Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

In article >, Steven O. wrote:
>Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can
>deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable
>company, they will cut you a check."
>
>Well, in this case, I am totally not at fault, but the other guy's
>insurance company is the same as my own, GEICO.
>
>So, let's say the other guy had been insured through Allstate. Same
>deal, my car is worth a bit less than $2000, the estimated cost of
>repair is over $2000. But now, my insurance company, GEICO, would be
>collecting from Allstate to get the money to pay for my car repair.
>Would GEICO still be telling me: "No, we are not going to collect
>that money from Allstate, even though they are the insurer for the
>responsible party, because the repair costs more than your car is
>worth?"

If the offending driver had insurance from a different company, then all
their insurance company had to pay you was what your car was worth just
before it got totalled.

>Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is
>a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's
>insurer, so my insurer simply doesn't want to pay what they owe me,
>because it still really comes out of their pocket?

All they owe you is market-value purchase price for a car like what
yours was just before it got crashed - as determined by methods that "the
industry" has accepted.

If you got crashed by an offending driver with an insurance company
other than your own, the offending driver's insurance company will
similarly want to minimize payout.

- Don Klipstein )

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Alan Baker > wrote
>>> Bob Ward > wrote
>>>> Alan Baker > wrote

>>>>> But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking
>>>>> pace, it is going to move some, even with the brakes on.

>>>> some? SOME? How far? Millimeters? Inches? Feet?
>>>> Yards? You sure like to start tossing out weasel words
>>>> when the egg hits your face, don't you?

>>> Well, the least it will move is going to be in the case where
>>> both cars are moving at the same speed after collision.

>> Pity that when the stationary car has the brakes on when hit,
>> that same speed may well be considerably lower than it would
>> be if the stationary car did not have the brakes on, stupid.

>> Reams of completely irrelevant desperate wanking with
>> numbers plucked out of your arse flushed where they belong.

> The speed of the two vehicles after collision is determined
> by the momentum and the degree of elasticity in the collision.

Duh.

> The minimum that the speed of the stopped vehicle will be
> is in the case of a completely inelastic collision (where both
> vehicles move together after the collide) and in the case of
> equal mass, it will be exactly half the speed of the rear vehicle..

Duh.

Pity what was actually being discussed was the effect of the
stationary car HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT THE TIME OF
THE COLLISION ON THE DISTANCE IT MOVES FORWARD
AND WHETHER THAT CAN AVOID RUNNING INTO THE
CAR IN FRONT OF THE STATIONARY CAR.

Presumably you actually are that thick, its hard to believe
that you can actually be pretending to be that thick.

Alan Baker > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > wrote

>> Alan Baker > wrote

>> >> >> > The force of car colliding with another car even at very slow speed
>> >> >> > is going to cause the front car to move despite having the breaks on.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Complete crap. The front car is only going to move if its hit with
>> >> >> enough force to drag all 4 tires across the road with the brakes on.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm not going to bother trying to educate you about physics.
>> >>
>> >> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
>> >> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
>> >>
>> >> Its VERY basic physics that if the brakes are on, it takes a lot
>> >> more force to move the car into the car in front of it, dragging
>> >> the tyres across the road than it does with the brakes off.
>>
>> >> Try pushing the car in both situations and then find
>> >> a VERY large towel to use on your silly little face.
>>
>> > I never said it was as easy to move a car
>> > with the brakes on as with the brakes off.
>>
>> Even you should be able to bull**** your way out
>> of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.
>>
>> Obviously not.
>>
>> > But if you hit a car at anything above a very slow walking
>> > pace, it is going to move some, even with the brakes on.
>>
>> And what matters is whether it moves
>> enough to hit the car in front of it, stupid.

> I'd tell you to do the math, but I don't think you can.

You cant even manage to work out what is actually being discussed.

WHETHER THE STATIONARY CAR HAVING THE BRAKES ON AT
THE TIME OF THE COLLISION WILL REDUCE THE RISK OF IT
GETTING RAMMED INTO THE STATIONARY CAR IN FRONT OF THAT.

Of course it will, and you dont need any maths to work that out you fool.

In article .com>,
Furious George wrote:
>
>Steven O. wrote:
>> Okay, you say: "If the accident is totally not your fault, you can
>> deal with the other person's insurance and if it's a reputable
>> company, they will cut you a check."
>>
>> Well, in this case, I am totally not at fault, but the other guy's
>> insurance company is the same as my own, GEICO.
>>
>> So, let's say the other guy had been insured through Allstate. Same
>> deal, my car is worth a bit less than $2000, the estimated cost of
>> repair is over $2000. But now, my insurance company, GEICO, would be
>> collecting from Allstate to get the money to pay for my car repair.
>> Would GEICO still be telling me: "No, we are not going to collect
>> that money from Allstate, even though they are the insurer for the
>> responsible party, because the repair costs more than your car is
>> worth?"
>
>You are misunderstanding. If you didn't carry collision insurance, you
>would probably have saved more than $2,000 by now (from not paying
>premiums). Your insurer would not owe you anything, so you would have
>to collect directly from the other insurer. If they are reputable,
>they will cut you a check promptly. If they are not reputable or you
>were at fault, you'd still be better off.

If you are not at fault and the offending driver's insurance co. tries
to get away with not paying you like a reputable insurance co. would, then
you have grounds to sue them.
Based on what I have heard, I would advise to name as defendants in such
a suit the offending driver, the stingy insurance company, any owner of
the offending vehicle other than the driver, and any insurance agent that
the insurance co. of the offender(s) could try to pass the blame onto.
I have heard it could help to file suit in a court whose jurisdiction
includes where the crash occurred, and maybe do so in a court whose
jurisdiction that at least has at least optional service of serving
"complaints" to where the offender lives while also having jurisdiction
where the crash occurred - typically in the same one of the 50 USA
"states". If the offender does not live in the same state that you got
crashed in, then you need more professional legal advice than I can
amateurly offer if you need to sue.

(Whatever I said that your lawyer advises against is from me and nobody
else, and I am the only one irresponsible for such.
My liability for Usenet legal advice is not to exceed what you paid me
for it.)

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein > wrote in
message ...
> Scott en Aztlán wrote
>> Steve > wrote
>>> Scott en Aztlán > wrote

>>>>> Just a matter of curiosity. Would having the shift lever in
>>>>> "Park" prevented the OP's car from hitting the car infront.

>>>> Probably not - no doubt the OP was already standing on the brakes;
>>>> having the trans in park wouldn't have made much difference. The best
>>>> defense would have been to stop far enough behind the car in front.

>>> Good idea. Plus, it gives you room to go
>>> around the guy if his car stalls or whatever...

>> BINGO.

>> Of course, some people take this idea to an extreme,
>> and stop 1, 2, 3,or more carlengths behind the car in front.

> My driving instructor told me to stop far enough behind the
> vehicle in front be able to get around it without backing up,

That is a completely silly approach and if everyone did
that, it would **** up traffic flow quite spectacularly.

> and in most cars that is far enough back to see the rear tires of the vehicle
> in
> front. This seems to me to be about half a car length or maybe slightly more.

Mad.

> One other thing: stopping with a car stopped in front of
> you when you are going uphill. You should be far enough
> behind for the car in front to not hit you if its driver screws up

Rather pointless with most driving automatics now.

> - but I think half a car length is plenty for that one enough of the time.

Its mad.

> Maybe more for an especially steep hill with unfamiliar drivers,
> such as maybe a few tourist-driven hills in San Francisco and
> one really bad one on one approach to downtown Allentown PA.

Madder and madder, now trying to work out who is a tourist.

> On streets with lighter traffic, give more room. One reason is that
> you may run into or get run into by people practicing learning to drive.

Completely off with the ****ing fairys now.

In .com>, rick++ wrote:
>>With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have
>>$10k in liability insurance.
>
>Collision and liability are seperate animals. Liability is for medical
>and pain & suffering. An hour in an emergency room can
>approach $10K (list price) as in an accident I was in.

Liability is also for damage to cars crashed by the liable insured, and
for rental car costs while the car(s) crashed by the insured liable are
being repaired.

Keep in mind that a fender-bender can cost $2500-$3,000-plus for repairs
if any crumple zones get crumpled - possible at only about 5 MPH crash
speed! (USA used to require "5 MPH bumpers" but now the requirement is
only 2.5 MPH)

- Don Klipstein )

In article >,
SpammersDie wrote:
>
>"Jessica V." > wrote in message
...
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Or, on the other hand, am I getting stiffed precisely because there is
>>>>a conflict of interest -- my insurer is the same as the other guy's
>>>>insurer, so my insurer simply doesn't want to pay what they owe me,
>>>>because it still really comes out of their pocket?
>>>
>>>
>>> DING!
>>>
>>> With the cost of auto repair today, I think its irresponsible to have
>>> $10k in liability insurance. You may want to threaten to sue the other
>>> driver directly since his policy limits where insufficent to cover the
>>> damage done to the other vehicles inthe accident. Be aware that GEICO
>>> can ask for its money back if you get paid, so you have to sue for the
>>> whole amount of your costs including the part GEICO is willing to pay
>>> for.
>>
>> $10k is the minimum for liability coverage in my state. Tis fine for
>> those who have no assets.
>
>It's nice for the bozo who only has to pay peanuts in premiums for his $10K
>policy.
>
>It's irresponsible for the state to let this guy drive with such low
>coverage though since anyone he victimizes with more than $10k of damages
>(like in this case) is now screwed. Either the victim or his own insurance
>company is likely to end up with the bill that's rightfully the bozo's.

I thought minimum liability in my state was about $30K. I suspect a
need for an increase, as well as a need to increase fines for moving
violations - especially passing violations, "careless driving", use of a
turn-only lane as a passing lane, use of a lane obstructed by a lane
ending, obstacle or slow vehicle as a passing lane (and to outlaw any of
these that could be legal).
I also believe that if the big city just east of me used their police
helicopter to find aggressive drivers to target for speeding violations,
that this would be a good use of police resources. I think that a driver
who makes 4 lane changes within 1 mile on the same road while going faster
than 85th percentile speed as averaged over that mile is worth identifying
by helicopter if the municipality has a helicopter that is not busy with
something else!

- Don Klipstein )

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 21:58:29 -0700, The Real Bev
> wrote:

>> Insurance companies, and even most courts in most places where "things
>> tend to work" do not quite make victims whole on an average.
>
>I believe that. I do not believe it's correct.
>
Correct, or proper. You appear to be contradicting yourself here.

In article >, George wrote:
>SpammersDie wrote:

>> It's nice for the bozo who only has to pay peanuts in premiums for his $10K
>> policy.
>>
>> It's irresponsible for the state to let this guy drive with such low
>> coverage though since anyone he victimizes with more than $10k of damages
>> (like in this case) is now screwed. Either the victim or his own insurance
>> company is likely to end up with the bill that's rightfully the bozo's.
>
>Exactly, PA only requires 15/30/5, $15,000 per person for personal
>injury, up to 30,000 total, and $5,000 for property damage to the other
>driver's car and/or property. That might have been an adequate amount in
>1950 but is really only chump change now.

PA is my state - 30K is only total and specific items are limited to
less?

I surely believe drivers should have "financial responsibility" for a
lowish value new car (aprox. $15K) plus enough to pay medical bills for 2
people with broken legs (total becomes about $50K?)

I have repeated a saying that most of Pennsylvania is more like Alabama
than Alabama is!

- Don Klipstein )

In article >, OM wrote:
>What's more, Geico is notorious for doling out the grants to the police
>departments for acquiring the radar and laser guns to catch the speeders.
>
>In the 1990s, a well-known but now-defunct company specialising in
>catalogue sales for niche products. The president decided to poll the
>customers whether the company ought to continue carrying the radar
>detector in its catalogue or not. He received so many responses to
>delete the detectors from the subsequent catalogues. One of his
>customers happened to work for Geico and came across the internal
>memorandum which he felt compelled to post anonymously to the president.
>After seeing the memorandum, the president scruppered the whole polling
>scheme and vowed to continue carrying the radar detectors in retaliation
>against Geico. In the internal memorandum, Geico offered the bonus to
>its employees for writing the letters to the company against the radar
>detectors.

Should not insurance companies other than GEICO want to impede speeders?
Profit motive to whatever extent speeding contributes to occurrence or
severity of crashes should not be limited to GEICO!

- Don Klipstein )