Don't Use Geico

[Danoff]

They'll apparently deny your claim regardless of any evidence you bring to them. I don't know if there are any good car insurance companies out there, but the one with the little animated gecko with the British accent is not one.

My sister got into a nasty accident recently (car totaled) because another driver pulled in front of her to make an unprotected left turn on a green yield. T-bone accident, both cars totaled.

Turns out both drivers have Geico insurance - neither has collision coverage.

Other driver claims a green arrow, and that my sister was running a red and that's why the t-bone happened. My sister claims her light was green and that the other driver failed to yield and this is why the accident happened. Geico says "lol iono, but we don't have to pay if we deny you both, so you're both denied".

Here's the kicker. She went back and looked at the light, there is no possible way the other driver had a green arrow. A witness in another car described her light situation well enough to conclusively determine that this was a yield green. It's all in the police report and in the light timing. Geico didn't listen to the argument about the light timing, didn't go to the scene to check the light pattern, didn't do anything except determine that this was a case of "word against word" and so they won't be paying anyone thank you very much. Appeal? Absolutely not. This is the end of the line, go the hell away.

So now she's combing through her policy to try to find an appeals process before taking the case to the state insurance board. WTH, how can they possibly just look at this, shrug their shoulders, and refuse to pay either way?

Bastards. Anyway, if you have Geico, think about changing before this is you.

 

[Joel]

Are you implying that this guy DOESN'T play a mean fiddle?

 

[David]

Someone got t-boned. Either way I can't see how they didn't assign fault and give a payout for this, especially if there was a police report.

 

[CodeRedR51]

I had a similar issue with State Farm several years ago with my Miata.

I was turning left on a one-way street from a main road. (T-junction) All my attention was to the right where the cars were coming from. When I had a clear space, I started my left turn and just as I looked toward the direction I was going I unfortunately turned right into the door of a van that was coming across the road from the NAPA parking lot in front of me.

Minor collision, neither car was totaled. I was sited for not yielding to the van, etc. Upon further research of Colorado traffic laws, I found a law that stated that a vehicle leaving a private property (parking lot, etc) has to yield to all traffic on actual streets. I brought this up to the officer that ticketed me and after a couple phone calls back and forth my ticket was dropped. 👍

State Farm's response: "It doesn't matter, we still think you are at fault."

 

[David]

State Farm's response: "It doesn't matter, we still think you are at fault."

Interesting how traffic laws seems to have no bearing on how they assign fault.

I've never had a problem with my Allstate insurance. My local agent has always been very helpful, but I was only in a little fender bender back in high school and then the neighborhood kids have smashed into my parked car on bicycles a few times.

 

[Danoff]

What Geico is saying is that if someone pulls a left in front of you at the last second against the law causing you to t-bone them and total your car (and go to the hospital), that as long as the other person lies and says they had the right of way, you'll get denied.

It is such nonsense that they refused to even think about this case. How is "we don't want to pay either of you" an acceptable answer from any viewpoint?

 

[David]

Well, the police report should make the lawsuit nice and easy, even if you just have to take the other driver to court for damages.

 

[Grayfox]

How can you not have collision insurance with comprehensive car insurance.

 

[Danoff]

Car was worth ~$3000. Carrying collision on it is a net loss. In the US at least, you have the option to only carry insurance to cover the damage you do to someone else's property, not damage that you do to your own.

So in this case both drivers are covered for damage they do to the other car, but not for any damage they are at fault for to their own property. Insurance company says neither driver is at fault for the other car's damage, and so neither driver's policy pays out anything to the other.

 

[lbsf1]

How can you not have collision insurance with comprehensive car insurance.

Might be called 3rd party insurance in Australia like it is in the uk.

 

[Grayfox]

We have 3rd party that is covers damage to property done by you.

 

[Danoff]

We have 3rd party that is covers damage to property done by you.

US terminology:

Liability Insurance = Covers damage done to others' property that is your fault.
Collision Insurance = Covers damage done to your property that is your fault.

Liability is required by law. Collision is optional. Many people opt out of collision if their car is not worth very much. Carrying $50/mo collision coverage for 5 years on a car worth $2000 is a bad deal even if you total your car at the end of that 5 years and get paid nothing.

 

[GTP_Gearhead]

Geico is notorious for this stuff, I dropped them years ago after they refused to pay a claim on one of my bikes.
Here's another involving two parties both insured by Geico

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/234340/28/Say No to the Payday Ballot Initiative

I now have Progressive on the car, trucks, bike and boat. I find they're better to deal with, although a tad more expensive. But, you get what you pay for, cut rate insurance is not for me.

I'm sorry for your sister, hire a good lawyer.

 

[Keef]

Looks like she needs to get a lawyer to cover this. I've never heard of an insurance company denying a police report - they're legally allowed to do that?

Who was cited in this incident?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Would I suggest that on her next car purchase she put a little money aside for a black-box recorder like one of these?

http://www.roadhawk.co.uk/

 

[Keef]

That's a good idea for somebody who abides by the law. I would never be able to use that. I'd have to delete everything on it except the small amount of time before an incident from which I could benefit.

 

[GTP_Gearhead]

I've got 7 business trucks on the road insured through Progressive commercial.

They are all equipped with this:

http://www.totalguardsystems.com/

I know it seems a little strange to have them in your personal vehicle, but you just cannot be too careful these days. I run them in my personal vehicles as well.

 

[ExigeEvan]

That's a good idea for somebody who abides by the law. I would never be able to use that. I'd have to delete everything on it except the small amount of time before an incident from which I could benefit.

Just copy the relevant files onto a CD and send it to the relevant authorities, surely?

 

[GTP_Gearhead]

That's a good idea for somebody who abides by the law. I would never be able to use that. I'd have to delete everything on it except the small amount of time before an incident from which I could benefit.

Nope.
You just plug it into your PC, select the date and time you wish to view, and it brings it up. Very user friendly.

 

[Slash]

Geico has been fantastic to us.

 

[a6m5]

I guess you guys haven't been around the industry much? While I never get in an accident, or had any issues with insurance companies, I'll trust them like I trust a con artist.

Work in automotive parts/service or body shop business, and you routinely hear about how they are looking to rip their customers off, or anybody in the business. It seems like they put 110% effort into cutting corners & ripping people off, starting with their own customers & people they work with.

I'm no expert, but I'm thinking Danoff's sister needs a lawyer. Unfortunately, not the first time I've heard of that either.

 

[Danoff]

No I'm sure they're bad. I suspect they are all bad. But I know Geico is bad.

 

[Pupik]

Geico is notorious for this stuff, I dropped them years ago after they refused to pay a claim on one of my bikes.

Never mind allegations that they funded laser radar guns in the 1980s-90s...

 

[a6m5]

No I'm sure they're bad. I suspect they are all bad. But I know Geico is bad.

You sound ridiculous, Danoff. However, in such a collision, it is ridiculous that they are not citing one of the party at fault. If these crooks(insurers) actually made profit by blaming the wreck on one of the drivers, you know that there is absolutely no doubt that they'll pull a Judge Judy without a hesitation.

I agree with you. This story, at least to me, suggests that they are driven purely by greed, and are willing to steal from their clients.

Never mind allegations that they funded laser radar guns in the 1980s-90s...

I don't get it. Like for R&D?

 

[Signal52]

You sound ridiculous, Danoff. However, in such a collision, it is ridiculous that they are not citing one of the party at fault.

Racing incident.

 

[a6m5]

Racing incident.

Totally, except this isn't one.

 

[Pupik]

I don't get it. Like for R&D?

1) Pay for the radar guns.
2) Police agencies pull over speeders.
3) Jurisdiction profits.
4) Speeders then pay higher premiums...insurance company profits.

I have heard of similar incidents where driver A hits driver B, and if they have the same insurance company, they look deeper into repaying the claim(s), if covering it at all. Apparently, they will do their best to look for ways to create a "no-fault" incident. Usually, this is rare, because there's someone quite at fault, but working with body shops has reveled all sorts of stories (although I can't say I have all the information at hand). Usually, they just drag out the repair process forever.

They're out to profit, and will try every trick in the book to do so.

 

[a6m5]

Well, like I said in my first post, I'll trust these guys like I trust con artists. I had never heard about the radar gun thing, but that is an interesting angle.

I hate these guys, politicians, bankers, etc., etc. I hate the Occupy crowd, but you hear their message clearly. These guys just write all the rules in their favor(hate lawyers, too lol), and it's like playing basketball game against a team that's also officiating the game. They can screw you at every turn, but should you make one mistake(sometimes, you don't even have to do that!), they are all over you.

 

[Danoff]

Geico officially denied the claim (a 2nd time) stating that the other driver had "control of the intersection". I love the concept here btw, that because my sister braked, allowing the other car further into the intersection, that is evidence that my sister could have avoided the accident. I told her next time she should clearly hit the gas and let the other driver hit her on the side so that it's clear she couldn't have avoided the accident. Morons. All of this despite the fact that the other car pulled out into oncoming traffic and so she has no claim either. Amazing.

Time for Better Business Bureau and the State Board of Insurance. Amazingly if she takes them to court over this, they will count their attorney's fees against her policy, so that her policy would then have had a payout - preventing her from switching insurance companies without jacking up her rates.

 

[a6m5]

What did I say? Pure comedy at this point(not for your sister, sorry). There is a car coming(your sister's), he turns into front of her, though she's the one driving straight with a green light.

How are insurance rates so 🤬 high with drivers like myself who never claim anything, and people like in this accident who get screwed with zero payout? Between three of us, we should get a full refund from Geico(I was with them for awhile).