Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

Arif Khokar > wrote in
message ...
> Rod Speed wrote:

>> And if the driver applys the brakes harder because he's just been rammed

> That probably won't be the case.

Bull****, its the natural reaction.

> Assuming the driver did not look in his rear view mirror and see that he was
> about to be rear ended, then the resulting acceleration from the impact
> coupled with the inertia of the driver's right lower extremity would actually
> force the leg back towards the driver's body.

Mindless stuff when the foot is applying pressure
to the brake pedal before he's rammed.

> This reduces the applied force on the brake pedal.

Nope, because it doesnt happen like that.

> Only when the driver is able to react to compensate and overcome the inertia
> will he actually press the brake harder.

And that is automatic if he is already applying pressure to the brake pedal.

> The reaction time will not be sufficient to lock up the tires before colliding
> with the vehicle in front.

More bull**** when he's already locked the tires by applying the brake.

DTJ > wrote in message
...
> Rod Speed > 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.

>>> Agreed, except that if the person who
>>> is hit releases the brake as they are hit,

>> Cant see why they would, natural reaction would be to apply the brakes
>> harder.

> Depends.

I doubt it with the brakes already applied.

> I was hit once when I was stopped, and the force threw my head
> back against the head rest, and my feet were lifted off the floor.

I doubt that would happen with the foot on the brakes.

> I was also hit once where it drove my feet onto the pedal.
> Of course that time I was doing 65, and the blond bimbo
> **** who hit me was doing about 95. She hit me so hard
> the wheels lost their grip, and the acceleration from me
> slamming the gas to the floor revved the engine far past red line.

Sure, but thats nothing like the situation being discussed,
stopped at the lights with the foot on the brake pedal.

> The interesting thing was her saying it was my fault. ???

Likely stupid enough to actually believe it too.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 22:44:54 -0500, DTJ > wrote:

>On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:31:53 GMT, Bob Ward >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 10:59:30 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Then there are the people in unprotected left turn lanes who simply
>>>enter the intersection and wait for the light to turn red ignoring
>>>gaps large enough to taxi a 747 through.
>>
>>Perhaps they are better acquiainted with the acceleration
>>characteristics of their car than you are. Would you prefer that one
>>of them pull out in front of you and then have the engine stall?
>
>Even a moron like you should understand that cars which are that
>poorly maintained should not be on the road.


I see - when you lose the argument, you start calling names.

The fact is, there ARE cars that poorly maintained on the road, and if
you insist on ignoring that simple fact of life, you'll probably
intoduce yourself to the drivers of such cars. Hope you can afford
the insurance hit.

"DTJ" > wrote in message
...

> The interesting thing was her saying it was my fault. ???
>
>
Well, you were in her way....

In article >, Steven O. wrote:
>First of all, I'm not sure if it is entirely fair of me to single out
>GEICO. What I just experienced may be endemic to the entire insurance
>industy. Still, I am getting the shaft from GEICO, and part of what I
>want to ask is whether what I experienced does, in fact, occur with
>other insurance companies.
>
>Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real
>accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the guy
>behind me must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me doing
>about 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of me.
>
>Fortunately, I am basically fine (at least so far, but we'll see if my
>neck and back are still sore in two weeks). However, the rear and
>front bumpers of my car were messed up pretty good. The body was
>scrunched, just slightly. Now, several issues have come up with
>GEICO:
>
>1. I have an older car (about 10 years old), and the book value is
>(according to GEICO) about $2000. GEICO also estimates the cost of
>the repair about a bit over $2000. They say they will not pay for the
>repairs, if the repairs cost more than the cost of the car. They have
>referred to my car as a "total loss", or something to that effect,
>even though in fact the car still runs well and could probably go for
>another five or ten years. (I maintain the car well.)

It is normal for an insurance company to "total" a crashed car if cost
of repair not only meets/exceeds but even gets close to cost of repairs.

And it is normal for them to refuse to pay more than the car was worth
just before the accident. Best grounds for aguing for more is citing
"Kelly Blue Book" or other commonly accepted source as to how much your
totalled car was worth just before it got totalled.
Also keep in mind that any specific prior damage or specific necessary
repair (including any repairs necessary in order to sell the car that is)
not typically found in a copy of your car being sold used will detract
from the "book value". If according to this the car was worth less than
what it would cost to repair the crash damage, then the car is totalled
with the insurance co. liability limited to what the car was worth.

>So, First Question: Does this happen with other insurance companies,
>that they will not pay for repairs if the estimated repair costs are
>more than than the estimated value of the car?

Yes, this is true.

>If this is routine, is it even possible to purchase a rider on
>insurance which says, in essence: "Even when the value of my car
>drops, you will guarentee to cover the repair costs, up to $X? (Where
>$X might be, say, $10,000.)

I don't know about that, but I expect if it is possible it costs enough
to motivate you to prefer to have them cut you a check for what your old
car was worth prior to a crash and then go into the used car market.

>2. Now, GEICO will pay for what they say is the replacement value of
>the car, which I can then spend on whatever I want (such as, as much
>repairs as that will cover). However, GEICO has also told me that:
>(a) I need to bring in my title to my car, for them to make a copy of
>that. And...

I find it reasonable for you to prove that you own the car they are
covering.

>(b) I'll have to "sign something" before they will give me the check.

I find it reasonable for you to have to sign something that says you
agree that accepting the check settles the case.

>And...
>(c) After accepting this check, they will no longer provide collision
>coverage for the car at all. (I can still get liability coverage.)

If the the car is totalled, then it became worthless and no longer
their responsibility after they pay for it being totalled.
Should you repair a totalled car, then it is up to you to see if you can
negotiate new collision coverage. Keep in mind the resale value of a
repaired totalled car - probably less than that of a never-crashed one of
the same make/model/year/options/mileage/condition.

>Second Question: What's up with all this -- the copy of the title to
>my car, and the "something" they will make me sign, and dropping my
>collision coverage? Would other insurance companies do the same
>thing?

I expect yes.

>3. The car in front of me was a very, very expensive car. Although
>the damage was minimal, the bumper on that thing could cost $100,000.
>(Well, not that much, but a lot.) On the other hand, the bozo who
>caused the collision (the one who hit me from behind) is apparently
>not rich, and has about $10,000 of coverage for other people's cars.
>So, GEICO is now saying they will not pay anything until they first
>make sure that his $10,000 coverage will cover both the check they
>write for me, and the check they write to the guy in front of me (the
>guy with the fancy car that I was pushed into).

Totally fair, and after the bozo's $10K liability is used up GEICO is
responsible for collision coverage to your collision-covered car.
It could help if there is a police report indicating that you are not at
fault for crashing the car in front of you. Should you get involved in an
accident, especially with you not at fault, it helps to call the police
ang get them to write a police report. It helps further if the police are
called and they issue citations (or request arrest warrants for
hit-and-runners) to involved-persons excluding yourself.

Victims of accidents not their fault require collision coverage in order
to have their insurance company assist them suing at-fault offenders
without adequate liability coverage for car repairs/replacement.
Victims of accidents with medical bills exceeding first party medical
coverage and caused by uninsured/underinsured at-fault offenders require
"uninsured/underinsured" coverage or else are on their own to sue the
offender(s).

>Third Question: Can GEICO withhold payment -- even though all parties
>have already admitted I'm not at fault -- because the guy who caused
>the accident might not have enough coverage?

If you have collision coverage, then GEICO has to pay you the lesser of
repair costs or what your car was worth.
If the owner of the car you got crashed into sues you, then notify GEICO
and make this their problem. It helps if you have a police report
indicating you were not at fault, since such cases sometimes get fought
out in court. Crash damage to a car you crashed into and faulted to you
and exceeding your liability coverage becomes an uncovered personal
liability to you - you need documentation of all evidence that you are
not the one to go after when other victims and their lawyers with wells
running dry (or while speculating on what is possible) go after
anyone/everyone they possibly can.

>Bottom line, I've paid GEICO good money for many years, never had an
>accident, and now when I finally need them, they are basically saying,
>"Our policies, plus our number crunching on your car and your
>accident, boil down to 'Get Lost'."

Should be pay you for what your car was able to get on the used car
market 1 minute before the crash, if you have collision coverage.

>Two final notes
>(A) All three parties involved are insured by GEICO, yet the GEICO
>people are acting as adversaries to each other, essentially
>representing (or failing to represent) their clients as if they were
>separate companies. If common sense prevailed here, you would think
>that the fact that all three parties have poured money into GEICO
>would make them realize the fairness of simply paying out what they
>owe -- taking care of all their customers. You would also think one
>person could oversee the entire process, but instead they got three
>people dickering with each other.

Insurance companies are in the business of minimizing what they pay out,
short of breach-of-contract lawsuits. I have heard of GEICO being a bit
worse than average for this, but be prepared for same trouble with at
least many of their competitors, and for most of their easier-paying
competitors to charge more for "same" coverage.

>(B) I asked GEICO if there was any person or committee within the
>company I could appeal to. The answer was, "Here is the phone number
>for the state insurance commissioner."

Go make contact with your state insurance commissioner. Should your
state insurance commissioner go along with an insurance company doing
something truly wrong, then get involved in politics to put in place a
different insurance commissioner or whoever the insurance commissioner's
bosses are. If necessary, run for office or help a friend do so.
Rates will go up if rules change to increase favorability to whoever the
insurance companies have to cover or make checks out to.

- Don Klipstein )

In article >,
"Rod Speed" > wrote:

> Alan Baker > wrote in message
> ...
> > Rod Speed > wrote
> >> Alan Baker > wrote
> >>> Rod Speed > wrote
> >>>> Harry K > wrote
> >>>> Scott en Aztlán wrote
> >>>>> PaPaPeng > wrote
> >>>>>> Steven O. > wrote
>
> >> >> > >>Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real
> >> >> > >>accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the
> >> >> guy
> >> >> > >>behind me must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me
> >> >> doing
> >> >> > >>about 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of
> >> >> me.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > >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.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > >I always put my car in park when stopped at the traffic lights.
> >> >> This
> >> >> > >is because if I make any seat adjustments or reach for something my
> >> >> > >foot need not be on the brake pedal. Its a habit so that I never
> >> >> have
> >> >> > >to worry about the car moving when it should be stopped whether it
> >> >> is
> >> >> > >at a traffic light or in the car park.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Had you been hit with your foot off the brake, you would have gone
> >> >> > even farther forward (and with more KE) than the OP did.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > When are you people going to wake up to the fact that rebates are a
> >> >> SCAM?
> >> >> -----------------------
> >> >> > Having the car in park and hit from behind isn't going to do anyone
> >> >> > much good. The parking pawl is probably going to sheer off.
> >> >>
> >> >> Correct, depending on how hard its hit.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Even foot on brake if you are too close to the car
> >> >> > in front won't save you, your car is going to move.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong.
> >>
> >> > Absolutely correct.
> >>
> >> Complete crap.
> >>
> >> > 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.

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.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:55:44 GMT, 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?

In article >,
Bob Ward > wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 06:55:44 GMT, 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.

So, looking at two cars with the same mass, if the moving car is doing
10 mph, then after collision both vehicles will be moving at 5 mph, or
7.33 feet per second.

The formula for acceleration and distance is final velocity squared
(which in this case is zero) = v (for initial velocity) + 2ad, or:

0 = v^2 + 2ad

Solve for d:

-v^2 = 2ad; d = -(v^2)/2a

v = 7.33 ft/s

a = 0.8g = 25.6 ft/s/s (assuming both cars tires are locked; if only the
stopped cars brakes are on, then you're only going to get half the
deceleration)

So, d = -(7.33)^2)/2*25.6; d = 1.05 feet

And that's assuming that both cars tires are locked. It becomes 2.1 feet
if only the stopped car is braking.

And that's a 10 mph collision; double that speed and you increase the
distance by a factor of four.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 01:36:59 +0000, PaPaPeng wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:32:47 GMT, Steven O. > wrote:
>
>>Basically, after nearly 30 years of driving, I had my first real
>>accident. Totally not my fault, I was stopped at a light, and the guy
>>behind me must have been distracted -- he simply slammed into me doing
>>about 20 miles an hour. That forced me into the car in front of me.
>
> Just a matter of curiosity. Would having the shift lever in "Park"
> prevented the OP's car from hitting the car infront. This would have
> made the driver hitting from behind totally responsible for any damage
> to just two cars and would have avoided damaging the third car in
> front.

Having the shift lever in 'P' doesn't help anything except that afterwards
you will have expensive transmission repairs too. The little locking
device does not hold up to abuse well. Having your foot on the brake
should be sufficient.

> I always put my car in park when stopped at the traffic lights.

That's plain stupid and not only for that reason.

> This is because if I make any seat adjustments or reach for something
> my foot need not be on the brake pedal.

Adjusting your seat is something you do before you drive off, not while at
a light.

> Its a habit so that I never have to worry about the car moving when it
> should be stopped whether it is at a traffic light or in the car park.

If you don't want to worry, take the bus.

> I have a sister who leaves her shift on "Drive" all the time and her
> driving habits drive me nuts.

I bet that is a mutual feeling.

Chris

f'up2 set

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 15:58:27 -0400, keith wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 17:03:39 +0000, Bob Ward wrote:

>> On some GM cars, you can't shift out of Park without your foot on the
>> brake pedal.
>
> Fords too.

That's true for just about every car being sold in the US today and
probably for a good number of years back. IIRC the reason was the Audi
lawsuit, where some stupid woman depressed the accelerator instead of the
brake when shifting from P to D and ran into something.

Safety gizmos like this one are everywhere. On my car (6-speed manual) I
can't start the engine without the clutch fully depressed. That doesn't
bother me but people, who like to shift into neutral and then start the
engine would probably have a cow.

Chris