Auto insurance ripoff by GEICO

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 02:34:09 GMT, Bob Ward >
wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:26:42 -0700, L Sternn > wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Apr 2005 11:10:00 -0700, Steve > wrote:
>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>Yeah, the ones who won't move until they can't see any trace of an
>>>oncoming car thru high-power binoculars. Or maybe a telescope.
>>
>>Around here, some of them like to see that cross-traffic has come to a
>>complete and full stop for the red light before proceeding.
>>
>>They trust that cross-traffic will see them in the intersection and
>>let them thru - unfortunately, they are not always right.
>
>
>Sounds liker the cross-traffic driver is totally at fault for assuming
>that the intersection was clear without actually looking to verify.
>

?

Even if you wish to make that argument, it still doesn't change the
fact that being in an accident can negatively affect you.

You'd be sitting there in your hospital bed content in the knowledge
that you were in the right, wouldn't you?

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.

They seem to accelerate just fine when the lights are red.

> Would you prefer that one
>of them pull out in front of you and then have the engine stall?
>

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?

i was thimking about this a little... i'm not hassling anyone, just
more morning coffee before work thoughts...

The car will move, oscillate in place actually, even if the tire
contact patch never moves*. In the first few milliseconds of impact,
the impacting vehicle will impart some momentum into the struck car
whose body/chassis (but not tires) will begin to move forward.

*we should also acknowledge that pavement traction conditions at
intersections are often quite bad -- sand, shattered glass, grease,
oil, water, stop-stripes, polished pavement... it's often much easier
to skid at a stop signal than a few hundred feet down the road.

Anyway. Assuming locked wheels, we will see the wheels push forward
within the tires, elastically deforming the tires. Just guessing,
depending on tire/wheel size, tire pressurization, yadda, vehicle
weight, the vehicle should move forward oh, one to six inches.

We can add another quarter to half an inch for elastomeric suspension
component deformation.

Below a critical tire contact patch energy, the car will rebound back to
its initial position (back and forth a couple of times) or, more likely
simply find itself wedged into the front end of the impacting vehicle.

We should note that this displacement oscillation -- acceleration -- can
be fast enough to decouple the foot from the brake pedal.

I should also point out that a brake pedal is a pendulum and that a
pendulum will rotate towards a force applied to its fulcrum.
(brane-farting on some words here). IOW, shoving a car forward will
naturally tend to push the brake pedal up and back, which has even
greater implications coupled with collision kinetics and kinematics,
when we look at chassis suspension (fore-aft rocking), seat and active
restraint activity. Longitudinal (fore-aft) rocking can add another
6~12+ inches amplitude to the vehicle displacement oscillations.

Which is a long winded way of saying a car doesn't have to "move" to
"move" enough to take the driver off the brakes.

..max

--
<blink>

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,

Based on your opinion.

> 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.)
>

Of course it happens all the time. You, of course, have the right to
sue your insurer
and you also have the right to take the 2,000 offered by the insurance
company
and do the repairs yourself, don't you?

> 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?
>

This happens almost without exception everyday.




> 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.)

You can get almost any rider on any insurance policy you want if you
hunt long and hard enough and are will to pay the premium.

>
> 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).

Brilliant. Now, you have got the idea.

> 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...
> (b) I'll have to "sign something" before they will give me the check.
> And...
> (c) After accepting this check, they will no longer provide collision
> coverage for the car at all. (I can still get liability coverage.)
>

Again, this insurance company is a private business. They are free to
refuse you as a customer in any way they wish in the same way you are
free
at any time to take your insurance business elsewhere.

> 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 suspect they want to be protected if that if you do the repair or have
them done
for the 2,000, you may get the repairs done by somone who keeps his
prices low
to make you happy, but does so by cutting corners that may contribute to
your car
being less safe than it was when it was insurance by or original
insuer. Your
orginal insurer wisely doesn't want to insure any car where the insurer
doesn't
know the quality of the workmanship involved.


> 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).
>

Yes, that seems reasonable. Rightly or wrongly you caused the accident
to the vehicle in front of you. I was involved in a 9 car pile up and I
was
the only vehicle that did not hit the vehicle in front of me because I
kept
a good distance so that even though I was stopped and was shoved forward
with one hell of a jolt, I did not by mere inches touch the vehicle in
front of me.
Something to think about when you drive.



> 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?
>
Understand that anyone may withhold payment on anything. That is why
people and
companies sue. Doesn't mean they will win.


> 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'."
>
Insurance of any type is like a lottery. The chanes of a payout are
very, very slim.
Have you and did you read every written word in your policy (and more
importantly under stand every single word of your policty) at the time
of its purchase?
What does it say?

For instance, did you know or do you know that if you have anyone
including a relative visit your home and they remain over a 30 day
period that you have to inform your insurer of the visitor because they
are considered a risk and that can void or seriously alter or cancel
your insurance should you make a claim?


> 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 have clearly and fairly stated the facts as you see them from your
perspective and we may all
agree with you 100 percent. You have not, unfortunately stated the
facts as your insuer see them
and we may or may not agree with your insuer in whole or in part.



> You would also think one
> person could oversee the entire process, but instead they got three
> people dickering with each other.

Here where I live everybody is insured by a government insurance
company.
They represent the good guy and the bad guy all the time, even in courts
of law.


> (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."
>

Well, in very simple terms, you as a parent love dearly your children,
but you say yes and no to them
all the time and who do they get to appeal to?


> GEICO: "We're here 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year...
> to tell you to go jump in a lake."
>
Believe me, if GEICO's only worry was your 2,000 car, they would gladly
give you the money. They
are however worried that a court of law might find them partially iiable
above and beyond the
limited insurance of the other fellow who had 10, 000 coverage becuase
in the end, somebody has to
pay for that 1 hundred thousand dollar bumper and GEICO's doesn't want
to pay anybody 1 hunrded thousand
dollars as they would like the accountants to classify that money as
profits.

Please don't be offended by the way I right. It is my personality and
style and not meant to be hurtful.


> Comments, insight, and feedback are much appreciated. Maybe a final
> question: Is there any chance of my getting anywhere if I bring in my
> attorney?

One may always bring a lawyer that charge by the minute. Lawyers can be
very,
very successful at winning cases and they do so all the time.

> I don't want to spend more valuable money on the attorney,
> if it won't change anything.

Law is very complex. Lawyer can always take a case. They cannot
guarantee a win.

When you buy insurance or anything else, you need to put in writing in a
letter and also
get a response by the way as to a yes or no, what you want.

In other words, when you buy insurance, you need to say, I want to buy
insurance that will cover me whether
I am involved in an accident where some or all of the other people don't
have valid insurance. I also want
coverage that will give me replacement value for my vehicle of X dollars
should my book value be less on the
vehicle to be insured. I think you get the idea. The insurance company
will (make sure you get the insurance company to put it in writing.
Don't accept a phone call. Only a written letter) respond your premiums
will be 1,000 dollars a month or 50 dollars a month and you decide if
you can afford that kind of coverage. Like I said insurance companies
will glady provide high risk insruance, if you are willing to pay
high risk premiums!

Cheers.

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?

The arguement is stretching into technicalncalities. The reality is
that people sitting 'with foot on brake' are not 'jamming' the brake
on, they sit there with only slight pressure, not enough to cause a
skid mark. Now don't insert that they will jam on the brake after
collision as reaction time is too slow for the first 1.5 sec, the
collision will be over before reaction sets in.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
> 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?
>
>
> The arguement is stretching into technicalncalities. The reality is
> that people sitting 'with foot on brake' are not 'jamming' the brake
> on, they sit there with only slight pressure, not enough to cause a
> skid mark. Now don't insert that they will jam on the brake after
> collision as reaction time is too slow for the first 1.5 sec, the
> collision will be over before reaction sets in.

unless they see someone barreling down on them in the rearview mirror
and "brace" themselves for impending impact...

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:55:34 -0700, C.H. wrote:

> 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.

I didn't remember that it was Audi, but the reason is obvious.

> 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.

20ish years ago a friend left me with his car (Pontiac something or other)
for a day, while he took mine. I had to go out to run some errands and so
took his. It took a few stops, but at one point I couldn't start the car
and was stranded. After ten minutes or so, it started like new. I
couldnt figure out why, until it happened again. It seemed random, but I
finally figured out that it had something to do with the clutch. ;-)

I generally don't like such gizmos because they tend to fail, costing
unnecessary repairs (many expen$ive). I refuse to buy a car with
automatic seat belts.

--
Keith

--
Keith

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:51:25 -0700, "C.H." >
wrote:

>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 wasn't aware of the tranny pawl thingy and I will read up on it. I
believe my habit of putting my vehicle in P when stopped prevented a
lot of small incidents like bumping something infront or rolling down
an incline. But it would not have prevented anything if hit hard. I
haven't experienced any tranny abuse as I keep my vehicles well past
the 300,000 km life and never had any problems other than a clutch
plate replacement. They do wear out from high milage.
>
>> I always put my car in park when stopped at the traffic lights.
>
>That's plain stupid and not only for that reason.

Uhuh. I have >20 years driving on standard shift and >20 years on
automatic. To think about it a lot of my driving habits are
carryovers from standard transmission driving habits.

I had my share of fender benders that were not my fault. Only once
had I been hit from the back when I was drivng a light truck with
standard shift. I was stopped behind another vehicle making a left
turn and therefore on the passing lane. Saw the next car coming from
behind, the sun was low and into our eyes. I pumped the brake to
signal her and then applied only light brake pressure when she
couldn't stop in time. My reasoning was that when she hit my truck
would move somewhat and let its inertia absorb the initial impact and
I could always slam on the brakes harder should my truckmove too far
infront. I had a car's length to go before hitting the car ahead.
Worked like a charm. The aftermarket bumper was bent downwards and
the panel below the tailgate dented - less than $300 damage which she
paid and no insurance claim made.


>> 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.

Non driving tasks when in the driver's seat is not something I do
regularly. Its the unexpected things one does occasionally that gets
one into trouble because its out of habit. For example sometimes you
need to pick up a dropped item. Putting it in P when stopped at the
lights eliminates much of that risk of the car moving.

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

I develop habits so that I don't have to think about mundane tasks.
Makes life simple and worry free. My overall car habits have worked
well for me as I rarely have car trouble in any weather, it gets as
cold as 40 below on rare occasions, and my maintenace/repair costs
were minimal.

I get around by bicycle and the bus these days. I am retired and its
not worth the expense of keeping a car.

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 17:31:07 +0000, PaPaPeng wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:51:25 -0700, "C.H." >
> wrote:
>
>>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 wasn't aware of the tranny pawl thingy and I will read up on it. I
> believe my habit of putting my vehicle in P when stopped prevented a
> lot of small incidents like bumping something infront or rolling down
> an incline. But it would not have prevented anything if hit hard. I
> haven't experienced any tranny abuse as I keep my vehicles well past
> the 300,000 km life and never had any problems other than a clutch
> plate replacement. They do wear out from high milage.

.... and from shocks to the transmission, which are caused by shifting it
from load to non-load and back.

Btw, incidents are much easier to avoid if you don't do all that stuff you
seem to do on an intersection. People, who don't pay attention at
intersections and need to be honked at until they reappear from the realm
beneath their dash are one of my pet peeves.

>>> I always put my car in park when stopped at the traffic lights.
>>
>>That's plain stupid and not only for that reason.
>
> Uhuh. I have >20 years driving on standard shift and >20 years on
> automatic. To think about it a lot of my driving habits are
> carryovers from standard transmission driving habits.

Not this one or since when do standard transmission cars have a 'P'
position?

>>> 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.
>
> Non driving tasks when in the driver's seat is not something I do
> regularly. Its the unexpected things one does occasionally that gets
> one into trouble because its out of habit. For example sometimes you
> need to pick up a dropped item. Putting it in P when stopped at the
> lights eliminates much of that risk of the car moving.

Maybe in this one situation it makes sense, but not every time.

>>If you don't want to worry, take the bus.
>
> I develop habits so that I don't have to think about mundane tasks.

Weird, I don't have to think about mundane tasks either but I never felt
the need to put my truck in park at an intersection, least of all for the
reason of not crashing into the person in front of me.

Chris

On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:03:40 -0400, keith wrote:

> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 01:55:34 -0700, C.H. wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> I didn't remember that it was Audi, but the reason is obvious.

Yup. Terminal stupidity on part of the vehicle operator

>> 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.
>
> 20ish years ago a friend left me with his car (Pontiac something or other)
> for a day, while he took mine. I had to go out to run some errands and so
> took his. It took a few stops, but at one point I couldn't start the car
> and was stranded. After ten minutes or so, it started like new. I
> couldnt figure out why, until it happened again. It seemed random, but I
> finally figured out that it had something to do with the clutch. ;-)

I know some people, who have the habit of not pressing the clutch all the
way when they start the car. One of them complained to me that his Trans
Am would not always start properly. I pointed out the clutch switch to
him. Problem solved.

> I generally don't like such gizmos because they tend to fail, costing
> unnecessary repairs (many expen$ive). I refuse to buy a car with
> automatic seat belts.

Automatic seat belts suck. I drove a car with them once, only for a day
and I would not wish them on my enemy. And this has nothing to do with me
not wanting to be buckled up, I wear a seat belt all the time.

And about those gizmos, with rising stupidity among the average driver we
will have more and more of these, like it or not.

Chris