Geico Corporation

Review: Geico debted funds from my account after I was no longer insured with them.Desired Settlement: I would like to be refunded the funds that were illegally taken from my acount.

Business

Response:

March 17, 2014

Review: My van was stolen November 2nd 2013 and as of February 19th 2014; Geico, per [redacted], informed me they will not pay the 3200 dollars they estimated is due. I have comprehensive coverage and did not give permission for anyone to drive it.

In fact, it is stated in the case that a black man was seen running from the vehicle after hitting a pole. I happen to be caucasian.

I gave numerous accounts and even a deposition, even asking for a lie detector test.

They maintain that in my statement I handed the keys to a gentleman to open the trunk and that constituted permission.

I was not treated well and had to continue to inquire to even get this far. The representative was rude and inconsiderate throughout, never giving a timeline whatsoever for resolution.

I was not able to work or even get a rental vehicle that was part of my policy due to not having money up front to pay for it, and the representative telling me I cannot touch my van until this is resolved.

Eventually they did refund 100 dollars in premiums once I forfeited the 750 I was due for a rental car I could not get due to whatever management was telling the rental company.Desired Settlement: I would like them to honor the claim for my stolen vehicle, and pay the 3200 plus 750 in rental car reimbursement not to mention the pain and suffering I am still after deductible I have due.

Business

Response:

March 14, 2014

Dear **. [redacted]:

Thank you for your inquiry of March 10, 2014. It has been referred to me for a response.

On November 11, 2013, we received notice of this claim from the [redacted]’s father, [redacted] reported that [redacted]’s 2002 [redacted] was stolen by someone referred to as “[redacted]” and returned damaged after the driver struck a pole.

A recorded statement was secured with [redacted] who stated that on November 2, 2013, he parked his vehicle near the intersection of [redacted] and [redacted] in [redacted]. **. [redacted] stated that he was helping a friend, [redacted], move and during the move, he misplaced his wallet and keys, which led him to asking his brother to pick him up.

**. [redacted] then states that he realized the vehicle was missing as of 6:35 A.M. on November 3rd, when he received a phone call from the local police department notifying him that his vehicle had been involved in an accident. **. [redacted] states that he did not report his vehicle or wallet as stolen prior to the recovery of the vehicle.

On November 26th, we spoke to one of the investigating police officers, Chief [redacted], who stated that he received a different loss description from **. [redacted]. Chief [redacted] was informed that **. [redacted] loaned his vehicle to [redacted] for a few months to move items and then the vehicle was later returned.

Based on this information, it appears that **. [redacted] permitted another driver to operate his vehicle, at which time the vehicle was damaged and returned. This does not qualify as a theft claim and therefore is not eligible for payment under the Comprehensive coverage. **. [redacted] does not carry Collision coverage.

Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact [redacted], Fire and Total Theft Supervisor, at ###-###-####, extension [redacted].

Sincerely,

Review: back in november 2013 I bought car insurance online for 2 cars.I was 2004 [redacted] the other was a [redacted].I asked about full cpirage on the pt beacause it was paid for and just liabilty on the other .they gave me a quote of 101. and some cent .they went on to tell me that if I had it draft from my account it would decrease the amount per month .I said ok and let it go at that.never receieved any paper work on this ..all the time I thought I had full coverage on the pt .well I find out that they didnt even put full coverage on this the whole time .I filed a claim because a deer ran out in front of me and hit the car .I called them on the 28th of feb 2014 .they emailed me and told me I dint have that coverage.so I called and to this day no one has contacted me just once to tell me about it . I called today march the 4th 2014 to find this this out.even though this was part of their fault ,if I knew before now I would have fixed the problemDesired Settlement: go back and put that on the pt so I can get it fixed thats what insurance is for ?isnt it?

Business

Response:

March 12, 2014

Dear **. [redacted]:

Thank you for your March 4, 2014 inquiry.

The above referenced complaint arises from an accident which occurred when [redacted] struck a deer with her 2004 [redacted] Cruiser.

We reviewed the policy information for **. [redacted]. Our records do not indicate the vehicle involved in this loss had Comprehensive coverage on the date of loss. We also have no record **. [redacted] ever made a request to have Comprehensive coverage added to her policy. A declarations page was provided to **. [redacted] when she purchased the policy and you will find a copy enclosed for your review. The vehicles insured under the policy and their respective coverages are listed on Page 5 of the attachment.

If you have any additional questions or concerns, please contact **, [redacted], Claims Manager, at ###-###-####.

Sincerely,

Review: My vehicle was stolen on 11/9/2013. Geico est. the repairs at over $2,500 and declared my vehicle a total loss. After two weeks of waiting for an evaluation, they est. the value of my vehicle at $1,880. I searched online for a comparable replacement in this price range and found the valuation to be grossly below fair market value. I have sent emails disputing this amount and sent multiple web links supporting a valuation in the range of $2,700 to $3,100. Geico has not responded to my requests for more information as well as higher level dispute resolution contacts.Desired Settlement: Two resolutions requested (either or):(1) a valuation of $2,700 which is well below the mean advertised selling price for similar vehicles.-- or --(2) contact information (phone, name, email, physical address) of the next level up of management (one level higher than [redacted]) to further resolve this error.

Business

Response:

Dear **. [redacted]:

Review: the agreement was paying $ 33.85 / mon and cancel any time .. they did charged that the first month and the very next month they charged my credit card $ 137 and made a new policy without my authorization and I was not aware of ...

well they claim that I dont have driving experience in USA,,,it is not my mistake that they did not do the proper investigation in this respect.... more over ,,, I used to have Illinois driver licence from 2001-2008 and my previous address was [redacted] Il , [redacted] I liveed in [redacted] Il for 8 yrs... I owned two cars there both of them were [redacted]...

if you need moree information about this I would more than happy to provide

but the main issue is if the business decided to change their rate and make new policy for a customer ,, the customer shoul be aware of that and authorize that first otherwise,,, it is fraud and sca and unacceptable activity from the business.

now they are charging me more money to cancel the policy they did for me without asking me >>> the whole thing does not make sense to me

ThanksDesired Settlement: Im asking them for compensation for wasting my time and effort and violate my rights as a customer

Business

Response:

August 18, 2014[redacted]

Revdex.com

1411 K ST NW 10TH FLOOR

WASHINGTON DC 20005-3404

Regarding: [redacted]

Policy No: [redacted]

ID No: [redacted]

Dear [redacted]:

We received your letter regarding the change in [redacted]’s auto insurance premium.

[redacted] obtained a policy to begin on June 27, 2014. During the application process [redacted] informed us she had been licensed in the United States since 1995. Since [redacted]’s North Carolina driver’s license showed an original issue date of May 2014 the policy was reviewed in our underwriting department. Due to our being unable to verify her driving record, prior to May 2014, her policy was changed to reflect an inexperienced rate. This change was made effective July 16, 2014 and a new billing schedule was mailed to her.

[redacted] contacted our office on July 7, 2014 regarding the pending increase. She advised she had a prior driver’s license issued in Illinois but was unable to obtain a copy of her past driving history. After some discussion with [redacted] we were able to locate a policy for her and her spouse from 2003 which had her Illinois driver’s license information listed.

After reviewing this information we have removed the inexperienced rate from her policy as of July 16, 2014 when the change was effective. We have contacted [redacted] regarding this matter. We apologize that [redacted]’s experience with us was less than satisfactory.

If you have additional questions regarding this matter, please contact Kim G[redacted], at ###-###-####, extension [redacted].

Sincerely,

Joseph * T[redacted]

Virginia Beach Regional Office

Government Employees Insurance Company

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:Just correcting the info ... I was still a student back in 1995 I never said I had a driver licence in Illinois back then. I started driving in Illinois beginning from 2001 -2008

Review: November 7, 2013GEICOOne GEICO PlazaWashington, DC 20076-0001RE: Policy #Dear Sir or Madam:As a policy holder for years I am dismayed at the service I have received with my most recent Auto policy.I returned my leased 2010 Toyota Corolla to the dealership in May of 2013. For a time I drove a friends vehicle while I looked for a new one to purchase. I called my GEICO agent and was advised to keep a minimum policy for myself as a driver, even though my friends car had insurance coverage.When I purchased outright my 2004 Mazda 6 I called to get a full policy on this vehicle. I informed the agent that I wanted to same coverage I had under my other vehicle. (Date of the call was May 17, 2013).I was told the new price, which was lower than my previous policy. I inquired and was told it was due to the fact that it was an older vehicle.It was not until I called to make a claim on a small collision that I realized what I had purchased was NOT what I had maintained on my Corolla. I was not covered for collision or a rental car as I had understood. I immediately called and told them to change my policy and payment to reflect what I had initially requested and understood about my coverage. I am appalled that I have been paying for coverage that was inadequate and was not informed that this coverage was not, in fact, the same coverage I had on my previous vehicle. I expect now for GEICO to retroactively extend my policy to the coverage I had initially requested. I understand that I will be responsible for any difference in premiu** for the coverage between the policy start date on the Mazda 6, May 17, 2013 and the date I corrected the problem in the policy, November 5, 2013I am ccing the Revdex.com on this letter and asking them to post this letter on their website, do appropriate follow up and record all follow up that GEICO may do to rectify this situation.I expect an answer to this complaint and the resolution via postal mail or email at [redacted] at your earliest convenience. Regards,[redacted]CC: Revdex.comDesired Settlement: I want my policy to reflect what I had asked for and for the claim to be honored according to the policy I believed I purchased.

Business

Response:

November 22, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

This will acknowledge receipt of your November 21, 2013 inquiry regarding the above referenced private passenger automobile insurance policy.

On November 7, 2009 the above policy was established in the name of [redacted] to insure a 2010 Toyota Corolla. Our records indicate that the insured did request physical damage coverage (Comprehensive, Collision and Rental) for the 2010 Toyota Corolla when she purchased the policy. On May 2, 2013 the physical damage coverage and Toyota Motor Credit Corp were removed from the policy. On May 17, 2013 the 2010 Toyota Corolla was replaced by a 2004 Mazda 6S. Also on that date Comprehensive and Emergency Road Service coverage were added to the 2004 Mazda 6S. Enclosed is a copy of the new business policy declarations that was sent to the insured on November 7, 2009 and the endorsement declarations pages that were sent in May of 2013.

In addition to the May 17, 2013 endorsement declarations page a Renewal policy declarations was subsequently sent to the insured on July 17, 2013 for the August 20, 2013 - February 20, 2014 policy period. Both of which reflected that the policy did not include Collision or Rental coverage. There is also no indication that the insured ever requested the addition of Collision and Rental coverage prior to her November 5, 2013 claim. Accordingly, Collision and or Rental coverage was not in effect at the time of the November 5, 2013 loss. Enclosed is a copy of the renewal policy declarations for the policy period in question.

Since there appears to be no valid complaint against GEICO, we ask that this be removed from our record. If you require further assistance with this matter, please contact the undersigned at ###-###-####.

Very truly you

Review: I purchased a 2013 Subaru Outback. After only thirty-three days after the purchase. A vandalism incident created excessive damages (scratches) all over the body of the vehicle. After one repair arranged by the GEICO and another repair arranged by myself, at least one third of the damages is still not properly fixed till today (June 24th, 2013).

The GEICO representative tried to categorize some of the damages as normal wear and tear so they can avoid to pay some of the repair costs. As the owner of the vehicle, I have been inspecting the vehicle carefully every time I drive the vehicle and I know these damages were not there before the vandalism incident, but also because of the following reasons:

1. The vehicle had been purchased as new for only one month and three days when the incident happened. The vehicle was 70 miles when purchased. The millage is only about 500 miles when the incident happened.

2. The amount of damages to the vehicle is too many to be recognized as "normal" wear and tear for a vehicle that has been only purchased for a few days over a month. The two rounds of total 6 hours of repairs only fixed about two third of the damages. I challenged the GEICO representative to find any other car in their parking lot that day that have some many scratches even some of the vehicle are 10 years old, they were not able to find any.

3. All the damages have the same pattern:

3.1 Caused by same (width) of sharp point hard object.

3.2 Made by single line each time.

3.3 Happened only around the body of the vehicle and edges of the roof that can be reached by arm length only. No scratch that is longer than that an arm length can reach.

3.4 Followed the body frame (alone the directions of the body frame at different places), or paint areas, roughly the same directions around the vehicle.

3.5 Do not have some of the patterns that normal wear and tear could have: such as different widths, different shapes, parallel lines or chaotic lines, different directions, across different materials etc.Desired Settlement: Fixing all the damages caused by the vandalism case.

Business

Response:

Hello **. [redacted],

The attached pdf is our response to **. **’s complaint.

Please contact me by email or at the number below if you have any problems accessing the file.

Thank you,

Consumer Relations

GEICO Region 10

Phone: [redacted]

Fax: [redacted]

Email: [redacted]

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Please see the document attached.

Regards,

Review: I was unable to pay my bill and was told by a Customer Service Representative (CSR) it was because all of the returned check payments for insufficient funds on my account, which surprised me. I inquired about these returned payments and was advised there were 2 in total; 1 in Feb. 2014 and the 2nd in Apr. 2014. The Feb. payment, however, was not not returned for insufficient funds. Rather, it was because I entered my bank account information incorrectly, and was off by a digit or 2 (I was using a cell phone in which the keypad was very small). I notified the CSR of this, and explained I was previously advised by another CSR that I'd be blocked from checkb payments if I had 2 or more returned payments within a certain period (cannot remember how many months), returned for insufficient funds. However, the CSR insisted I was incorrect and was like a robot on the line. She treated me as though I was a customer who gets disconnected on a regular basis and was heartless. I rely on a fixed income due to my disability and could not pay using my check. My debit card was stolen and I am awaiting the new one in the mail, which is why I couldn't pay with my card. I was forced to use my wife's card, which she'll now incur multiple overdraft fees for because of previous pending payments which have not yet cleared. Thanks a lot Geico! You strong-armed me into making the payment with my wife's card, as I felt I had no choice to avoid policy cancelation.Desired Settlement: I feel my account should be unblocked from paying by check. I would also like reimbursement for the bank charges that are soon to follow.

Business

Response:

August 15, 2014Dear [redacted],We received your correspondence dated August 9, 2014, regarding the above-noted Consumer. We have not included any personal identifying information in our response as you requested.Although our Insured indicated he only had two returned check payments, our records reflect our Insured had a total of three returned check payments within a six month period. Our Insured’s check payments returned for the below reasons:Date Transaction Explanation2/10/2014 Electronic check payment made at geico.com. Payment returned due to incorrect routing number or account number entered at geico.com. 2/14/2014 Electronic check payment made via telephone. Payment returned due to non-sufficient funds (NSF). A $20.00 NSF fee was applied to the policy. 4/8/2014 Electronic check payment made at geico.com. Payment returned due to incorrect routing number or account number entered at geico.com. When a policy has either two check payments return for adverse reasons (for example, nonsufficient funds), or a total of three check payments return for any reason within a six month period, we place a payment restriction on the policy. Since our Insured had three check payments return, we sent him a letter on April 16, 2014, which informed him that we will no longer accept check payments for his policy, and he should make future payments using a credit card, [redacted], or money order. A copy of that letter is enclosed for your reference.It is our position that we provided sufficient notice for our Insured to make the necessary arrangements for his August 7, 2014, payment. As a result, we are unable to reimburse our Insured for any overdraft fees that may result from the payment he made on August 7, 2014.On August 12, 2014, and August 15, 2014, we spoke to our Insured regarding his concern. As an exception, we removed the payment restriction from his policy and agreed to waive the $20.00 NSF fee that resulted from his February 14, 2014, payment. We trust this information is sufficient to allow you to close your file. Please call Jaime B[redacted], Customer Service Director, at ([redacted], if you have any further questions.Sincerely,George R. Regional Vice President

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: I purchase car insurance for my father which we have the same name. My father called in and I called in to remove my credit card information from their systems several times. My father has had this policy around six months. On June 24, 2013 Geico insurance took my father payment in the amount of $134.40 and my bank charged me $26.00 fee. I called to get a refund and explain to Geico what happen. Geico refuse to refund my card and stated to me that they will send a check to my father address. My father live in different state.Desired Settlement: Refund my card asap

Business

Response:

July 10, 2013

**. [redacted]

Revdex.com of Metro

Washington DC & Eastern Pennsylvania

1411 K St NW, 10th floor

Washington DC 20005-3404

VIA FACSIMILE: (202)-393-1198

RE: [redacted]

Insured: [redacted].

Policy Number: [redacted]

NAIC: [redacted]- GEICO

Dear **. [redacted]:

Thank you for your recent inquiry dated June 26, 2013. I welcome the opportunity to discuss **. [redacted]’s request to return the charges on his credit card for his father’s automobile insurance policy.

After careful review of **. [redacted]’s policy, GEICO finds that the payment of $131.40 was processed prior to **. [redacted]’s request to remove his account information.

In our conversation with **. [redacted], we explained that since the policy is in his father’s name that the refund would be sent to the policyholder unless authorization was received from **. [redacted] to send to a different address. The authorization was received and a refund check in the amount of $131.40 was mailed June 25, 2013. A separate refund for $26.00 bank fee was mailed on June 26, 2013.

I hope this information will assist you in resolving this matter. If additional information is required, please contact [redacted] at [redacted] ext. [redacted] or via email at [redacted].

Sincerely,

AVP Underwriting

cc: file

Consumer

Response:

[To assist us in bringing this matter to a close, you must give us a reason why you are rejecting the response. If no reason is received your complaint will be closed Administratively Resolved]

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Review: The adjustor has been giving me the running around. [redacted] ###-###-#### said he will meet me to see the car and then clled me he went on his own because he did not have time to call me. His suppervisor [redacted] Storm sid they do not have to meet with mee ###-###-####. Yet [redacted] demanded I give him the navigation CD on his hands sying a picture is not sufficient. The suppervisor said a picture will go - both contradictiong one another.

I sid I need to change adjustors as [redacted] does not remember me and never has time for me. The suppervisor says he is the only adjustor in the Los Angeles area.

I wnat them to repair the car, or make me an offer using cars like mine: a 2002 ML320 with navigation anf 3rd row seats which sell for about 5000 higher than Geigo's co,mparables.Desired Settlement: I wnat them to set the actual car value by comparing the car with an equivalent car currently for sale on the local market.

I prefer to get my car repaired, which is the reason I purchased collision coverage for my car.

Also I do not want to deal with an adjustor that is so condescending and who on Oct 2nd said he will meet me on Oct 3rh or the 7th nad then saying he did not have time. On Oct 10 I called and said he did not remember who I was, then said he did not have time for me this week .

Business

Response:

Dear [redacted]:

Review: Revdex.com

277 Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd #102

Macon, GA 31201

Georgia Commissioner of Insurance

CC: Geico Regional Office One Geico Center Macon, GA 31296-0001

Policy Number: [redacted]

I have been in billing dispute with Geico Auto Insurance since I changed to [redacted] due to treatment I received from [redacted] and her supervisor. I changed insurance companies on or prior to my new billing cycle and Geico is now trying to force me into paying a bill I do not owe. They have refused to send any proof of the debt they claim I owe or explain why they feel like I owe them anything after switching insurance companies. Please intervene and stop Geico from their fraudulent billing practices, scam, and strong arm tactics of trying to extort money from people that is not owed to Geico.

Thank youDesired Settlement: Send proof of the they claim I owe or explain why I owe them anything after switching insurance companies (see Attached document).

Business

Response:

October 9, 2013

Review: Im traveling West bound on [redacted] Rd in [redacted] Fl, and all of a sudden I see this red blur zoom in front of me and I ding the right rear bumper apart, the [redacted] FL Police arrive and after the we both explain how the accident occurred the Officer issues the female driver of the red car a citation for turning into oncoming traffic, a few days past, then Geico informs me that im at fault as well because of the explanation we both gave, although Geico has access to the police report and the female was issued a citation, I wanna know how can I be at fault for doing nothing wrong.Desired Settlement: I would like for my bumper to be replaced without any lip from Geico ASAP, Semper Fi

Consumer

Response:

My complaint # [redacted], Yes I am insured with Geico and the other party has Geico as well

Business

Response:

August 6, 2014Dear [redacted]:Thank you for your letter of July 16, 2014 regarding the complaint submitted by our insured, [redacted].The above referenced loss occurred on July 3, 2014 at the intersection of [redacted] Avenue and [redacted] Street in [redacted], FL. Both vehicles involved were traveling on [redacted] Avenue which is a four lane road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph. [redacted] was traveling westbound in the curb lane while a vehicle operated by [redacted] was traveling eastbound in the median.Statements from each driver were obtained in order to clarify the details presented. [redacted] advised in his recorded statement he was traveling westbound in the right lane with a speed of approximately 30-35 mph when [redacted] turned left in front of him causing his vehicle to strike her right rear bumper. [redacted] admitted to not seeing [redacted]’s vehicle prior to the impact and confirmed no evasive action was taken. During her statement, [redacted] stated she had been traveling eastbound on [redacted] Avenue, and had almost completed a left turn onto [redacted] Street when [redacted] struck the right rear of her vehicle with his front bumper. There were no independent witnesses to this loss.After obtaining each party’s statements, the photographs of [redacted]’s vehicle, and the police report it was determined that this accident involved comparative negligence on behalf of each party. [redacted] was cited for failure to yield in this accident however a review of her vehicle’s photos confirms the point of impact was the right rear corner. The evidence further suggests that [redacted] failed to maintain a proper lookout and had the last clear chance to avoid the accident. Given this information, we determined that each party held 50% liability for the loss. However, in an effort to resolve the claim, we are adjusting our offer to [redacted] to apportion 30% liability to him, and 70% to [redacted] has been contacted and has accepted our offer of settlement. We await [redacted] to set up an estimate of damages so settlement can be completed.We maintain the company acted in good faith, by conducting a thorough and accurate investigation as well as accurately reporting the findings. We do not feel that any error hasoccurred as result of our investigation or classification of this claim at this time.Should you have any further questions, please contact Ebonie J[redacted], Claims Manager, at [redacted] ext. [redacted].Very truly yours,George R Regional Vice President

Review: I contacted Geico auto after months of waiting to get my title so that I could registry my vehicles in MA. After working with two representatives I was told that if I paid the state of Florida the registration fees due on m y vehicles that they would reimburse me as they would still need more time to process the request. I confirmed with the rep that this was in fact what they wanted me to do I was told yes and was given a supervisors named to fax the copies of my payments to so that the reimbursement could be processed. Well I did just that the same day 4/24/14. I followed up a couple days later and was told that they reviewed it and have decided that they would not be reimbursing ,e after they promised that they would. I attempted to reach out to many layers of management without any luck. I even reached out to them via social media but they would never return my calls. I just want them to do as they promised. We have 3 cars insured with them a home owners policy and a renters policy. I am shocked, baffled and really frustrated with there unwillingness to keep there word.Desired Settlement: I believe they should reimburse the $203.80 as they promised they would do or add a credit to my act in the same amount.

Business

Response:

June 18, 2014Dear **. [redacted]:This will acknowledge receipt of your request regarding the above named insured’s private passenger automobile policy. I have carefully reviewed the matter and my findings are as follows:In [redacted]’s correspondence to your organization she expresses concern regarding the reimbursement of fees related to the registration of her vehicles in Florida due to a delay in obtaining copies of her title. The delay was affecting her ability to register her vehicle in Massachusetts. She has requested that GEICO credit her for the cost of the registration fees.GEICO’s records show that [redacted] requested the policy be moved into Massachusetts from Florida on January 17, 2014 to be effective January 18, 2014. GEICO’s records further show that the title was ordered the same date, January 17, 2014. [redacted] contacted GEICO next three months later, on April 25, 2014 to inquire about the titles as she had not received them.On April 25, the titles were reordered. [redacted] informed GEICO that she would need to register her vehicle in Florida again, as her registrations would expire before she could receive the titles. The titles were required before she could register her vehicles in Massachusetts. Per documentation from a supervisor who had spoken to [redacted], no reimbursement was warranted because the delay was not due to any error on GEICO’s part. [redacted] spoke to GEICO on May 8, 2014 when it was confirmed no fees were to be reimbursed. [redacted] informed GEICO she would contact other sources to resolve the issue.It is GEICO’s position that all proper procedures were followed in the handling of [redacted]’ policy. The delay was the fault of [redacted]’s leasing company, who failed to send the titles in a timely manner. As a matter of good faith and excellent customer service, GEICO will reimburse [redacted] for the registration feecs. If you have any questions, or if GEICO can be of any further service in this matter, please contact me at ###-###-####.Very truly yours,

Consumer

Response:

[A default letter is provided here which indicates your acceptance of the business's response. If you wish, you may update it before sending it.]

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and find that this resolution is satisfactory to me.

Regards,

Review: POLICY # [redacted]

I have been insured with GEICO for the past ten years or so. Right now, I am very dissatisfied with the service of the Representatives and Managers in whom have been dishonest and acted fraudulently concerning my multiline discount to include my renter's insurance. I relocated from AR to MN and began coverage on October 12, 2011 - April 12, 2012 with six month total premiums of $ 563.90 while I was residing with my son at [redacted] MN [redacted]. When, I moven to [redacted], MN [redacted]; I notifed GEICO and added Renter's Insurance, and was given the same company [redacted] SPECIALITY PROPERTY # RIN [redacted] @ $22.62 ###-###-#### in which, my premiums lowered then to $462 six month to include the multi-line discount.

Then, I had to move and nolonger needed renter's insurance until I moved to [redacted], MN [redacted] on July 26, 2013. Once again, I called [redacted] to have renter's insurance automatic deduction beginning 08/03/2013 - 08/03/2014. Once again, I called GEICO to notify of the renter's insurance and obtain the MULTI-LINE DISCOUNT. GEICO noted all of my information and set me up for multi-line discount.

Then, in January 2014, I noticed that my premiums were apperaling to be awefully higher as it was again time for me to renew; so I called GEICO again to complain of the fact that my premiums were not correct. I was asked by the agent ""IF"" I even had RENTER'S INSURANCE??? He didn't even KNOW!!! iasked to speak to a Supervisor and was told they would correct the problem, but never did.

Then, once again, the next month, I had to call again, and was told that I would be retro-actively credited for the past months of coverage----THIS NEVER HAPPENED!!!

I have had to call GEICO every month, and every month; again they pretend they are not AWARE that I even have RENTER'S INSURANCE. Here it is nine (9) months from September 2013 - May 2014 that I am due credit for (MULTI-LINE DISCOUNTS), and now; I was recently told by a GEICO MANAGER that the Renter's Insurance that I have is not with them and this is the reason that I haven't been given the discount (multi-line credit). Approxaitemly, arount $200.00.

HOW???? COULD this be, when it was GEICO who referred me to [redacted] for Renter's Insurance. It is evident to me as it would be to any reasonable person that GEICO has acted fraudulent, deceptive and have intentiionally and willfully mislead and took advantage of me as a consumer, and I just wonder how many others???

When, I threatened that I was going to shop around for other quotes; it was reported to me by another Insurance CO that the Data Base was showing that my coverage would be CANCELLED on May 9, 2014. How could this be, when I just renewed in April 2014 - October 2014. So, now, it appears GEICO is "retailiating" against me and doing it with willful intent.

I have recently had surgery again. I am in severe pain, and very Disabled.. I do NOT need this undue and excess STRESS. I would hope that this situation be resolved immediately before I am persuaded to contact the Media and an Attorney.. I am sure, that I am NOT the only victim of these circustances----.Desired Settlement: I want my corrected six month PREMIUMS and a REFUND and CREDIT for the next six months ADJUSTMENT premiums/MULTI-LINE DISCOUNT of my RENTER'S INSURANCE to include a letter of apology. Thank you!

Business

Response:

May 13, 2014

Review: I started my policy with Geico on 9/24/2013 because I got a new car. I was told by the lady who started my policy by the name of [redacted] that my original quote was between $120.00-123.00 I do not remember the exact quote. When she put all my information in the system it came back that I had a ticket in my name. [redacted] then informed me that my insurance would be $144.81 because of that ticket. [redacted] proceeded to tell me that when I get everything taken care of and the ticket is off my driving record my insurance will go to the original quote she told me and I will receive the necessary adjustments. When I started the policy I had to pay the 144.81. I sold my car and that person got the ticket they did not get everything transferred in their name. I took the ticket and everything to the DMV. The ticket was off of my driving record. I spoke with a lady on 10/16/2013 I do not remember her name. I explained to her the situation. She told me that I needed to get a copy of my driving record without the ticket, and fax it in and my insurance will be adjusted accordingly. I went to the DMV that same day and faxed it. She told me it will take about 24 hours to be applied. I called Geico on 10/19/2013 and spoke to [redacted] around 2:50 pm I explained the situation to him. He told me that he does not see that quote that [redacted] gave me. Then he said to me that there is nothing that he can do. I said why are you telling me that there is noting you can do to help me. He said because I do not see what you are talking about. Then I asked to speak to his supervisor by the name of [redacted] he than told me that there is nothing he can do then he proceeded to place me on hold. [redacted] came back to the phone and told me he does not see where [redacted] gave me that quote, and there is nothing he can do. I do not understand why I was told something by one person and I did what I was told to do in regards to the ticket and NO ONE IS HONORING WHAT CATELINE SAID. THIS IS NOT GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE AT ALL.Desired Settlement: 100% GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE EVERY TIME I CALL IN ABOUT AN ISSUE. IF SOMEONE TELLS ME SOMETHING IT NEEDS TO BE HONORED.

Business

Response:

Please see attached response to this complaint. After writing this letter, I did speak with **. [redacted] and agreed to a one time credit to her policy in the amount of $25.00 to offset the cost of her getting her MVR for us, and as a gesture of customer satisfaction. She was pleased with this resolution.

Sincerely,

Underwriting Supervisor

October 25, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

Thank you for your letter, received by GEICO oil October 21,2013, to [redacted] regarding [redacted]’s policy. **. [redacted] asked that I respond on his behalf and I welcome the opportunity to do so.

According to a conversation she had with my associate, [redacted], **. [redacted] believes that we used 4 convictions rather than 3, when rating her policy, and that one of these convictions was on her record in error. GEICO's record reflects the quote, which equates to monthly payments in the amount of $144.81, was for 3 convictions as reflected on her Delaware Motor Vehicle Report.

**. [redacted] informed **. [redacted] she felt that her driving record erroneously reflected a red light "‘camera" violation for the month of September 2013. However, due to the nature of camera violations and the fact that a driver cannot be identified at the time of the infraction, camera violations are not reflected on a driver’s motor vchicle report. **. [redacted]’s driving record, a copy of which she acquired and sent to us herself, reflects only three violations, none of which took place in September 2013. Therefore, they were the only violations used in determining her monthly payments of $144.81.

Since I am unable to listen to the conversation that took place between **. [redacted] and our sales agent.

I cannot say for certain why she was advised her monthly payments would be approximately $123.00. I can, however, confirm that her monthly payments would be $123.03 if she had only one violation, and $135.29 at her March 2014 renewal, when one of her violations drops outside of the rating period and she has just two violations impacting her premium. These amounts are approximate and would apply only if no other changes occur in the rating of her policy.

Again, I cannot say why **. [redacted] was given an incorrect amount for her monthly payments; but I do believe it was due to a misunderstanding. I can assure her we would never intentionally misquote a policy premium. Our calls are monitored for quality and intentionally giving a misquote would result in disciplinary action. It is our goal to provide outstanding quality service to all our customers and it is this commitment that has allowed us to remain in business for 77 years and to consistently get the highest possible ratings from independent organizations that rate insurance companies.

Review: On the 24th of January 2014, I went online to make an insurance payment using my bank debit card for a total of $267.19. I filled out the rest of information asked to verify and pull up my account payment options and as a safety precaution, it asks for a nickname to instantly pull up your card number so you don't have to search for it but just have to remember your exp. date and the CVV numbers in the back. I processed the payment and it didn't go through. I pulled out my card to make sure my info was put in correctly and it was, so then I immediately opened a new tab and logged into my bank account. To no surprise, it definitely showed I had the funds and more to cover the $267.19 needed for my monthly insurance. Therefore, I called my bank and spoke with a representative to make sure of my balance and that there isn't any surprises or pending charges that I may not know about. So at this time, I felt I was good to go to try again. Tried the second time, to my surprise it didnt go thru again. So, I needed to pay my insurance and didn't want to call because I was in a hurry, I tried my second option and that was to pay by check online. I provided my account number, routing number, and other personal information. I clicked to process and it went thru with no proble**. I was glad and then went about my day.

Today on January 28,2014, I logged in to my bank to check my account and I was surprised about my current balance and then looked on to the transactions. I was charge $35 over draft because Geico had charge my debit card on the 24th that actually went thru and had also charged the online check payed on the 24th that I processed and went thru. Also in result that one of my other transactions, which I had filled a hand written check to my food service to make to cash was returned charging him $20 for returned check and $35 for my overdraft fee. Which put my in a bad situation. I live paycheck to paycheck! I called Geico, they say they cant do anything about it and I called my bank (WellsFargo) and they cant do anything either.

I shouldn't have to rely on an online service which does not charge you a fee and that does to make a payment over the phone. In this case it gave me a false information and I was put in a bad situation where I definitly have to pay more out of pocket ($90.00) and it isn't even my fault.

Please help me and see what I may do to rectify my situation.Desired Settlement: I was charged $35 for returned check online which was charged on my debit instead

I was charged $35 for another check filled out handwritten for $116.00.

He was charged $20 by his bank for a returned handwritten check to him that couldn't go thru.

In total I wish to receive back what was payed out in result to online processing error on Geico Website!

$90.00

Business

Response:

February 6, 2014

Dear **. [redacted],

We received your correspondence dated February 2, 2014, regarding the above-noted complaint. We have not included any personal identifying information in our response as you requested.

When our insured purchased his policy, he enrolled in a payment plan that would charge his payments to his credit card automatically each month. On January 20, 2013, we attempted to process an automatic payment of $267.19 on his card; however, that payment was declined. We automatically resubmit declined payments, and on January 24, 2014, we successfully resubmitted the payment of $267.19 through his automatic payment plan.

Later that day, our insured attempted to process a payment of $267.19 twice on a credit or debit card at geico.com. Both payments were declined. He then submitted an electronic check payment of $267.19 at geico.com. The electronic check payment was returned for insufficient funds on February 3,2014, and a $20.00 returned check fee was automatically assessed for the returned payment.

In the process of making the payment online, our website presented a warning that the last payment we received was on January 24, 2014, in the amount of $267.19. In addition, this screen also showed that the next Recurring Card Payment was scheduled to be processed until February 20, 2014, in the amount of $267.19.

On February 4, 2014, we spoke to our insured regarding this matter. Regrettably, we are unable to compensate him for his overdraft fees.

Enclosed is a copy of the screen that was presented when he made a payment at geico.com. We trust this information is sufficient to allow you to close your file. Please call [redacted], Customer Service Director, at ###-###-####, if you have any further questions.

Sincerely,

Review: I contacted my insurance carrier which is Geico on the morning of April 4th regarding an accident I was in on my way to work. The Geico claim representative proceeded to tell me on the phone that since I was not at fault in the accident, Geico is not responsible for the claim to have my car repaired. The Geico claim representative further stated that I would be responsible to contact the other insurance company, and that I needed to proceed further to process the claim through the at fault party's insurance company. I asked the claim representative if this is their normal process, and she stated yes that it was. I told her that this was unacceptable and that I have never had to do any of the claim work on my own when I had other insurance companies. I have never heard of this practice from an insurance company that I am paying for coverage, but not getting any assistance when I was in an accident. Geico told me that I would be going in on getting this claim resolved alone. The claim representative from Geico also told me if I had any questions that needed answered, they would be glad to answer for me. The claim representative also stated that since it was the other party's fault ( even though this had not been decided yet by both parties involved in the accident) Geico will not pay a single cent for repairs or a rental car (even though I have that coverage in my policy).Desired Settlement: This is the first insurance carrier that I have ever had that stated to me that I was going to have to file and see to the completion of the claim process against the at fault party's insurance carrier. I have spoken to others about this practice and they have stated to me that they have never heard of an insurance carrier letting one of its own customers file a claim against another insurance carrier without any assistance on the matter. This is a total unacceptable practice that should not be allowed by a company that you are paying for services from. I would like a billing credit and an apology from this carrier, besides following up with the current claim that is in the process of completion. I feel since I took on all of their responsibilities in this process this is the least that they can do for me. I am not a happy customer of Geico at this time. Live up to your end of the bargain when I signed up for your services that you should be providing.

Business

Response:

May 2, 2014To Whom It May Concern:Thank you for your correspondence dated April 23, 2014.This claim was reported to us on April 4, 2014 by our insured **. [redacted]. He reported the other party merged into his vehicle causing the accident. Our file notes indicate we explained the filing options to **. [redacted] and he indicated he wanted to file with the at-fault party. However, it appears from his letter that there was a misunderstanding in this phone conversation and we sincerely apologize for this.We contacted **. [redacted] after receiving your letter. We apologized for the misunderstanding and offered our assistance. He indicated he had already completed his claim with the other carrier. We sincerely apologize for any miscommunication on our part.Should you have any further questions, please contact [redacted], Claims Supervisor, at ###-###-####.Sincerely,

Review: Policy # [redacted]. My vehicle, a 2007 [redacted] was vandalized when someone drained fluids from it. Two days prior to the event, the vehicle was checked for freezing temperatures and all fluids were full. When the vehicle stalled on the road, it was towed to the shop where no leaks were found. The fluids had been drained. I once the damage was found, Geico was contacted and took two weeks to look at the vehicle. In the mean time, I had found that several other individuals living in proximity had found their vehicles tampered with. I offered to give these individuals names and numbers to the investigator with Geico and she said they were not necessary. After finding the damage, on the road, a patrolman saw the vehicle and verified the problem. When offering to obtain police reports from the scene or from the neighborhood where the vehicle had been part where others had been vandalized, I was told this was unnecessary. It appeared as if Geico was looking for reasons not to pay on a vandalism claim. When refusing witness claims, police reports, and taking two weeks to send an adjuster, this was evidently WRONG on so many levels.Desired Settlement: Considering the replacement of the motor would cost $4800 and the value of the vehicle was $4900. Without an engine, the vehicle would basically be worth $1000 for spare parts. The amount lost from a insurance company not honoring their own contract reveals a lot about their honesty. Will they honor their product?

Business

Response:

January 23, 2014

Dear **. [redacted]:

Thank you for your January 18, 2014 inquiry.

We read **. [redacted]’s complaint and completed a full review of his claim handling. Our inspection of **. [redacted]’s vehicle at the repair facility determined the engine failed as a result of overheating. There is no evidence anyone vandalized **. [redacted]’s vehicle by climbing under the vehicle, removing the drain plug, draining the coolant, and concealing this activity by replacing the drain plug back into the vehicle.

**. [redacted] waited nineteen days to report the loss to us, did not witness this alleged vandalism himself, and because the engine was disassembled at the time of inspection, we were not in a position to verify if there were any prior leaks existing on the vehicle.

**. [redacted] informed us he has a witness. However, when we inquired about the witness, we were informed they did not see any vandalism occur to **. [redacted]’s vehicle.

We are sorry **. [redacted]’s engine suffered a mechanical failure from overheating. However, there are zero indications or evidence his vehicle sustained any vandalism of any manner which could have affected his vehicle. We informed **. [redacted] our inspection and investigation revealed no evidence of vandalism and all indications are his damages were caused by mechanical breakdown and unfortunately coverage will not be afforded.

If you have any farther questions, please contact [redacted], Auto Damage Manager, at ###-###-####.

Sincerely,

Review: A claim was filed on 2/11/14 and it is now two months later and my family and I are still with out vehicle. Undere Geico's web site of how they handle claims it states, " We can't pretend that the car insurance claims process is fun, but we can promise you we'll make it as hassle-free as possible. In fact, your claim may be settled in as little as 48 hours. We're proud to offer you personal attention around the clock. Our claims representatives are available anytime to help you file a claim, and answer any questions you might have about the claims process. Simply file your claim online or call us at ###-###-####. You choose the option that is best for you. Getting You Back on the Road."

I have called a number of times and tried to reach the claims specialist, managers and even supervisors and got nothing. My last attempt was today.Desired Settlement: I should not have to pay the the deductible and they should work on their customer service.

Business

Response:

April 24, 2014To Whom It May Concern:Thank you for your inquiry of April 14, 2014On February 11, 2014 we learned that a 2007 [redacted] belonging to our policyholder, **. [redacted] had been damaged in a collision while being driven by **. [redacted]’s fiance, [redacted]. On February 11, 2014, our adjuster, [redacted], advised **. [redacted] that this would be an at-fault loss and the damages would be covered under the collision coverage of the policy with the applicable deductible.On March 17,2014 we approved damages in the amount of $2,729.25 less the $500.00 deductible for a payment of $2,229.25. We advised [redacted] of the approval for $2,229.25 and issued payment. Supplemental estimates were submitted for approval and payments were issued in the amount of $1,900.12 and $279.64 on April 14, 2014 and April 18, 2014 respectively. The deductible will apply since **. [redacted] was responsible for the accident.We sincerely regret any inconvenience **. [redacted] experienced during our handling of her loss. We believe that we handled her claim appropriately and in accordance with the provisions of her policy. If you have any questions, please contact [redacted], Claims Manager, at ###-###-####.Sincerely,

Review: I have in writing that my account would be debited once per month in the amount of $106.49 Geico withdrew $180.91 with out authorization. I requested that this money be sent back to my account and they refused. I was assured that this would not happen when I was signed up for the ach Debit. This is a setup (scam) by Geico!Desired Settlement: $74.42 refund not credited to account.

Business

Response:

April 22, 2014