to determine the value offered, where the cheaper cars were favored, which lowered their offering price. This led to a complaint against CCC. After I brought this to the attention of my claims adjuster, he had his manager call me. His manager became so angry that I challenge him, and his company on the methods they used, that they sent my claim to their Fraud unit, better known as SIU unit.

Here is where Geico’s customer service took a serious turn for the worse. This manager who was very rude to me, and insulting; he even stop returning my calls, and I have to practically chase him down to find out information about my claim. He had my rental car voucher revoked, and he told me that my claim was under investigation. I was placed under investigation because I challenged him on the value of my car. I’ve cooperated with the fraud unit, and have provided them with everything that they ask for. Its been month now since the incident, and this manager is still advocating the fraud department to seek additional information. I tried calling the manager’s boss, who won’t return my calls either.

I am disabled person, still recovering from a brain injury, in which I ambulate with an walking assistance device. I take a lot of medication for the brain injury, and I have issues with depression as of a result of my injuries. I brought this car as a present to myself, more so to cheer me up for all I’ve been through. My car still sit unfix thanks to Geico. They do not stand behind their customer’s, and I tell all anyone considering them to go elsewhere.
     
Read 2 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

Skye on 2010-09-16:
Insurance companies go by fair market value for how they pay on vehicles. I was just wondering, you said your car was broken into, and the items stolen caused your car to become a total loss. Was there car taken apart or something?
MDSasquatch on 2010-09-16:
good review.
Close commentsAdd reply
Misled of coverage
Posted by on
I have recently had an unfortunate incident.

Occurrence: While traveling back from Idaho on vacation. I was driving on I84 East ound, I had recently past a truck and got back in right hand lane, I looked back a few minutes later and noticed a fire on trailer, I came to stop and tried to put fire out, Fire became out of control, as trailer was loaded with snowmobiles and luggage. the fire started on gear. This incident occurred just east of exit 115 (Henefer, UT), I called 911, it took over 15-20 minutes for Fire depatment to arrive and come to find out we were less than a mile away from fire house. when fire dept arrved, they did not know how to operate equipment and initially spray water on fire which was burning plastic and fuel, when one fireman asked for foam other fireman asked how do you turn on? All we could do was watch in despair as numerous items became destoyed. Fortunate no one was injured.

I called insurance company for vehicle which I was placed on hold numerous times and response was you need to call homeonwers insurance it falls under that policy. When I returned home, I called homeowners insurance and it covers personal property but not anything with engine. I called Geico back to speak again and have sent numerous time on phone with Geico to resolve. Snowmobiles on trailer were not mine. One was my 17yr old sons that he had purchased in Idaho the day before. I also have been told by Geico, they do not offer full coverage on snowmobiles due to covered under homeowners policy, which is incorrect, Also I have asked them starting over what coverage should I have and response from them is "I don't know", today I was told by adjuster that it is my fault I did not read all fine print in all my polices, to bad. I have contacted insurance commission to try to resolve. I have asked for denial letter from Geico. As a consumer I feel completely misled by Geico and very unsatified with the answers I have been given over last few days. I carry full coverage on vehicle that was pulling trailer that is completely paid for..and come to find out full coverage doesn't cover what most consumers think. I have spoken with other insurance companies (Farmers and Allstate) to compare what is covered on full coverage and come to find out Geico completely misrepesents their policies. I have been a customer of Geico for quite some time and their best answer is I'm sorry and you should have read all fine print.

I know you get contacted numerous times about different issues, but I think consumers need to be made more aware of what they purchase. when people buy insurance they go through a broker or sales agent and think they are getting coverage and no one knows until its to late what's not covered, I would like to make people aware and maybe a checklist they can used to make sure what they are getting for coverage is what they want coverage and that just because you have full coverage doesn't mean it is. I hope you can assist in this matter. The leason learned in our matter is read all fine print, obviously insurance do not have consumers interest in mind, which is very disappointing due to average person thinks they are covered when they have full coverage insurance.

     
Read 5 RepliesAdd reply

User Replies:

redmx3racer on 2010-02-24:
I own 2 snowmobiles. I have insurance on them specifically-comprehensive and liability-just like you would with a car/motorcycle. Homeowners and Auto policies don't cover them-with few exceptions-which is why you have to buy it separate.

I fail to see how you were misled-did Geico at any time say your sleds would be covered under your Auto policy? If not-then they did not mislead you. You may have assumed you had coverage and learned a hard lesson about assuming.
skelly39 on 2010-02-24:
Policies are tough things to read. If you don't understand your policy or what it covers, you should talk to your agent and make them decipher it for you. You made a good point-that consumers need to know what they purchased, ESPECIALLY with insurance. Most people want the lowest price, but you find out that you get what you pay for when it comes time to file a claim.
memoryx57 on 2010-02-24:
Agreed skelly39...Seems the only time insurance companies are willing to explain in laymens terms what's covered is when they tell you they " ain't paying" !! I've had State Farm for as long as I can remember and have never had a problem, even with 3 kids driving. I've looked at my policies a time or two and I swear I don't have a clue what's covered based on what I'm reading. Entirely too much legal jargon !!
goduke on 2010-02-25:
I have full coverage on my vehicle. It seems kind of a far stretch to believe that it should cover damage to an item which is being pulled on a trailer. If I pull a boat, I have insurance on the boat to cover damage. If I pull snowmobiles, I have coverage on the snowmobiles. I'm kind of curious what Geico told you, prior to this incident, that suggested that your policy covered damage on an item you pulled behind the vehicle.
Starlord on 2010-02-25:
Just as with a car, motorcycle, boat or airplane, you need to insure a snowmobile, and it seems that collision/comprehensive would not be a bad idea. Assuming you would be covered under home owner's is a very iffy proposition. It may possibly be that the snowmobile on a trailer pulled by your vehicle should be covered on your car insurance. My wife's previous husband was killed by a drunk driver after removing debris from the road. The driver of the truck helping him move had insurance that covered people going from or to the vehicle, and that is what the lawyer succeeded in getting. Otherwise, she and her kids would have received nothing. We currently have a 2006 Dodge pickup with full coverage, as it is financed, and we would have no less.
Close commentsAdd reply
Top of Page | Next Page >