Geico Corporation

Review: I purchased first party insurance with GEICO through the internet for me and my daughter. She was involved in a collision when she was turning left and was hit by another driver who was speeding, according to the preliminary opinion of the accident reconstructionist I conferred with. I am a licensed attorney. Under Utah law, the other driver had a duty to maintain a proper lookout and to avoid the collision and forfeited the right of way if she was indeed speeding. GEICO opted to pay the other driver's damages and not seek payment from the other driver's insurance without obtaining a police report or photos, or investigating in any ostensible way. I provided photographs and the police reports and the pertinent Utah law, and also obtained and provided the preliminary opinion from a qualified accident reconstructionist that the other driver was speeding. GEICO's written communications reflect a failure to read the information provided. GEICO continues to refuse to investigate and assess the accident in light of the relevant facts and law. GEICO rejected the accident reconstructionist solely on the basis that his fee was too low, while claiming that premium dollars were properly spent on damages to the other driver, despite its failure to investigate. I do not believe the company has operated in good faith in protecting the interests of the insured.Desired Settlement: GEICO should investigate the accident and if it confirms that the other driver was at fault, should pursue a claim against the insurance company of the other driver, should seek reimbursement of the damages it has paid, and should not pay any further damages.

Business

Response:

Hello **. [redacted],

The attached pdf is our response to **. [redacted]’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: ###-###-####

Fax: ###-###-####

Email: [redacted]

August 20, 2013

Revdex.com of Metropolitan Washington DC 1411 K Street NW, 10th FI.

Washington, DC 20005-3404

Regarding: [redacted]

Claim Number: [redacted]

Revdex.com File Number: [redacted]

Dear **. [redacted]:

We have received your letter requesting assistance on behalf of **. [redacted]. I welcome the opportunity to respond to her concerns.

This claim arises out of an incident which occurred on July 29th, 2013 at [redacted] Utah. GEICO investigated this loss by obtaining recorded statements from the other driver, **. [redacted] and our insured driver, **. [redacted]’s daughter, [redacted] attempted to make a left turn in front of **. [redacted]’s vehicle which was approaching from the opposite direction. In her statement to GEICO and the investigating officer from the [redacted] Police Department, [redacted] said she did not see the other vehicle prior to the impact. Visibility is clear at that intersection without any obstructions. **. [redacted] said she was travelling straight when our [redacted] turned left in front of her. The right front of [redacted]’s vehicle impacted the front of the other driver’s vehicle. The investigating officer issued a citation to [redacted] for improper lookout. While it

is noted that [redacted] told the officer she felt the other driver was speeding, no citation was issued to **. [redacted].

While all drivers owe duties while operating a motor vehicle; there is no evidence **. [redacted] failed any of the duties owed to **. [redacted] in this instance. As the vehicle turning left, [redacted]’s vehicle would owe the greater duty under Utah Code 41-6a-903 which states: “the operator of a vehicle: (1) intending to turn left shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle approaching from the opposite direction which is so close to the turning vehicle as to constitute an immediate hazard Based on this statute, the statements of both drivers, and the point of impacts on both vehicles; GEICO determined [redacted] would be responsible for the other vehicle’s damage.

**. [redacted] expressed her concerns regarding the liability decision to GEICO, as she has to the Bureau. While we do not disagree the other driver does owe a duty to maintain a proper lookout and to attempt to avoid a collision, there is no evidence **. [redacted] failed these duties.

Additionally, [redacted] was cited for failure to maintain a proper lookout. While both our insured and her daughter feel **. [redacted] was speeding, there was no evidence at the scene she was speeding, as evidenced by her statement and the investigating officer not citing her for any violation.

Based upon the information we obtained during our investigation, we do not believe an accident reconstructionist would be warranted in this loss. Our investigation revealed our insured’s daughter failed to yield the right of way by making a left turn in front of an oncoming approaching vehicle. We would like to assure **. [redacted] it has been our goal to handle this claim in a thorough and fair manner, and we regret any frustration this matter may have caused her.

I hope this information is helpful in resolving **. [redacted]’s concerns. If you have any additional questions, please contact my associate, [redacted], at ###-###-####, extension [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: the letter from Geico asserts that its decision was premised on the recorded statements of my daughter and **. [redacted], neither of which have been mentioned in prior correspondence concerning why Geico opted to pay, and which have not been provided to me. I have requested that Geico provide me with a copy of these recorded statements. If Geico is referring to the written statements provided by [redacted] and **. [redacted] to the police, Geico made the decision to pay **. [redacted] before receiving the police reports from me. If Geico would actually take the time to read the documents I have provided, it would note that in her written statement, **. [redacted] not only claimed to have been going straight, but also, claimed to have been "turning east." Geico claims that [redacted]'s car impacted [redacted]'s, but this overlooks both the written statements of **. [redacted] and [redacted] that [redacted]'s car hit [redacted]'s. Geico's claim that there is no evidence **. [redacted] was speeding adroitly ignores the preliminary opinion of the accident reconstructionist I conferred with, and the photos of the crash, both of which became available to it after Geico decided to pay. As Geico has yet to acknowledge, under municipal law, if **. [redacted] was speeding, she forfeited the right of way. See [redacted] City Municipal Code section 12.44.230. It is true that [redacted] received the ticket. As a matter of law, she is presumed innocent until proven guilty and her criminal case has yet to be adjudicated. Police officers are not always thorough and correct in their investigations. Geico's performance falls below the standards that govern the industry, which require it to diligently investigate the facts and to perform fairly and reasonably in evaluating and settling the claim. See Black v. Allstate, 2004 UT 66, ¶20, 100 P.3d 1163.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Hello **. [redacted],

The attached pdf is copy of a letter mailed to **. [redacted] regarding her complaint. Going forward, we will continue to work directly with her to resolve her concerns.

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: ###-###-####

Fax: ###-###-####

Email[redacted]

August 30, 2013

[redacted] July 29, 2012

GEICO General Insurance Company

Claim Number:

Insured:

Claimant:

Date of Loss: Company:

Dear **. [redacted]:

We are in receipt of your Utah Department of Insurance complaint as well as your follow up in regards to your Revdex.com complaint. We feel our original liability investigation and decision was proper; however, in the interest of addressing your concerns, we have scheduled an accident reconstructionist to review the loss. Your claims adjuster, [redacted], will be in contact with you and will provide our findings upon receipt. If you have any additional questions, please contact me at ###-###-####, extension [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:GEICO did not provide the accident reconstructionist with the recorded admission of the other driver, wherein she admitted to driving over the speed limit. I already sent the accident reconstructionist's report to you, which confirms this.

Regards,

Review: I had an accident and I have communicating with geico . They never stated there was an issue with my policy.

On 8/10/2013 gieco took a payment from my account in the amount of 254.96. I have been communicating with gieco and they never stated that there was a billing issue .Desired Settlement: To credit my account two payments because this billing issue was not my fault

Business

Response:

August 20, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

Thank you for your letter, received by GEICO on August 14, 2013, to [redacted] regarding [redacted]'s policy. **. [redacted] asked that I respond on his behalf and I welcome the opportunity to do so.

Due to a clerical error, **. [redacted]’s policy was delayed in renewing. Therefore, her regularly scheduled automatic payments for June and July were not collected. GEICO withdrew $254.96 which represents 3 months of regularly scheduled premium for the months of June. July and August. **. [redacted]’s next scheduled payment is for $88.32 due by September 10, 2013. We apologize for any misunderstanding and inconvenience this may have caused.

[ hope this information has been helpful. If you have any additional questions, you may call my associate, [redacted] at [redacted], extension [redacted], and he will be glad to assist you.

Sincerely,

Review: I live and am licensed and insured to drive in Delaware. Since I was sixteen everyone and our department of motor vehicle have established that a basic defensive driving course will earn you a 10% discount on your insurance as well as three points credit on driving record all approved by DMV ( department of motor vehicle) and if you take advanced course you earn 15% discount and three points credit. I completed the basic course the years ago and did the refresher/ advanced course on 08/07/2014. Geico feels they are the only insurance company in the world that doesn't have to honor this program. They told me they give the discount % they want to not what the program requires and will not give me the full 15% for the course I just paid for and spent hours studying for to get. Not only is this bad for me financially but also very bad for us as a society. This practice will severely discourage people from taking defensive driving courses if the insurance companies don't honor their end.Desired Settlement: I want my 15% discount added to the $62 (10%) discount I have been getting for three years. That would be $31 more off of my six month premium

Business

Response:

August 14, 2014Dear [redacted]:Thank you for your recent letter regarding [redacted]’s policy. Mr. Nicely asked that I respond on his behalf, and I welcome the opportunity.I apologize for any confusion that [redacted] has had regarding the Defensive Driver Course Discount on his policy. The discount is for up to 15% from the Bodily injury, Property Damage, and Personal Injury Protection coverages that are on his policy. [redacted]’s Uninsured Motorist coverage would be excluded in the calculation of the amount of the discount. Additionally, when the policy premium is determined, there are a number of different factors that impact the rate. In this calculation, there may be other things that impact the cost of these coverages that are considered after this particular discount; it is not a flat 15% off of the top.We have, also, received a complaint from the Delaware Department of Insurance regarding the Defensive Driver Course Discount on [redacted]’s policy. Because they will not publish our proprietary information, we will submit our rate filings to them showing that we are appropriately rating [redacted]’s policy.Again I apologize for any confusion that [redacted] has experienced regarding the application of his Defensive Driver Course Discount. If he has any questions, he can contact our 24 hour customer service department at ###-###-####. Sincerely,Carole CUnderwriting Supervisor GEICO Casualty Company

Consumer

Response:

The discount for advanced defensive driving course is NOT for up to 15%. The discount is exactly 15%. The discount I am receiving now is the same amount I received for the basic course which is 10% not up to 10% but a flat 10%. If my defensive driving discount didn't change at all from basic to advanced course then why would anyone take it! I didn't think insurance companies would discourage people from taking courses by not giving correct discount and trying to find our manipulate their way around it! Not to mention the amount I have been getting isn't even the 10% I was supposed to get for the basic course! The discount for defensive driving can not be applied to what part of the insurance the companies choose to either it is clearly stated as 10% off insurance for basic and 15% for the advanced. There is no up to clause nor does it say only on property liability. That would mean a person with full coverage woods be discouraged from taking courses as well by this policy! This is the most laughable worst poorest excuse for a response I have ever heard. I can't believe Geico actually thinks this will fly. I will put it simply I will get my 15% out take my home and both auto insurance policies elsewhere.

Review: [redacted]

I am rejecting this response because:

Regards,

Business

Response:

August 21, 2014Dear [redacted]:Thank you for your recent letter regarding [redacted]’s policy.I do want to assure you that [redacted] is receiving the correct discount on his policy. Since we have received a complaint through the Delaware Department of Insurance, we will be following up with them for any additional responses. We have submitted our rate filings related to the Defensive Driver Discount to the Department of Insurance.If [redacted] has any questions regarding his insurance policy, he can contact our 24 hour customer service department at ###-###-####.Diana LPolicy Holder Relations GEICO Insurance Companies

Review: We purchased this house on August 01, 2013. Prior to the closing, we purchased Home owners insurance thru GEICO. At the time, we noticed that the policy did not include roof coverage. We spoke to an associate ([redacted]) inquiring why the roof was not included? He stated that an inspection would be done within 30 days of the issuance (08-01-2013) and that we should call back in a week or two relative to the inspection. There were many calls to GEICO and we just weren't getting anywhere. Finally, on 10-22-2013 we talked to "[redacted]" who stated we would have to provide them with a statement from the Contractor that re-roofed the house. We told her that wasn't possible, as the re-roof took place less than a year ago by the previous owners. We've tried to contact the previous owners to no avail, as he is a Helicopter Pilot and has been deployed to Afghanistan. The certified inspector that inspected our roof a week prior to the purchase stated in his report " The roof coverings are newer and appear to be in generally good condition. Better than average quality materials have been employed as roof coverings. The steep pitch of the roof should result in a longer than normal life expectancy for roof coverings". To this day, GEICO has not lived up to their original statement that they would send an inspector out. Truly, a novice, much less a professional, would be able to tell that we have a high quality, newer roof.Desired Settlement: The only thing we are looking for is the roof coverage that as far as we're concerned, was part of the purchase. This is our seventeenth house and we would never own a house without roof insurance.

Business

Response:

December 3, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

I am in receipt of your correspondence regarding the above-mentioned complainant; I am responding to same.

GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc. is a sales agent for [redacted] Insurance. As their agent, we are required to adhere to their

underwriting guidelines for new and renewal business.

In review of **. [redacted]’s complaint as it speaks to his roof; I have reviewed this information with [redacted]. Whereas **.

[redacted] has stated that he is not receiving coverage for his roof on his homeowner policy, this is not accurate information. **. [redacted]’s policy reflects roof coverage at “actual cash value”. Please see the attached declaration page.

I have inquired to [redacted] as to what documentation is needed should what **. [redacted] is requesting is “replacement cost” coverage for his roof. Should this be the case, the insured will need to provide “documentation in the form of a receipt showing when the roof replacement work was completed”. Once this information is obtained, please have the insured contact [redacted] at ###-###-#### and we will be happy to submit the request to the [redacted] underwriters to approve adding the endorsement to the policy.

Please confirm that this is what **. [redacted] is making reference to in his correspondence to you .I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

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:

[redacted], in her response, does not address my complaint which is: A GEICO representative told me that they (GEICO) would have the roof inspected within 30 days of the policies issuance in order to determine the approximate age and condition of the roof. Geico is whom I insured with and pay my premiu** to, not [redacted]. Never was it stated that any of this was dependent on [redacted]'s requirements. I tried to reach [redacted], but no one I talked to at GEICO could find her in their directories. The representative I talked with ([redacted]) said on December 3rd at 12;45pm, that she would contact the underwriters at [redacted] and see if GEICO had my roof inspected and found it to be new and in good shape, would that suffice? She stated she would be back to me by email and telephone within 24 hours (1 day). It's now been 6 days and I haven't heard a word from her or anyone else at GEICO.

As far as I'm concerned, GEICO ([redacted]) is just attempting to "pass the buck" and are not addressing my original complaint, which is that they used unethical practices to get my business and have not lived up to their statement that they would have one of their professional inspect the roof and be able to provide the replacement policy we were promised.

Regards,

Business

Response:

December 12, 2013

Dear **. [redacted]:

Thank you for your additional correspondence to the Revdex.com. I am responding to same and to advise of the requirements of

[redacted] to add the replacement cost endorsement to your policy.

I apologize that you feel that my earlier correspondence was a way to “pass the buck”. This was never my intention. I had reviewed your

concerns in your original complaint to the Revdex.com and was advised by [redacted] that there were required documents needed to accommodate your request. This information was passed along to you in an attempt to assist you in obtaining the replacement cost endorsement on your policy you have requested.

I apologize that the service agent who was assisting you on December 3, 2013 did not follow up with you. I have sent a request to her

supervisor to follow up with you at once. I have been informed that **. [redacted] has contacted you and made you aware that I requested an inspection be done on your roof as proof of age. [redacted] will follow up with GEICO Insurance Agency, Inc. as to the findings and you will be contacted as to same.

I apologize if there was miscommunication at the issuance of your policy and that it was not made clear to you of the requirements to add this endorsement to your policy. If you have any additional questions or concerns prior to the return of the roof inspection, please feel free to contact [redacted] at ###-###-#### and a service agent will be happy to assist you.

Sincerely,

Review: It is [redacted]' clear contention that GEICO Glass Claims engaged in undue influence and violated a fiduciary duty by their Conflict of Interest.

It is [redacted]' clear contention that GEICO Glass Claims engaged in undue influence and violated a fiduciary duty by their Conflict of Interest with [redacted] which is a [redacted] company. To be specific, a Geico Agent provided an "Alleged Lowest Cost Estimate" in my area of $288.13 for windshield repair. The Geico Agent assured me that I would find no lower price and that she could not affirmatively tell me to take advantage of this price, she was very persuasive in her stance that I immediately grab this price because it was subject to change. Clearly since my position is that there was fraud, my Windshield was fixed at a much lower price of $166.24 that same day by a Glass Company in my area. Additionally, it is very disturbing because during my conversation with this Geico Agent she brought up the fact that there was no conflict by stating, "We don't get any kickback or benefit from our recommendation." I had not even raised conflict of interest during my conversation but it raised my suspicions. The central reason for my letter is that many customers RELY upon (Estoppel Principles) agents to provide an actual lowest price/quote. Customers rely on sound, fair and ethical business practices. Clearly, the lowest price I was quoted at $288.13 and the actual estimate and price of $166.24 from another company are SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT. Also, the price I actually received of $166 was not from due diligence per se on my part. That price was the next company I called. To be clear, I did not call 15 or 20 other companies. The very next company I called quoted me that price, the ACTUAL FAIR PRICE. I believe that Geico's affiliation with [redacted], which at this point they have denied will cause an UNDUE BURDEN on other customers who take for granted that GEICO agents are acting in their best interest, when based on the totality of the circumstances herein that is not the case. NOW GEICO will probably deem me a pariah and castigate me for wanting basic respect and having their customer best interest. In the instant case, I have no confidence that they will provide me with the best quote, or price or whatever other situation may arise during my contractual relationship with them. I am not cancelling because they would place me in breach of contract. I simply want to highlight what I believe is a common practice (Communis Opinio) from insurance companies.

ISSUE: The issue here is whether or not there is a conflict of interest and if these proxy relationships and back door deals between major companies constitutes fraud within the meaning.

RULE OF LAW: In jurisprudence undue influence is an equitable doctrine that involves one person taking advantage of a position of power over another person. It is where free will to bargain is not possible.

Here, I have the free will to bargain but for the sake of argument I waited several days and did not get the glass fixed. Surely, GEICO would frown upon my conduct as not utilizing a company they recommended. I had the windshield fully restored to its normal position. The issue at hand is the fact that the agent was very persuasive, I would argue downright demanding in her position that I use the quote and company she gave me.

As I have reiterated in this MEMO I find this practice and influence disturbing and shameful. It would be one thing if another company's quote and price was $30 or $40 cheaper but I find the $122 disparity on even just this minor repair issue to be so GREAT that it's Egregious on ITS FACE

I am not a troublemaker but when I see conduct that I believe is downright malum in se (wrongful) on its face, I feel compelled to highlight what I believe is most likely a common issue. GEICO teaming up with other national companies to provide estimates and quotes that are not actually in the best iDesired Settlement: Modication in the conflict of interest and faulty business practices. Also the customer service is severely lacking in terms of knowledge and professionalism.

Business

Response:

March 21, 2013